16/9/2013: Some scary charts from BIS: Yields Blowing Up & Leverage Climbs

BIS Quarterly (http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1309a.pdf) has some interesting analysis of the US yields:

"An examination of the rise in US bond yields between May and July reveals as a key  driver the uncertainty about the future stance of monetary policy. The sell-off mainly shifted bond yields at long maturities, while the short end of the yield curve remained anchored by the Federal Reserve’s continued low interest rate policy."

"In addition, the federal funds futures curve also shifted upwards, signalling market perceptions that a policy rate exit from the current 0–0.25% band had become quite likely to occur as early as in the second quarter of 2014."

"A model-based decomposition of the  10-year US Treasury yield, which sheds light on the various drivers of these shifts,  indicates that the recent yield spike was largely the result of a rising term premium. This is consistent with markets reacting to uncertainty about the extent to which an improving economic outlook would affect future policy rates. It is also consistent with uncertainty as regards the impact that a reduction in the Federal Reserve’s purchases of long-term Treasuries would have on these securities’ prices."

"In comparison, the bond market sell-offs in 1994 and 2003–04 were different in  nature. During those episodes, long-term nominal yields rose together with policy rates or on the back of expected increases in future real interest rates and inflation. By contrast, inflation expectations were largely unchanged in the second and third quarters of 2013."

Basically, as we all know  by now, current yields have nothing to do with inflation and are solely priced by reference to expected liquidity conditions. Or put differently, nothing but printing press matters. So much for monetary policy-real growth links...


And BIS does deliver a nicely focused warning: "Their recent spike notwithstanding, bond yields in mature markets remained low by historical standards. For one, the yields on sovereign bonds in the largest world economies had been on a downward trend since 2007. And investment grade spreads in the United States, the euro area and the United Kingdom declined respectively by 75, 110 and 190 basis points between May 2012 and early September 2013, falling past their earlier troughs in 2010 and reaching levels last seen at end-2007. The evolution of the corresponding high-yield bond indices was similar, with spreads declining by 230 to 470 basis points over the same period."

Go no further than the second chart above: reversion to the mean is going to be brutal. And this brutality will only be reinforced by the fact that quietly, unnoticed by most, leverage has returned: overall share of leveraged and highly leveraged loans in total syndicated loan signings is now at all-time high.

Starting with page 6 (above link), the quarterly is a must-read as it exposes growing problem with high risk debt accumulation by investors and that amidst the historically low rates. The system is back at end-of-2007 levels of credit underpricing. The big difference today in contrast with 2007 is that no one has any bullets left to fight the bear, should one appear on the horizon.

28/8/2013: Some charts on China's debt addiction (via FT)

China has been the 'Big Asian Hope' when it comes to global growth and more recently, the 'Big Asian Worry'. The problem, however, is that China is not unique. Like the rest of the world, China is incapable of delivering growth at the rates below the rate of expansion of debt. Leveraging seems to be the worldwide story when it comes to growth generation, as if the entire global economy is populated by compulsive gambler-states...

FT has a fascinating set of slides on China's debt-growth links: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e76db82e-0a4d-11e3-aeab-00144feabdc0.html#slide0

And here are my two favourites:

Chart above clearly shows that China is in a league of its own when it comes to debt vs GDP per capita. If anything, the healthy due of countries by these metrics are Russia and Mexico (note South Korea, in my opinion, does not belong with Emerging Markets - it is an advanced economy). India is a sick economy, compared to the rest. But China... well, China is on its own.

Worse, however, as the chart below shows, China's mountain of debt is now shifting out of the banking sector and into the least transparent and trust loans markets:

Now, trust loans are debt that has been dressed up as 'investment product' and sold onto retail investors. This debt is funded usually by banks and/or investors. Back in 2010 these were problematic already, but arguably manageable. Since then they have shot up in importance. Trust loans are short-term finance, with maturities of few months and up to a year, implying high risk of exposure to liquidity shocks and interest rates shocks. They are also expensive. Roll over risk is rising in the Chinese economy.

FT had additional coverage on these back in 2010 here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2010/07/15/286766/chinas-trust-factor/

All of the above speaks of severe debt addiction in the Chinese economy. 

22/8/2013: Burry the Debt... Forever!

