The Reinhart-Rogoff controversy: some microeconomic evidence

The duel between pro-austerity and pro-stimulus advocates is now being fought on the relationship between economic growth and debt/GDP ratios, following the Reinhart and Rogoff finding that there was a "tipping point" around 90 per cent of debt-to-GDP ratio when the correlation between debt and economic growth would become negative.

Their finding was questioned by Herndon-Ash-Pollin who estimated that the strength of the negative relationship was actually much stronger at low ratios of debt-to-GDP. Recently Dube, using the same set of data, estimated that current period debt-to-GDP is a pretty poor predictor of future GDP growth at debt-to-GDP ratios of 30 or greater but it does a great job predicting past growth which he claims is a tell-tale sign of reverse causality. That is, recession leads to increased spending and greater government borrowing not the other way around. Krugman joined the debate on Dube´s side but cautioned about claiming any causal relationship, or, if it existed, it would be pretty slim.

The debate is not over and, most likely, macroeconomists will continue sabre-rattling with lags and correlation studies to discuss the direction of causality and the location of the “tipping point”. In my view, it is unlikely that they will arrive at any unequivocal conclusion at the macroeconomic level for three main reasons. First, if we assumed a closed economy with a single firm we would end up with an accounting identity between total assets and their financing that would prevent any causality conclusions. Second, since leverage amplifies both gains and losses, any relationship must be very sensitive to the business cycles. Finally, the microeconomics of debt financing is too complex to build a one-way macroeconomic theory.

Yet at the firm level it must be easier to find if there is such a tipping point. There are basically three ways in which we can use debt-financing – to finance consumption, failed investments (including gambling) and profitable investments. In the long run only the third use is sustainable, but in the short run the three types of spending have a positive multiplier effect on economic growth. Elsewhere, I have shown why at the corporate level debt financing has simultaneously contracting and expansionary effects on investment, with the positive generally offsetting the negative effect depending on lender’s mark-ups and borrowing limits.

The corporate level is the right place to find out if and where there is any tipping point in the spectrum of leverage, because if there is one it should be close to the maximum debt-capacity financiers impose on the basis of several debt coverage ratios. Moreover, we may extrapolate those results to the macro level under the following, not very extravagant, assumptions: a) the shares of labour and capital in total income are relatively stable; b) an ever increasing number of companies do not pay dividends so that the growth of equity is a good proxy for economic growth; and c) listed companies give a good representation of the entire business sector.

Since profitable companies should use leverage to increase the return to their shareholders, the correct way to verify if they benefit from increased leverage is to check if the elasticity of equity in relation to debt is greater than one or at least positive. Since at SADIF Investment Analytics we cover more than 20,000 stocks worldwide we quickly pulled the quarterly growth rates of equity and debt for the last four years which allow us to gauge the relationship between equity growth and debt-financing.

We used data from countries that in the popular imagination epitomise the three types of use for debt financing. Americans are often seen as reckless shopaholics pursuing consumption-led growth policies, Euromeds (Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Slovenes and Greeks) are generally perceived as castle-in-the-air investors in loss-making projects in transportation and alternative energies generously financed by the EU/EIB and Germans are traditionally depicted as successful thrifty mercantilists. The distribution of firms and the median equity elasticity in each quadrant of the equity and debt growth space is given below.

The median equity elasticities highlighted in the table seem to validate the popular view on the use of debt financing since the Germans have the highest value and the Euromeds the lowest. The only discordant note is that the percentage of firms with a positive elasticity is much higher in spendthrift America than in thrifty Germany which weakens any macroeconomic extrapolation.

To test the location of a possible tipping point I plotted the equity elasticity against the extra debt capacity measured as the spare level of debt capacity as a percentage of total outstanding debt, so that we can measure the leverage spectrum from left to right in the chart below for the USA.
<
The expectation is that elasticities rise as firms deleverage or leverage towards their maximum debt capacity (0% extra-capacity). The maximum of the quadratic functions fitted are indeed close to zero (i. e. -1.7% in the US and 7.3% in Germany). However the function is meaningless for the Euromeds and the coefficient of determination is too low for the other two countries.

