The Federal Reserve Board, the central bank of the USA, has announced that it will continue on a large scale to buy 'mortgage-backed securities'. A security is a promise-to-pay that has been issued by a firm or a government agency, that is considered to be highly likely to be cashed [or exchanged for another acceptable asset] when the owner demands payment in accordance with the terms on which the security was created. By concentrating primarily [though not necessarily exclusively] on mortgage-backed securities the Fed is slowly capturing the reckless expansion of credit during the nineteen-nineties and twenty-naughties, when the spending-power that was created was used to 'buy' houses. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were encouraged to participate in Bill Clinton's concept of a property-owning democracy by taking a material stake in the country - and gaining a material asset - through house purchase. Lending institutions, mutual funds and banks, were bullied by the agencies of federal government into making mortgage loans, even to people whose incomes and history of indebtedness indicated that they were incapable of resourcing and managing the repayments.
Notionally the books balanced. The population collectively borrowed more money each month to buy an increasing housing stock, comprised of properties whose resale prices were increasing in line with the rising price of new homes. The public's debt to the banks notionally matched the liability of the banks in the form of the sums that they owed to the investors who had supplied them with the credit that they had advanced as mortgages. Month by month the vast majority of mortgaged householders paid the sums due to their mortgage lenders. The lenders used the inward cash flow to pay their business costs and to pay the interest that was due on the credit that they had borrowed, and to repay those creditors and depositors who asked for their money back: and they had enough left to carry on lending to more borrowers at higher prices. Then during 2006 economic conditions became tougher for low income groups. Unemployment and prices were increasing, and an increasing number of 'sub-prime' borrowers either surrendered their properties or were evicted from them as their arrears on mortgage payments were deemed intolerable by the lending institutions. The mortgages had partially been funded by sales of securities that were 'bundled' with other mortgage lenders' debts and with the ownership of loans that had been made for other things. These 'complex' securities were said to be 'safe' because they would not lose more than a fraction of their value if any one of the lending institutions became unable to pay out against the security on demand. During 2007, however, it became clear that several major mortgage lenders had so large an exposure to sub-prime mortgages that there could no longer be a guarantee of the value of the securities that they had issued; and it was unclear, in the case of many complex securities, how much of the asset had been eroded because it was not clear how much of the asset was devalued. So the only way to treat such a security was to assume that it had no determinable value. This caused the catastrophic collapse of banking confidence and of asset values generally that was quickly dubbed the 'credit crunch' and which spread around the world.
A variety of headline-grabbing measures was taken by governments and by central banks both to calm down the markets and to prop up the values of as many shares and securities as could still be seen to retain positive value. The banks were enabled to carry on allowing customers to access their own money, and to service those of their debts that it was necessary to pay off. Where it was deemed necessary the government took partial or even total ownership of the banks; though the most preferred method was to 're-capitalise' the banks by topping up the cash that they had available so that they could continue to met their obligations.
Though house prices fell significantly, valuations were still quoted and contracts for house purchase continued to be made; and the vast majority of mortgage holders carried on making all or most of their payments. For a while the mortgage backed securities could not be valued, but they continued to exist. But then in 2011-12 conditions became more stable, particularly in the US housing market, as the massive spending on infrastructure by the federal government and the constant increase of the amount received by the American people in welfare and unemployment pay and the sluggish creation of new jobs worked together to increase confidence in the valuations of most US house property. Significant value could again be attributed to the securities from the 'nineties and the 'noughties that had been in limbo since the credit crunch. The Federal Reserve has now announced the continuance of its programme of taking such securities into the asset registers of the banks that are members of the Fed, in turn for new credit that is given to the banks to support their ongoing operations.
The short-term impact of this policy will be slightly to stimulate activity in the US economy, adding to business turnovers and employment. The major impact of the policy of 'Quantitative Easing' will be to increase the notional money supply; to convert the inflation of credit that had been confined to the housing sector to general credit within the banking system. The excess debt that was accumulated in the housing sector is being nationalised in the hands of the Fed, and a huge amount of spending-power is placed in general circulation. It will create inflation of general prices; and will stimulate modest economic growth. Without allowing any other major default of a bank to occur since Lehman's disappeared at the height of the crunch, the absurd sectoral credit expansion from the bubble era is being legitimated. This will be a phenomenal achievement, if it can be brought to completion. The objective is clear. In Britain the promised continuance of quantitative easing is not similarly targeted at 'monetising' the inflation of house prices that went so disastrously wrong through the sub-prime experiment; it is principally helping the banks to continue to meet their obligations from past casino banking, and secondarily allowing them to perform the statistical tricks that are needed to 'strengthen' their balance sheets to meet new global capital requirements. However long it goes on, it is unlikely to assist the growth of the real economy.