Pierre Pâris, Charles Wyplosz, 6 August 2013 column for Vox.eu, titled "To end the Eurozone crisis, bury the debt forever" is a perfect referencing point for my thinking on the debt crisis. Read it here: http://www.voxeu.org/article/end-eurozone-crisis-bury-debt-forever

Synopsis: "The Eurozone’s debt crisis is getting worse despite appearances to the contrary. How can we end it? This column presents five major options for reducing crisis countries’ debt. Looking into the details, it seems the only option that is both realistic and effective is for countries to default by selling monetised debt to the ECB. Moral hazard aside, burying the debt seems to be the only way we can end the crisis".

Can't say it better myself!

22/8/2013: Why This Time Things Might Be Different...

The readers of this blog know that I am seriously concerned with the issues of private (household) debt sustainability in the Euro area, as well as in other advanced economies around the world. In fact, my (simplified or stylised) POV on the current crisis is that we have now reached the point of long-term saturation with leverage and this is the main driver for the current Great Recession.

In a normal recession, deleveraging by one side of the economy is accommodated by leveraging up in another. For example, in a Keynesian policy set up, deleveraging of the households and non-financial corporates is accommodated by leveraging up of the fiscal side of the GDP equation. In a monetary policy setting, deleveraging of fiscal / public sector side is accommodated by lowering debt costs and thus increasing credit to the private economy. Lastly, in a normal balancesheet recession, both side of the economy can be helped in deleveraging by a combination of two policies accommodation.

In the current Great Recession, neither one of the three approaches above can work, unless at least one approach directly reduces debt levels - either via a sovereign default/writedown or a private sector writedown on a systemic scale. The reasons for this are two-fold:

1. Too much debt on all lines of the economic balancesheet: fiscal, household, NFCs and, thus, banks means that lowering the cost of debt financing is not sufficient to deliver signifcant enough room for new debt expansion; and
2. With emerging markets and middle income economies showing increasingly South-South internalised trade and investment flows patterns, the advanced economies are witnessing structural reductions in the pools of surplus (investable) savings available to them - the effect that is compounded by the adverse demographics in these economies. This means that monetary policy accommodation is funding the liquidity in the financial markets, where normally it would have been going to fund real activity.

In short, debt is the source of the crisis this time around, not the solution to the crisis as in previous recessions. And it is a proverbial perfect storm, as it comes on foot of demographic decline coincident with severe fiscal crises. The resulting squeeze on pensions in the advanced economies and on other age-related public services is yet to come.

Here is an interesting view on the continued crisis dynamics in the area of household debts in the US (with an ample warning for the rest of the advanced world) from Michael Hudson: http://www.alternet.org/economy/big-threat-economy-private-debt-and-interest-owed-it-not-government-debt (H/T to @rszbt Beate Reszat).

8/13/2013: Sunday Times, August 11: Wither Middle Ireland

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from August 11, 2013.


Recent data from Irish retailers, aggregate services indices as well as household surveys paints a picture of an economy divided in misery and fortunes. Following an already unprecedented five years of straight declines, domestic demand, stripping out one-off effects, such as weather, continues to shrink. This is the paralysed core of our economy. At the opposite side of the spectrum, pockets of strength remain within some demographic groups – namely the young and mobile professionals and debt-free older households. These form a de facto sub-economy only marginally attached to Ireland’s long-term future. With personal consumption still accounting for over half of the total annual GDP, a society torn between these two divergent drivers of domestic demand, savings and investment, is an economy at risk.


On the surface, CSO data through H1 2013 shows that Irish retail sales (excluding cars) grew modestly in June 2013 when compared to the same period a year ago. Much of this growth was due to weather effects and these are likely to strengthen even further in the third quarter. However, removing food, fuel and bars sales, core retail sales were down 1.7 percent in value and were up 0.8% percent in volume in April-June 2013, year-on-year. In other words, core sales are still being driven primarily by price declines rather than by organic growth in demand.

Meanwhile, aggregate data released this week, covering services (as opposed to sales of goods alone) showed annual declines in June 2013 in accommodation, and food and beverage services activities.

The bad news is that five years into the process of reducing household expenditures, Irish consumers are still tightening their belts. Not only discretionary spending is dropping, but demand for staples is contracting as well. At the end of H1 2013, retail sales were down on 2007 levels for both durable and non-durable household consumption items, as well as food.