So, in conclusion, this microeconomic evidence suggests that it is not possible to settle the debate on the correlation between growth and debt without allowing for the business cycle and the microeconomic complexities of debt financing.

My K&H (Keynes/Hayek) mix

To the (limited) extent that I am a disciple of past intellectuals I must say that Keynes and Hayek are my favourite thinkers. This may seem odd, since they are the two “prophets” behind the current divide between left and right wing schools of economics. Am I confused or opportunistic in this eclectic position? I hope not, as I will try to show next.

Keynes and Hayek were two leading economists, which rank among other great economists like Adam Smith, Ricardo or Jevons. But they were also mathematicians, philosophers and political activists. If I were to judge them on these four fields I would say that Keynes was a better mathematician and economist while Hayek was a better philosopher and they were equally good in politics. But the reason for me being simultaneous a Keynesian and a Hayekian lies on their views on the role of the state in the economy.

They were bitterly divided on the role of the state in managing the business cycle, with Keynes in favour and Hayek against. But in my view they were both right. Keynes was right to advocate demand management during the peaks and troughs of the business cycle and Hayek was right in advocating no state intervention in the economy during normal times.

So I will follow each one of them depending on the stage in the business cycle. That is, I will be Hayekian or Keynesian as illustrated in the following diagram:

During the coloured periods I would be 100% Keynesian and 50% Hayekian and during the rest of the period I would be 100% Hayekian (I would not be 0% Hayekian during recessions because the economic stimulus must be designed without encroaching collectivist trends in the economy).

And, of course, I may be more or less sanguine in my views. For instance, conservatives may accept Keynesianism only during the pink periods in a trough but call for it during green periods in a peak, while leftists may ask for intervention during green periods in a trough but only advocate it during pink periods in a peak.

I could refine further my analysis by considering other variables (e.g. unemployment) or by replacing the long term average growth rate by other metric to define business cycle troughs and peaks. However, it would not be changing the fact that during most of the time I should be predominantly Hayekian as far as demand management is concerned.

This does not mean that on average I like more Hayek´s economic writings, on the contrary, or that I am inconsistent or opportunistic in my views; even if I fail to recognize in a timely manner that we have entered a business cycle peak or trough.

In conclusion, there is plenty of room to be more or less moderate in the relevance we give the two “prophets”, but we need to understand and follow both.

Capitalism and Keynesianism (Left and Right)

Market capitalism is an economic system based on free competition. In theory, it is a system that guarantees automatic market equilibrium and the optimal allocation of resources over the long term. In the short run disequilibrium is a recurrent feature of the system that is permanently corrected through competition.

To put it simply, excessive supply is reduced through diminishing profits and insufficient supply is raised up by entrepreneurs in the lookout for profit opportunities created by such shortages. Unfortunately, this process of automatic adjustment is not instantaneous and in practice market capitalism is naturally bound by cycles in business activity, popularly known as recessions and booms.

Keynesianism is a set of policies advocated by Keynes to smooth such business cycles. Writing in the aftermath of the crisis of 1929, Keynes proposals were aimed at deep and prolonged recessionary phases when the entrepreneurs drive for action, which he termed “animal spirits”, was so depressed that they were unable to restore growth by profiting from the opportunities created by supply destruction.

For these circumstances he advocated a demand shock through monetary and fiscal easing, or just increased government spending for economies caught in a so-called liquidity trap (when interest rates were close to zero). Using a medical analogy, Keynesianism advocates the prescription of hard drugs to treat a severe depression.

It is obvious why his economic stimulus therapy is necessarily controversial. Similarly to hard drugs, more public spending has many negative side effects (most importantly, it may reduce the share of market capitalism in the economy and its competitiveness). Just as doctors may disagree on the severity of a particular depression and the efficacy of soft treatments like exercise and therapy, economists also disagree on the effectiveness of soft supply-side treatments such as more training, deregulation and labour market flexibility to treat severe recessions.

Regrettably, these controversies are inevitably more tainted by ideology in economics than in medicine. So, those more collectivist-driven will see in any mild reduction in economic activity (say a quarterly decline in GDP or a rise in unemployment) a justification for more government intervention. Likewise, when faced with a severe recession (e.g. four or five consecutive quarters of economic contraction), those terrified by the danger of collectivism will repudiate any intervention and ask for more patience to give time for the automatic forces of competition to wake up.