Showing posts with label credit crunch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label credit crunch. Show all posts
Friday, 14 September 2012
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Concern at the IMF: About What?
The Managing Director of the IMF has expressed concern about the probability that their forecasts for economic growth throughout the world must be downgraded. Her foreboding is justified by the regular downward revision of estimates for growth that are being published in various countries, especially in the light of the ongoing crisis in the eurozone and its potential negative impact on its trading partners in other parts of the world. In the face of such a negative mood among Economists, politicians, journalists, bankers and some business managers it is unsurprising that there is a growing feeling of unease among the general public.
During the so-called credit crunch of 2007-8 many governments tried to secure the future of banks in their territories by guaranteeing the deposits that people and businesses had placed in those banks. When banks could not meet depositors' demands for cash from their own resources the government supplied the money. Governments that had control of their own currencies, such as the US dollar and the British pound, could authorise their central banks to create 'new' money and make it available to the banks: some went further and actually create the money with which to buy control of threatened banks. In the USA this process was extended to the one insurance company, AIG, that had ruined itself by creating contracts by which it guaranteed to fund banks in certain circumstances which had been thought highly improbable until they happened to several big banks all at once.
In countries that did not have control of their money supply, notably those in the eurozone, the means available to governments to stabilise the economic situation were seriously constrained. For seven years before the credit crunch occurred the member countries of the eurozone issued bonds and bills [certificates of government debt] denominated in euros; and bonds that had been issued before the creation of the euro had become redeemable in euros. Those governments could not follow the lead of the Americans and the British in creating the money that they had to pay out to buy the bonds that fell due to be cashed: they had to borrow the necessary euros from the European Central Bank or the International Monetary Fund, or tap new funds created by other eurozone governments. In considering any of those options a government was faced with strict conditions attaching to any loan, that usually included the imposition of restrictive economic policies. At an early stage in the banking crisis the Irish government decided to guarantee all banks' obligations, raised a large loan and imposed dramatically restrictive conditions on the economy. Southern European members of the eurozone faced up to the crisis more slowly and then took the very different stance of demanding bail-out loans and prevaricated about imposing the conditions that they had accepted, threatening the northern eurozone countries with progressive economic collapse and political chaos. The northern eurozone countries regard this as simple cheating and are resisting any further concessions to the south unless they are accompanied by enforceable sanctions. Meanwhile the population of the whole Union is getting used to commentators covering the arguments about the possible withdrawal of some countries from the euro or the collapse of the entire venture. The fact that the eurozone is not coterminous with the European Union is widely understood: the Union could survive either the defection of some members or the total collapse of the single currency.
The possibility of chaos in much of the EU - the world's largest economic bloc - is the cause of worry throughout the world economy. The shabby history of the Union - the political fudges, the pervasive unaccountability of the Brussels bureaucracy and the notorious 'democratic deficit' by which the eurorats have evaded public concerns in aggregating power in their own hands - has created the circumstances in which there is little mass empathy with any proposal to give more power to the Union. Spaniards and Italians would like the Union to be able to grab Germany's wealth and hand it to them in return for promises to which nobody gives the slightest credibility: Germany would never assent to such a scheme. The extension of another loan to Spain, agreed overnight, is an allocation of the existing funds which the Finns and the Dutch and the Slovaks and the Germans have already written off. This time round the northern eurozone members seem to be so little concerned about this further handout that they have agreed to give the Spanish government longer to impose austerity.
And so the sorry saga drags on. Greece will leave the euro. With that example in their sights it is just possible that the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians will accept enough 'discipline' to keep the euro staggering along for a year or two. There is no hope of Europe leading the world economy to a new era of prosperity; and not much sign of the emergent economies or the US providing a 'motor' to drag the global economy into an era of growth. New thinking is needed, urgently.