This data is largely consistent with the analysis of the household budget surveys released earlier this month.  These surveys showed that compared to 2009, Irish households have cut deeper into their bills in twelve months through Q3 2012. Demand for groceries, clothing and footware, recreation, health Insurance and education saw continued cutbacks. For example, in the 24 months prior to June 2011, 56 percent of Irish households cut down on food purchases. Further 51 percent cut spending in the 12 months through September 2012. Despite these already severe cutbacks, industry surveys show that Irish households are still concerned with high cost of basic consumables.

Households’ propensity to cut costs has risen in the twelve months through September 2012 compared to the 24 months period to June 2011 as those still holding onto their jobs are now shifting into deeper cost savings mode. This busts the myth that the only people forced to severely cut their spending are the unemployed and the poor. The largest proportion of severe cuts in the earlier part of the recession fell onto the shoulders of the households where at least one person was jobless, followed by students. Back then households in employment were the category second least impacted by household budgets cuts. Last year, households still in employment were the second most likely to reduce spending. Significantly - households with some members on home duties, retired or not at work due to illness or disability posted the shallowest average cuts of all demographic groups.

The above explains why the data from multiples retailers in Ireland has been showing a V-shaped pattern of changes in consumer demand, with higher demand witnessed in lower-priced categories of own-brand goods supplied by discount retailers, such as Aldi and Lidl, and the premium own-brands of traditional multiples, such as Tesco. Demand for mid-range priced goods usually purchased by the middle class continued to fall.

Ditto for the luxury end of the market, with exception of Dublin, as sales of food and drink in specialist stores have fallen almost 20 percent on pre-crisis peak. Exactly the same pattern of shift away from the middle of price range sales emerged in the demand for electrical goods.


The drivers for the above trends are crystal clear. Middle Ireland is under severe pressures financially, while Happily-Retired and Yappy Irelands are having a relatively easy recession or living through the good times. The main force working through the Irish domestic demand is that of polarization of households not along the lines of employed v unemployed, but along the more complex and fragmented demographic lines.

The average number of spending cutbacks in 12 months through September 2012 for households with no person at work stood at 2.6 categories of spending. The same numbers for households with one and two persons working were 3.3 and 3.2 categories, respectively.

This pattern of cutbacks and income distribution changes across the households is also strengthening over time. In effect, due to Government policies, Ireland is becoming a country with severely polarised distribution of financial well-being. This polarisation is contrary to the one witnessed in normal economies and is different from the one that majority of out policymakers and analysts have been decrying to-date.

The Great Recession has finally exhausted ordinary savings of both working and unemployed households, while lack of income growth has meant that even those in employment are now sinking under the weight of debt and tax and cost inflation driven by the State budgetary policies to-date.

Last week, CSO reported distribution of the households by their ability to manage bills and debts over 12 months prior to July-September 2012. Of households with at least one adult aged 65 and over, up to 28 percent were experiencing difficulties in managing their debts and bills. For households with all adults under the age of 65 the corresponding number was up to 46 percent. Up to 69 percent of the families with children were in the same boat. The older the respondent was, the less pressure on paying their bills their reported.

In normal economies it is the older families that face tighter budget constraints. In today's Ireland it is the younger and the middle-age families with children that are being pressured the hardest by the crisis. This bedrock of financial health in the normal times has been pulled from underneath the economy by the Great Recession.

At the same time, the crisis has generated a new class of the relatively well-off. Based on employment levels and quality, earnings, as well as regular and irregular bonuses data, three sectors in the Irish economy stand out as the winners during the crisis: the ICT services, specialist exports-focused services and international financial services. All three sectors are dominated by younger workers with high percentage of employees coming from abroad and working on a temporary assignment basis here. The demographic they represent is primarily from mid-20s through mid-30s, with smaller size families. These groups of employees are also heavily concentrated geographically, with exporting services sectors workers primarily living in Dublin, followed by a handful of other core urban areas.

Even as early as 2006-2007, market research has shown that these types of households favour premium consumption of convenience food, spend more of their income on going out and travel abroad, and less on purchases of durable goods, household goods, education and health insurance. They do not invest in this economy and hold off-shore most of their long-term savings. Their financial investments are also held and managed abroad and often include mostly shares and options in their own employers. Their children are not going to continue growing up in Ireland and will not be a part of our future workforce. The skills they accumulate while working here are transitory to the overall stock of Irish human capital. On a social level, their demand for entertainment is currently best exemplified by the booming restaurants and bars across the D2-D4-D6 areas of Dublin and stands in stark contrast to Middle Ireland’s hollowed out town centres and neighborhoods with empty storefronts and vacant building sites.