On the collectivist side we often find leftist politicians. And, not surprisingly, Keynesianism is often confused with a left-wing ideology. This is compounded by the fact that some of the most famous Keynesians (e.g. Joan Robison in the past and Paul Krugman today) are influential leftist ideologues.

This is obviously a mistaken perception, because we have many collectivist advocates on the right. Most notably, among them we have the advocates of state and managerial capitalism including many right-wing Corporatists and Christian-democrats.

Indeed, Keynesianism is not about left or right but about wisdom and common sense. That is, economists and politicians should be able to assess in a dispassionate way when to give up on the automatic resumption of growth through the self-correcting mechanisms of competition and to be able to carefully design stimulus packages that do not hypothecate the future of market capitalism.

Common sense must be based on simple benchmarks. For instance, demand-management policies should only be adopted when unemployment exceeds a given range (say, 8% for collectivists and 12% for libertarians). Currently, using such criterion, we need Keynesianism in Southern Europe but not in the rest of the Eurozone. This is obviously a difficult but not impossible task in the context of a monetary union.

To conclude we need Keynesianism as a temporary solution for special circumstances. But we are left without knowing if Keynesianism also can be used in a pre-emptive way to face anticipated external shocks (e.g. a breakup of the Euro Zone). This controversial issue is left for a future post.

German fun vs. Spain´s pain

The debt markets are focusing on Spain again, and the debate between fiscal conservatives and stimulus proponents rages once more. Paul Krugman has just published another post showing that before the real estate bust Spain´s public debt was much lower than Germany´s. He compares net flows in 2010 and 2007 to state his case. This is not a reliable method to compare leverage levels. So here are the most recent balance sheet values as published by the OECD.

It is true that with an economic size of less than half the size of Germany (43%), Spain´s government debt was just one fifth of Germany´s public debt. However, the Spanish economy as whole had a net debt equivalent to almost 80% of GDP, while Germany was a net creditor, and between 2007 and 2010 increased its creditor position from 6% to 21% of GDP.

In what concerns the shares of public consumption in total GDP we can see from the following table that the share in Spain is only marginally higher than in Germany.

The fundamental difference between the two countries is that Spanish companies borrowed more than German firms while Spanish households saved very little when compared with those in Germany.

Moreover, some of the borrowing was financed by Germany and was mostly invested in loss-making real estate. Indeed, the robust public finances in pre-crisis Spain were the result of paper profits generated during the real estate bubble (in a fashion not much different from the Clinton surplus during the internet bubble).

So, the Spanish problem is a banking problem and should not be transformed into a long term fiscal problem, like in Ireland, which will compromise its future growth.

Markets behaving badly again?

The Obama administration $25 billion deal struck with the nation’s five biggest mortgage servicers tops numerous other approaches to boosting the housing market that have conspicuously failed to prop up the economy.

However, such attempt at propping up real estate prices to the levels achieve at the height of the previous bubble is a questionable objective. First, it disregards the ability to pay of homeowners and second it risks creating a new financial bubble.

Indeed, the financial bubble seems to be already blowing if one looks at the chart below where we compare the evolution of house prices (measured by the Case-Shiller Index), with the trend in real estate investment funds (measured by the Ishares Real Estate Trust) and the stock market (measured by S&P 500 index).

The chart shows that there is again a large differential between the price of financial assets (IYR) and the price of their underlying real assets (houses). Although some lagging between real and financial assets is normal, wide deviations usually occur in bubbles or crashes. This fact is important for homeowners as well as to macroeconomic policy and monetary quantitative easing in particular.

Back in the 1930s, the debate between Keynes and Hayek on the efficacy of stimulus policies discussed the relationship between asset prices and production prices. Hayek believed that markets left to their own would restore the prices of assets without increasing those of production. In contrast, Keynes argued that piling up bank balances or purchasing existing securities to bid their prices to previous levels would cause the release of real resources (capital and labour) while failing to find new opportunities to invest them due to a lack of confidence (“animal spirits”). As it turned out the recovery only came about after a number of years through government stimulus of the worst kind (armament and war spending).