During the so-called credit crunch of 2007-8 many governments tried to secure the future of banks in their territories by guaranteeing the deposits that people and businesses had placed in those banks. When banks could not meet depositors' demands for cash from their own resources the government supplied the money. Governments that had control of their own currencies, such as the US dollar and the British pound, could authorise their central banks to create 'new' money and make it available to the banks: some went further and actually create the money with which to buy control of threatened banks. In the USA this process was extended to the one insurance company, AIG, that had ruined itself by creating contracts by which it guaranteed to fund banks in certain circumstances which had been thought highly improbable until they happened to several big banks all at once.
In countries that did not have control of their money supply, notably those in the eurozone, the means available to governments to stabilise the economic situation were seriously constrained. For seven years before the credit crunch occurred the member countries of the eurozone issued bonds and bills [certificates of government debt] denominated in euros; and bonds that had been issued before the creation of the euro had become redeemable in euros. Those governments could not follow the lead of the Americans and the British in creating the money that they had to pay out to buy the bonds that fell due to be cashed: they had to borrow the necessary euros from the European Central Bank or the International Monetary Fund, or tap new funds created by other eurozone governments. In considering any of those options a government was faced with strict conditions attaching to any loan, that usually included the imposition of restrictive economic policies. At an early stage in the banking crisis the Irish government decided to guarantee all banks' obligations, raised a large loan and imposed dramatically restrictive conditions on the economy. Southern European members of the eurozone faced up to the crisis more slowly and then took the very different stance of demanding bail-out loans and prevaricated about imposing the conditions that they had accepted, threatening the northern eurozone countries with progressive economic collapse and political chaos. The northern eurozone countries regard this as simple cheating and are resisting any further concessions to the south unless they are accompanied by enforceable sanctions. Meanwhile the population of the whole Union is getting used to commentators covering the arguments about the possible withdrawal of some countries from the euro or the collapse of the entire venture. The fact that the eurozone is not coterminous with the European Union is widely understood: the Union could survive either the defection of some members or the total collapse of the single currency.
The possibility of chaos in much of the EU - the world's largest economic bloc - is the cause of worry throughout the world economy. The shabby history of the Union - the political fudges, the pervasive unaccountability of the Brussels bureaucracy and the notorious 'democratic deficit' by which the eurorats have evaded public concerns in aggregating power in their own hands - has created the circumstances in which there is little mass empathy with any proposal to give more power to the Union. Spaniards and Italians would like the Union to be able to grab Germany's wealth and hand it to them in return for promises to which nobody gives the slightest credibility: Germany would never assent to such a scheme. The extension of another loan to Spain, agreed overnight, is an allocation of the existing funds which the Finns and the Dutch and the Slovaks and the Germans have already written off. This time round the northern eurozone members seem to be so little concerned about this further handout that they have agreed to give the Spanish government longer to impose austerity.
And so the sorry saga drags on. Greece will leave the euro. With that example in their sights it is just possible that the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians will accept enough 'discipline' to keep the euro staggering along for a year or two. There is no hope of Europe leading the world economy to a new era of prosperity; and not much sign of the emergent economies or the US providing a 'motor' to drag the global economy into an era of growth. New thinking is needed, urgently.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Back to Basics: Political Economy [1]
As an independent backstreet blogger I am fascinated to observe the clouds of intellectual debris that flit through the internet in thousands of blogs written by people who desperately want to be regarded as innovative mainstream Economists. Most of them are academics who have contracted duties in a university or a research unit; and some - especially those who produce branded research for a bank or a commercial think tank - have a direct business interest in publishing their opinions. The academics are desperately keen to be quoted by other bloggers and their output is already systematised so that those with academic ambitions cite the number of references to their output that are made by other participants in the racket, just as they do in respect of the 'peer reviewed' academic journals. Soon indexes of citations will list references to blogs alongside references to more formal articles; and citations in blogs written by senior professors will have a higher allocation of points.
The most tragic aspect of this ballooning exocrescence of academic blogging is that almost all the participants display the usual sycophancy to the seniors who can help their careers, who might deign to mention the mini-bloggers in their own blogs.Therefore they are anxious not to step outside the orthodox boundaries of the subject as it is set out by the dominant professors. The majority of the bloggers also display a painfully serious intent to classify themselves in sub-schools within the ever-more-diffuse 'discipline' of Economics, built on phrases like dynamic stochastic general equilibrium that attracted well-deserved ridicule when it was uttered in the House of Commons: but are commended in the hypoxic atmosphere of an academics' conference.