Today’s Ireland is a society where the middle class and large swaths of the upper-middle class have been dragged under water by the combination of the unprecedented crisis, compounded by rampant state-sanctioned cost inflation and legacy debt.

The data on domestic demand suggests that we might be entering a classic ‘Bull trap’. Here, tight rental markets in the leafy South Dublin neighborhoods fuels sales of rentable properties to service the needs of the Yappy Ireland. These pockets of activity are at a risk of generating inflated expectations of incoming prosperity. Don’t be fooled by this – the risks to the real Irish economy are still there, in plain view, in the streets of real Ireland.

Recognising this reality requires the Government to reconsider the tax increases that are impacting adversely the middle and the upper-middle classes. It also means that the State must reform, rapidly and thoroughly the semi-state sector to reduce the cost drag exerted by the Irish utilities, transportation, health and education services providers on Middle Ireland families’ balancesheets.  Lastly, prudent risk management requires for us to manage very carefully the process of mortgages arrears restructuring and debt work-outs. While many economy have survived sovereign and banking sectors busts, no economy can emerge from a crisis having destroyed its middle classes.

Box-out:

In Ptolemaic cosmology, astronomers believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. To balance this Universe, Ptolemists used to draw complex sets of larger and smaller circles - known as epicycles - to describes their orbits around the Earth. The problem with epicycles spelled the demise of the Ptolemaic cosmology in the end: as the known number of planets and stars increased, the system of superficial orbits rapidly collapsed under its own complexity. The Ptolemaic absurdity, however, is still alive today in Irish economic policies. A year ago, the Government had a clear choice of policy options: a site-value tax (SVT) that can be levied on all forms of properties, including land, or a residential property tax that can be levied only on structures. In a study covering all known forms of policy mechanisms used to fund public infrastructure around the world,  submitted to the Department of Environment, I have argued that one of the major advantage of the SVT over a property tax was that it would have incentivised more efficient use land, reducing land hoarding and speculation. There were multiple other advantages of SVT over the property tax as well. Alas, the Government opted for a property tax favouring under-use of land over all other properties. This tax suits the major lobbies influencing the State: farmers and well-off rural landed families. Fast-forward eight months from last December: this week, Dublin City Council called for a levy on unused vacant sites. Hundreds of sites lay vacant across the city - blotching the cityscape and posing a threat to personal safety to many workers, as well as an unpleasant reminder of the property bust and economy's dysfunctionality to the would-be foreign investors. Dublin City has been trying to force this land back into development since 2009, although no one in the city has a slightest idea where the demand for such development might come from. Thus, our Ptolemaic system of economic policies is about to draw yet another contrived, complex and inefficient balancing circle on the map of our tax policies to compensate for the Government's rejection of the site value tax. After all, managing the superficial complexity of a political economy that attempts to appease the landed classes, while satisfying the needs and demands of foreign investors and urban authorities is an arduous task

1/8/2013: Anatomy of the Personal Crises: QNHS Q3 2012

CSO has published Q3 2012 survey concerning the Effect on Households of the Economic Downturn: here.

Some core findings:

• 82% of households cut spending on at least one of the main categories of expenditure as a result of the economic downturn in the 12 months before July-September 2012. 
• Nearly a quarter of all households indicated that they had cut back on five or more categories of spending out of 9 categories listed.
• Over 1/3 of households who used a car had cut back on their expenditure on this means of transport.
• "Some 14% of owner occupied households with a mortgage were unable to make mortgage repayments on time at least once in the previous twelve months due to financial difficulties." This number is strangely well below the current rate of mortgages arrears by accounts. Does this suggest that households tend to overstate their financial health?
• "On the rental side 19% of all renting households failed to pay rent on time at least once."
• 43% of households "indicated that they had experienced difficulties in keeping up with their bills and debts."
• "Two fifths of individuals were concerned about their level of personal debt. Over half of these said that they were currently more concerned than they had been twelve months previously. Only 5% indicated that their level of concern had decreased."
• "households consisting of one adult aged 65 or over said they had the least difficulty" paying bills and funding debt (27%).
• "Of households where the reference person was at work 41% experienced difficulty [paying bills and funding debt] compared with 73% where the reference person was unemployed." Note that 41% is a frightening number, still.
• "Looking specifically at those households which had experienced difficulty in managing bills and debts, 47% of them said that it was due to loss of income, 73% said it was due to higher than expected or additional costs and 5% said the difficulty was due to other reasons."
• "Looking more deeply into the type of higher or additional costs mentioned by those households for whom it caused difficulty, 90% of those households mentioned higher or additional utility bills , 32% mentioned higher or additional school, college or university costs, 17% mentioned higher or additional medical or dental costs and 15% mentioned higher or additional loan or mortgage repayments" Now, run through these again. All of them are state-controlled and state-regulated services, ex mortgages and loans. That's the cost of Irish State policy of extracting rents out of already stretched households.