Therefore, modern Keynesians like Paul Krugman who are sceptical about the sustainability of quantitative easing should be less soft on quantitative easing and more committed to devise deficit stimulus packages that have a less costly multiplier effect. My own suggestions about the government spending multiplier can be found in this post.

Hayek vs. Keynes: On policies of economic stimulus

Keynes and Hayek main divergence was on whether governments could and should play a role in smoothing the business cycle. Their opposite views were expressed in the pages of The Times of London, on the 17th and 19th October 1932, barely three months after the bottom of the biggest ever stock market crash. The current heated debate on the desirability and efficiency of stimulus packages takes place in circumstances similar to those prevailing at the time..

Both economists agreed that savings used for hoarding damaged economic growth. However, Hayek opposed public spending on the grounds that the already high level of public debt in the UK would tend to drive up interest rates and undermine the supply of capital to where it was justifiable – the private industry – while encouraging the old habits of lavish government expenditure. Hayek’s alternative to public spending was to abolish trade restrictions and to liberalize international capital movements. For Keynes piling up bank balances or purchasing existing securities (to bid asset prices to its previous level) would release real resources while failing to find new opportunities to invest them due to a lack of confidence (animal spirits). The stimulus could only be brought by increased (local) government spending.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that both points of view had some validity but were necessarily partial. Hayek was vindicated in forecasting the rise of the role of government in the economy. However, Keynes was also correct in predicting that recessions would be fewer and less pronounced.

Let us compare first the past and current circumstances in relation to three major economies - the UK, USA and Japan. In 1932 the UK government spending was equal to 27% of GDP, with a large portion devoted to servicing a net national debt equivalent to 175% of GDP at a time when 3–month interest yields were at 2.75%. Currently, in August 2010, the UK government expenditure stands at 46%, the net national debt at over 55% and the 3-month yields are at 0.55%. In the US the corresponding figures were then 22%, 33% and 0.18%, but are now at 44%, 94% and 0.15%, respectively. The position of the two countries is now a bit reversed, but in the interim period the country (USA) with slimmer government and lower indebtedness has overtaken the other as the major economic player.

Turning now to the aftermarket of the Japanese market crash in 1992, the figures show for that year a government expenditure equivalent to 33% of the GDP, the central government debt at 49% and the call rates at 4.12%. The equivalent figures for 2010 are respectively 37%, 178% and 0.10%. This shows that the Japanese attempts to recover from the market crash by keeping low interest rates and increasing government spending failed to revive either the asset markets or the growth of the real economy. Similarly, the efficiency of the New Deal policies in the US is still an unsettled debate among economists.

In what concerns the frequency, duration and amplitude of post World War II recessions the US evidence for the two 65-year-periods from 1854-1919 and 1945-2010 clearly shows a reduction in its number from 16 to 11, a reduction on its average duration from 22 to 11 months and a fall in the average change in unemployment rates from 15 to less than 5 percentage points.

Yet, notwithstanding the productivity losses caused by an ever growing role of the state in the economy, the fact that the last recession (December 2007-to June 2009) lasted 7 months more than usual, caused unemployment to grow at twice the rate of previous recessions and left a legacy of fiscal deficits much bigger than even those experienced during the great depression raise serious doubts on whether the growth of the state sector has reached its limit as a stabilizer of future economic cycles.

So what have Keynes and Hayek missed? First, some degree of saving and hoarding will need to take place for precautionary motives and to bring back leverage to its optimal level. Second, investors should write-off some of their capital losses rather than beg governments for bail-outs. Third, governments must manage to cut current spending (like everyone else) while simultaneously running increased deficits to support the consumption of the poorer and the financing of public (local) investments with a positive return and a short payback period.

Last but not least, they did not realize that the marginal efficiency of capital is not just the result of animal spirits but it is also significantly shifted by expectations about leverage and changes in interest rates (not their level). Therefore, central banks should not encourage prolonged bond bull markets, as they are currently doing, but rather resume a smooth return to the type of bond bear market required for faster economic growth (on this see our blog on Keynes and the rentier classes: http://marques-mendes.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-keynes-wrong-or-outdated-on.html).