The more intelligent mainstream Economists are forced to realise that Economics fuelled the hubris that caused the credit crunch, but they cannot yet face the fact that the 'discipline' itself has failed. Such an admission would require them to admit that they have spent their careers on presenting doctrines that have condemned their fellow citizens, and themselves, to a lower standard of living in future than should have been available to them.
Economics fails most obviously at the interface between macroeconomics and microeconomics. In principle, socialist planning is a system for directing firms' and individuals' activities day by day, with the intention that each participant delivers outputs that serve as inputs to a planned macroeconomic aggregate. Keynes was in his prime precisely at the time when Stalin's Soviet Union was claiming success for its planning mechanisms: while the world became aware of the brutality with which The Plan was enforced and the disasters [including deaths through famine] that were caused by its inefficiencies. Keynes's wife was a Russian refugee, whose table-talk frequently included information and anecdote about Soviet repression. In The Economic Consequences of the Peace [1919] he had forecasted a strong reaction in Germany to the way the country was treated by the victorious allies at the end of the First World War, and fourteen years on he took no pleasure in seeing the fulfilment of his prediction by Hitler's National Socialists. The Nazi's economic programme was built onto a Four Year Plan controlled by a Commissioner, Goring, who took draconian powers over businesses and the trade unions. The principal objective of that Plan was to prepare the economy to support an aggressive war in Europe.
Keynes was a Liberal who deplored the emergence of tyranny in Europe and during the nineteen-thirties he was concerned that Britain must avoid an economic collapse that would allow communist or fascist ideas to capture any significant proportion of the electorate. Keynes's mentor, Alfred Marshall [1842-1924], was the great founder of authoritarian academic Microeconomics: within a decade of his death it was painfully clear that his Economics provided no prescriptions for solving the practical problems that were causing mass unemployment in democratic societies. Keynes recognised that the macro-economy, the environment in which firms and the buyers of their produce operate, must be managed actively by the state. He suggested techniques for creating employment by government intervention through taxing and spending, and by adjusting the supply of money and by manipulating the factors that determine the rate of interest.
Keynes was crucial to the management of the command economy that supplied the country and its armed forces during the Second World War, and he worked hugely hard at international negotiations in planning for the postwar settlement. The extreme demands that were made on his mind and body were at least contributory to his death from heart failure very soon after the war. Had he lived for another decade he may have addressed the mechanisms by which macroeconomic devices could be made to articulate efficiently with microeconomic systems; but posterity was denied that guidance.
The lack of effective articulation between macroeconomic interventions and the achievement of intended outcomes by firms and people has been ducked by the entire 'Economics profession' through the six decade since Keynes died. Whenever the data disclose a trend that the government decides must be addressed by a shift in macroeconomic policy, it increases or reduces the money supply, raises or lowers rates of interest, increases or reduces taxation, increases or cancels government orders to firms, and/or to increase or reduce the number and rates of pay for state employees. Recently in Europe restrictive policies have been imposed on the economies of Greece, Ireland and other heavily indebted states. Within the eurozone, in cases where the elected governments have hesitated to act in the required manner, a change of government has been imposed; composed of technocrats: - which means Economists.
Because it is outside the eurozone, Britain still has monetary independence and control of most taxation. The current coalition government came together [and will probably stay together] because the party leaders recognise that the economy is in a very perilous situation. The government is taking radical steps to reduce the rate of increase in state spending to a level where - in an ideal world - the economy in total would be growing faster than state spending, so that government spending and borrowing would become smaller percentages of the gross national product. The appearance of 'stable economic growth' that was delivered by the Blair-Brown regime was derived from increased direct spending by the government and by increased consumption by the increasing numbers of employees who were taken on in the civil service and in state agencies: supported by strong but ultimately unsustainable growth in demand arising from the bubble in the financial services sector.
De-industrialisation had been occurring by default in Britain since the collapse of traditional textiles in the nineteen-fifties: But after Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 it became deliberate policy. Coal mining, railways, shipbuilding, steel making and heavy engineering were regarded as the natural breeding grounds for militant trade unionism, so it was fashionable to argue that they should be cleared away like mosquito-breeding swamps. When the Second World War ended significant sectors of UK industry were old-fashioned and inefficient compared to newer factories in the USA and to the newly reconstructed plant in Germany. Rather than direct the bulk of the nation's disposable income into re-equipping the world's leading shipyards, aircraft factories, motor plant, electronic and chemical industries, successive Labour and Conservative governments raised taxes from industry to support the welfare state. While Germany developed the regional banks that supported the development of the Mittelstand of small and medium firms that supplied specialist products and services for industry and commerce, British banks took an increasingly dim view of industry. Within a democratic structure, Germany provided means by which firms could be funded to deliver desired growth. Britain had no such system; but nevertheless enough of industry survived, and new industries grew up - without government support - such that even now manufacturing is still a greater contributor to net national income than financial services ever could be.