And a handy chart summarising demographics of debt crisis:

That's right: core crisis impact on debt side - 25-54 year olds, majority with kids and homes, just the crowd that the Government is targeting for cash extraction via higher prices and charges for services like health, health insurance, transport, energy, utilities, education... you name it.

And as you read data in Table 1.1.1. showing details of the households experiencing financial difficulty due to loss of income, classified by main reasons over 12 months prior to July-September 2012, keep in mind - almost all 'employment creation' in the labour market that the Government and 'green jerseys' keep talking about is taking place in the part-time jobs, which cannot cover the true cost of living in this country.

Finally, take a look at Table 1.2. This shows the extent of debt restructuring delivered by the 'reformed' banks. At 7% total - it is laughably low.

21/6/2013: Most Important Charts in the World, June 2013

Business Insider produced another set of charts, under the usual heading of "Most Important Charts in the World": http://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-in-the-world-2013-6#

Obviously (shameless self-promotion alert) number 22 worth a look...
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-in-the-world-2013-6#constantin-gurdgiev-trinity-college-dublin-its-going-to-take-a-long-time-to-pay-off-eurozone-debts-22

Here it is reproduced from my file:

You can click on the image to enlarge.

Note, the same relationship exists for Government debt or Household debt taken alone and the individual relationships are actually even stronger (adjR2 in the range of 43-44% against 38% for the combined debt relationship).

17/6/2013: On Debt of the Nations & Euro Crisis: 2 links

Update from the ZeroHedge on the Debt of the Nations: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/debt-nations

Worth a read!

And while on the case of crises (for whatever you might read about Reinhart and Rogoff debate, debt overhang is a crisis) we have an excellent contribution by Dani Rodrik on solutions for the Euro area crisis: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/saving-the-long-run-in-the-eurozone-by-dani-rodrik

Thought-provoking and comprehensive summary (albeit I do not necessarily agree with all of Rodrik's conclusions).

28/5/2013: US Gen-Xers are Screwed... but Not as Much as the Irish Ones

Here is what the brain-dead Irish political and business 'elites' should read every time they talk about negative equity not being a big problem 'until you move house' & debt being sustainable 'until you can't repay loans'. The wealth destruction wrecked on Irish mid-generation families is so much more comprehensive than that for the US Generation-X households, and the debt levels loaded onto the shoulders of Irish households (private and public) are that much more extensive than those for the US Gen-Xers, and yet,

• Irish politicians are incapable of comprehending the effects of wealth destruction and are solely obsessed with public finances; while
• Irish business elites are mumbling left-right-and-centre about the need to 'free' people from their savings to 'get economy going again'.

Read this, morons:
http://www.businessinsider.com/generation-x-least-prepared-for-retirement-charts-2013-5#debt-is-killing-them-too-gen-xers-carried-more-than-80000-worth-of-debt-by-2010-on-the-flip-side-depression-era-babies-had-zero-debt-and-war-babies-had-just-15000-to-worry-about-7

10/4/2013: EU Commission on debt-overhang in Europe

A new paper on the effects of debt and deleveraging in Europe was published by the EU Commission. The paper can be accessed here.

Some nice charts summarising the debt overhang in the real economy (households and non-financial corporates):

Gross level relative to GDP, Irish households are 3rd most indebted in the euro area by 2011 measure. However, adjusting for GDP/GNP gap puts us at the top position, well ahead of Cyprus and even ahead of the EU27 'leader' - Denmark.