Under the 2010 coalition government state spending is being held in check and employment in the public sector is being cut. Ministers talk often and grandiloquently about how the country will achieve macroeconomic salvation through the growth of real-world enterprises: but they become increasingly vague when pressed for details, and show that they are ineffectual in directing funds from state-controlled banks to promising businesses. This is the nub of the present problem: how are individual firms to be enabled to deliver the contribution that they can - and must - make to recovery? What policies can build a proper articulation between the macro-economy and the firm? This vital topic must be the subject for further bogs in the coming days.
The most tragic aspect of this ballooning exocrescence of academic blogging is that almost all the participants display the usual sycophancy to the seniors who can help their careers, who might deign to mention the mini-bloggers in their own blogs.Therefore they are anxious not to step outside the orthodox boundaries of the subject as it is set out by the dominant professors. The majority of the bloggers also display a painfully serious intent to classify themselves in sub-schools within the ever-more-diffuse 'discipline' of Economics, built on phrases like dynamic stochastic general equilibrium that attracted well-deserved ridicule when it was uttered in the House of Commons: but are commended in the hypoxic atmosphere of an academics' conference.
The more intelligent mainstream Economists are forced to realise that Economics fuelled the hubris that caused the credit crunch, but they cannot yet face the fact that the 'discipline' itself has failed. Such an admission would require them to admit that they have spent their careers on presenting doctrines that have condemned their fellow citizens, and themselves, to a lower standard of living in future than should have been available to them.
Economics fails most obviously at the interface between macroeconomics and microeconomics. In principle, socialist planning is a system for directing firms' and individuals' activities day by day, with the intention that each participant delivers outputs that serve as inputs to a planned macroeconomic aggregate. Keynes was in his prime precisely at the time when Stalin's Soviet Union was claiming success for its planning mechanisms: while the world became aware of the brutality with which The Plan was enforced and the disasters [including deaths through famine] that were caused by its inefficiencies. Keynes's wife was a Russian refugee, whose table-talk frequently included information and anecdote about Soviet repression. In The Economic Consequences of the Peace [1919] he had forecasted a strong reaction in Germany to the way the country was treated by the victorious allies at the end of the First World War, and fourteen years on he took no pleasure in seeing the fulfilment of his prediction by Hitler's National Socialists. The Nazi's economic programme was built onto a Four Year Plan controlled by a Commissioner, Goring, who took draconian powers over businesses and the trade unions. The principal objective of that Plan was to prepare the economy to support an aggressive war in Europe.
Keynes was a Liberal who deplored the emergence of tyranny in Europe and during the nineteen-thirties he was concerned that Britain must avoid an economic collapse that would allow communist or fascist ideas to capture any significant proportion of the electorate. Keynes's mentor, Alfred Marshall [1842-1924], was the great founder of authoritarian academic Microeconomics: within a decade of his death it was painfully clear that his Economics provided no prescriptions for solving the practical problems that were causing mass unemployment in democratic societies. Keynes recognised that the macro-economy, the environment in which firms and the buyers of their produce operate, must be managed actively by the state. He suggested techniques for creating employment by government intervention through taxing and spending, and by adjusting the supply of money and by manipulating the factors that determine the rate of interest.
Keynes was crucial to the management of the command economy that supplied the country and its armed forces during the Second World War, and he worked hugely hard at international negotiations in planning for the postwar settlement. The extreme demands that were made on his mind and body were at least contributory to his death from heart failure very soon after the war. Had he lived for another decade he may have addressed the mechanisms by which macroeconomic devices could be made to articulate efficiently with microeconomic systems; but posterity was denied that guidance.