Now, much is usually being said about Irish net debts being lower due to immense wealth accumulated by the households. Table above shows that, actually, that is not true. We rank second from the top. Interest burden has declined, but it remains the third highest in the euro area.

Now to non-financial corporations:

 Irish corporates are second most indebted (after Luxembourg) in the EU and adjusting for GDP/GNP gap, the difference to the third most-indebted country is even more dramatic than the chart above indicates. Irish corporates debt rose in 2008-2011, rather dramatically - marking the highest increase in the euro area.

Detailed decomposition:

Again, adjusting for GDP/GNP gap, Irish economy is the most indebted in the euro area and the EU when measured relative to overall economy size (note: Luxembourg comparatives are wholly meaningless due to massive presence of brass-plates operations in the economy).

More fun charts:

Again, Ireland is in top first (corporates ex-Luxembourg) or second (households) positions.

Deleveraging household debt overhang will be extremely painful for Ireland:

And although asset valuations suggest the pain will be milder, in reality, one has to consider the fact that Irish household assets valuations are not exactly (a) fully reflective of real extent of price contractions in the housing sector, and (b) liquid.

 Here's EU Commission view:
"as regards households capacity to repay (figure 12), Ireland, Spain, Estonia, the Netherlands, Latvia, Denmark, the United Kingdom and, to some extent, Cyprus are amongst those that experienced a rapid increase in household indebtedness before the crisis. Despite the varying starting position in terms of household debt, the information content of the level dimension also points to the same set of countries as potentially prone to suffer from deleveraging pressures, on top of Portugal and Sweden. Ireland, Latvia and Estonia also appear as subject to high  pressures when considering actual leverage as well as its build-up (figure 13)".

And on non-financial corporates deleveraging:
"on the firms' side, there is also a clear positive relationship between the  accumulation and the level factors when considering the capacity to repay (figure 14). Countries like Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal and Bulgaria stand out as presenting vulnerabilities related to their firm's indebtedness. This snapshot is highly nuanced when looking at firm's asset side (see figure 15). Belgium and Cyprus present a healthier picture while firms in countries like Greece, Italy, Slovenia and Latvia appear as subject to higher pressures. As a robustness check, this exercise was also run with consolidated data and the results are consistent but for the case of Belgium, where the relevance of intra-company loans calls for further qualifications when assessing non-financial corporates debt sustainability"

Using more sophisticated analysis, the Commission paper concludes that:
"The following countries can be identified as more prone to face deleveraging pressures in the household and non-financial corporation sectors: Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom on the household side and Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Ireland,  Italy, Portugal, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom on the corporate side."

Of all countries listed above only Ireland, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden and the UK fall into both groups, but only Ireland falls into extreme scenarios of debt sustainability in both categories:

In EU Commission calculations (see link above), Ireland has the greatest gap to sustainability (35.2%) when it comes to debt overhang in the entire euro area, and second highest in the EU.

8/3/2013: Why Economists Failed to Predict the Twin Crises?

Wonderfully interesting recent CEPR (DP No. 9269) paper titled THE FAILURE TO PREDICT THE GREAT RECESSION. THE FAILURE OF ACADEMIC ECONOMICS? A VIEW FOCUSING ON THE ROLE OF CREDIT by Maria Dolores Gadea Rivas and Gabriel Perez Quiros (http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=9269.asp) takes up a gargantuan task of trying to answer why (and indeed if) economists failed to predict the latest financial and real economic crises.

In addition, the real economic downturn "has also highlighted the lack of consensus in macroeconomic thinking about how far the financial system influences economic activity."

"Basic economic theory suggests that, in a frictionless world, the shocks originating in credit markets play only a minor role in explaining business cycles. However, the presence of financial imperfections can amplify their effect on the real economy and, thus, disturbances in credit markets can lead to larger cyclical fluctuations in the real economy. These frictions also provide micro-fundamentals for analyzing the channels of transmission." This is known as the financial accelerator mechanism.

However, prior to the crisis, "the most influential dynamic general equilibrium models developed just before the recession by Chistiano et al. (2005) and Smets and Wouter (2007) do not incorporate any financial accelerator mechanism. The debate at that time was about the effect of frictions, nominal and real, and the role of monetary policy to offset these effects on output and inflation."

Since the onset of the crisis, a new strand of literature has taken prominence in economics, dealing more directly with the links between the economic and credit cycles. This literature is empirical, rather than theoretical in nature and focuses on historical data of financial crises. Much of the literature concludes "that there are strong similarities between recent and past crises and, consequently, the Great Recession is nothing new" and that credit growth acts as a powerful predictor of financial crises, with external imbalances useful ind erecting the turning points. Majority of studies conclude that "credit booms tend to be followed by deeper recessions and sluggish recoveries."

Per authors, "all these papers have much in common, both in the stylized facts derived from them and in their methodological foundations. They provide considerable evidence that financial markets, and credit in particular, play an important role in shaping the economic cycle, in the probability of financial crises, in the intensity of recessions and in the pace of recoveries. The argument is that the strong growth of domestic credit and leverage that fuelled the expansion phase became the trigger for a financial crisis and, therefore, for a recession4. A common finding is that downturns associated with financial crashes are deeper and their recoveries slower."

The clarity and the robustness of the new studies' results begs a question as to why "the financial accelerator mechanism did not appear earlier on the agenda of the theoretical business cycle models"? "It seems that the link between financial and real crises is so obvious that economists should have been blind when looking at data before the crisis to miss such an important feature of the data. Significantly, however, all the papers that find this clear empirical evidence date from after the financial crisis started."

The real question to ask, therefore, is "whether this ex post evidence, could be obtained ex-ante and if it is sufficiently robust to assist with economic policy decisions"?

In other words, ex-post crisis studies do not "take into account the fact that recession dating is uncertain in real time. Furthermore, when the macroeconomic variables have the property of accumulating during the expansions periods, a potential bias may arise because these variables usually present high levels just before the turning points. For example, from this literature, an analyst could extract the lesson. However, during long periods of expansions, credit to GDP growth is high and there is no recession. Also, credit as a proportion of GDP accumulates over time endogenously in different theoretical models, …and, therefore, it is endogenously high when expansions are long. Yet these high levels before turning points do not imply any power of the credit to GDP ratio in predicting the turning points. In medical terminology, the previous literature is more interested in the ”anatomy” of financial
crises, after they have occurred, than in ”clinical medicine”, that is, diagnosis from the symptoms. …For the lessons extracted from the data to be of value to policymakers in their day-to-day policy decisions, we have to understand the dynamics of these financial variables in real time without forgetting the uncertainty about turning points."

This is a brilliantly put introduction to the core thesis of the paper: "to consider the cyclical phases and, especially, recessions in an environment of uncertainty. Policymakers that see credit to GDP growing have to decide when the growth is dangerously high and could generate a turning point. If a long expansion keeps generating a high credit to GDP ratio endogenously, to cut credit dramatically could unnecessarily shorten the period of healthy growth."

Put differently, "the key question for a policymaker is to what extent the level of credit to GDP (or its variation) observed in period ”t” increases or not the probability of being in a recession in ”t +1”, or whether it changes the characteristics of future cyclical phases."

To answer these questions, the authors propose "a novel and robust technique for dating and characterizing business cycles and for analyzing the effect of financial and other types of variables. We combine temporal and spatial data and we show that this approach is legitimate, notably reduces the uncertainty associated with the estimation of recession phases and improves forecasting ability in real time."

The key results can be summarized as follows:
-- "Credit build-up exerts a significant and negative influence on economic growth, both in expansion and recession, increasing the probability of remaining in recession and reducing that of continuing in expansion."
-- "However, these effects, although significant, are almost negligible on the business cycle characteristics.
-- The authors show that "there is no significant gain in forecast performance as a consequence of introducing credit."
-- Thus, "in contrast to the previous literature, our findings indicate that the role of credit in the identification of the economic cycle and its characteristics is very limited."

Per original (and by now secondary) question asked the authors claim that their "results also explain why financial accelerator mechanisms have not played a central role in the models that describe business fluctuations. The financial accelerator was not a key point in explaining business fluctuations simply because, empirically, it did not have such a close relationship to the business cycle, either in a sample (prior to the crisis) or in an out of sample approach, once the uncertainty in dating recession periods is included in the model."

This is a really interesting paper with fundamental implications for macroeconomics and one of the earliest attempts to reconcile empirical predictability and theoretical clarity of core modern theory (namely that of the financial accelerator) relating to the financial crises and the links between the financial and real economic crises.