The lack of effective articulation between macroeconomic interventions and the achievement of intended outcomes by firms and people has been ducked by the entire 'Economics profession' through the six decade since Keynes died. Whenever the data disclose a trend that the government decides must be addressed by a shift in macroeconomic policy, it increases or reduces the money supply, raises or lowers rates of interest, increases or reduces taxation, increases or cancels government orders to firms, and/or to increase or reduce the number and rates of pay for state employees. Recently in Europe restrictive policies have been imposed on the economies of Greece, Ireland and other heavily indebted states. Within the eurozone, in cases where the elected governments have hesitated to act in the required manner, a change of government has been imposed; composed of technocrats: - which means Economists.
Because it is outside the eurozone, Britain still has monetary independence and control of most taxation. The current coalition government came together [and will probably stay together] because the party leaders recognise that the economy is in a very perilous situation. The government is taking radical steps to reduce the rate of increase in state spending to a level where - in an ideal world - the economy in total would be growing faster than state spending, so that government spending and borrowing would become smaller percentages of the gross national product. The appearance of 'stable economic growth' that was delivered by the Blair-Brown regime was derived from increased direct spending by the government and by increased consumption by the increasing numbers of employees who were taken on in the civil service and in state agencies: supported by strong but ultimately unsustainable growth in demand arising from the bubble in the financial services sector.
De-industrialisation had been occurring by default in Britain since the collapse of traditional textiles in the nineteen-fifties: But after Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 it became deliberate policy. Coal mining, railways, shipbuilding, steel making and heavy engineering were regarded as the natural breeding grounds for militant trade unionism, so it was fashionable to argue that they should be cleared away like mosquito-breeding swamps. When the Second World War ended significant sectors of UK industry were old-fashioned and inefficient compared to newer factories in the USA and to the newly reconstructed plant in Germany. Rather than direct the bulk of the nation's disposable income into re-equipping the world's leading shipyards, aircraft factories, motor plant, electronic and chemical industries, successive Labour and Conservative governments raised taxes from industry to support the welfare state. While Germany developed the regional banks that supported the development of the Mittelstand of small and medium firms that supplied specialist products and services for industry and commerce, British banks took an increasingly dim view of industry. Within a democratic structure, Germany provided means by which firms could be funded to deliver desired growth. Britain had no such system; but nevertheless enough of industry survived, and new industries grew up - without government support - such that even now manufacturing is still a greater contributor to net national income than financial services ever could be.
Under the 2010 coalition government state spending is being held in check and employment in the public sector is being cut. Ministers talk often and grandiloquently about how the country will achieve macroeconomic salvation through the growth of real-world enterprises: but they become increasingly vague when pressed for details, and show that they are ineffectual in directing funds from state-controlled banks to promising businesses. This is the nub of the present problem: how are individual firms to be enabled to deliver the contribution that they can - and must - make to recovery? What policies can build a proper articulation between the macro-economy and the firm? This vital topic must be the subject for further bogs in the coming days.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Britain Threatened by Discredited Agency
Fitch - one of the less-disreputable Rating Agencies - has indicated that the UK could soon loose its AAA rating, and thus be seen as a worse credit risk than any other leading economy.
There is no surprise in the observation that the British Treasury is creating so much debt that British Government securities may become devalued. But it is very sad that the media can take the comments of any rating agency seriously. The agencies' collective failure adequately to value a huge range of financial 'products' - or the companies that issued them - was a major factor is allowing the credit bubble to develop, which ended in the credit crunch; which in turn created a crisis for the 'real economy' that will take years to work itself out.
Notwithstanding the agencies' disastrous impact ,government and regulators - not least our very own FSA - use agency ratings of businesses and of financial assets because without them they would have no systematic valuation medium at all.
Just as governments have to use the businesses that made the bubble as the means of getting out of the consequential mess, so they have to accept as authoritative agency ratings that can directly harm them.
Truth really is stranger - and even sadder - than fiction.
There is no surprise in the observation that the British Treasury is creating so much debt that British Government securities may become devalued. But it is very sad that the media can take the comments of any rating agency seriously. The agencies' collective failure adequately to value a huge range of financial 'products' - or the companies that issued them - was a major factor is allowing the credit bubble to develop, which ended in the credit crunch; which in turn created a crisis for the 'real economy' that will take years to work itself out.
Notwithstanding the agencies' disastrous impact ,government and regulators - not least our very own FSA - use agency ratings of businesses and of financial assets because without them they would have no systematic valuation medium at all.
Just as governments have to use the businesses that made the bubble as the means of getting out of the consequential mess, so they have to accept as authoritative agency ratings that can directly harm them.
Truth really is stranger - and even sadder - than fiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)