Bubble

Sensex@50,000 – How RBI Played a Part in Creating the Stock Market Bubble

The BSE Sensex, India’s premier stock market index, crossed 50,000 points today in intra day trading. It has risen by more than 80% from around the end of March, when it had fallen to 27,591 points, in the aftermath of the covid pandemic hitting India.

This astonishing rise has now got the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) worried. The RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das, writing in the foreword to the latest Financial Stability Report, pointed out:

“The disconnect between certain segments of financial markets and the real economy has been accentuating in recent times, both globally and in India.”

People who run central banks are not always known to talk in simple English. Das is only following tradition here. The statement basically refers to stock prices. Das feels they have risen too fast in the recent past and have become disconnected from the overall economy.

While the overall Indian economy is expected to contract this year, the stock market has rallied by more than 80%. How is this possible? Or as you often get to hear these days, if the economy is doing badly, why is the stock market doing so well.

Theoretically, a possible explanation is that the stock market discounts the future and the stock market investors think that the future of the Indian economy is bright. Another explanation offered often by the stock market investors is that corporate profits this year have been at never seen before levels.

But even after taking these reasons into account, the current high level is really not justified. As Das put it in his foreword: “Stretched valuations of financial assets pose risks to financial stability.” One way to figure out whether valuations are stretched is to look at the price to earnings ratio of the stocks that constitute the Sensex index.

In January 2021, the price to earnings ratio has been at around 34. This means that investors are ready to pay Rs 34 as price, for every rupee of earning of the companies that make up for the Sensex. Such a high level of the price to earnings ratio has never been seen before. Not even in late 2007 and early 2008, when stock prices rallied big time or the first half of 2000, when the dotcom bubble was on.

Clearly, stock prices are in extremely bubbly territory. The current jump in corporate earnings isn’t sustainable for the simple reason that corporates have pushed up earnings by cutting employee costs as well as raw material costs. This means the incomes of those dealing with corporates from employees to suppliers and contractors, have fallen.

This fall in income has limited the ability of these individuals to spend money. This will lead to lower private consumption in the months to come, which, in turn, will impact corporate revenues and eventually profits. A sustainable increase in profits can only happen when people keep buying things and corporate revenues keep going up.

This brings us back to the question as to why stock prices are going up, when the overall economy is not doing well. A part of the reason is the RBI, though the central bank, rather expectedly, glosses over this totally in the latest edition of the Financial Stability Report.

Since February 2020, the RBI has pumped in a massive amount of money into the financial system through various measures, some of which involve the printing of money. By flooding the financial system with money, or what central banks refer to as liquidity, the RBI has ensured that interest rates in general and bank deposits in particular, have fallen.

The idea here is threefold. A drop in interest rates allows the government to borrow at lower interest rates. This became necessary because thanks to the pandemic, the tax collections of the government have dropped during this financial year. Between April and November 2020, the gross tax revenue stood at Rs 10.26 lakh crore, a drop of 12.6% in comparison to the same period in 2019.

Secondly, lower interest rates ensured that the interest costs of corporates on their outstanding loans, came down. Also, the hope was that at lower interest rates, corporates will borrow and expand.

Thirdly, at lower interest rates, the hope always is that people will borrow and spend more, and all these factors will lead to a faster economic recovery.

But there is a flip side to all this as well. A fall in interest rates has got people looking for a higher return. This has led to many individuals buying stocks, in the hope of a higher return and thus driving up prices to astonishingly high levels.

This can be gauged from the fact that in 2020, the number of demat accounts, which are necessary to buy and sell stocks, went up by nearly a fourth to 4.86 crore accounts. One of the reasons for this is the rise of Robinhood investing in India. This term comes from the American stock brokerage firm Robinhood which offers free online trading in stocks. India has seen the rise of similar stock brokerages offering free trading.

What has added to this is the fact that many unemployed individuals have turned to stock trading to make a quick buck. All it needs is a smartphone, a cheap internet connection and a low-cost brokerage account.

Of course, this search for a higher return isn’t local, it’s global. Hence, foreign institutional investors have invested a whopping $31.6 billion in Indian stocks during this financial year, the highest ever. This stems from the fact that Western central banks, like the RBI, have printed a huge amount of money to drive down interest rates.

This has pushed more and more investors into buying stocks despite the fact that the global economy isn’t doing well either.

A slightly different version of this column appeared in the Deccan Herald on January 17, 2021. It was updated after the Sensex first crossed 50,000 points during intra day trading on January 21, 2021.

Overconfidence of the ‘Bengaluru’ entrepreneur

flipkartThe last time I was in Bengaluru in late January and early February, almost everybody I met either wanted to be an entrepreneur or had already become one. I know I am stretching the truth here, nevertheless, the enthusiasm for entrepreneurship that I saw in Bengaluru is clearly missing in Mumbai, where I live, and Delhi, the city where my extended clan does.

A major factor that is needed for an individual to become an entrepreneur is “overconfidence”. As Gary Belsky and Thomas Gilovich write in Why Smart People Make Money Mistakes and How to Correct Them: “If people were not overconfident…significantly fewer people would ever start a new business…That their optimism is misplaced—that they are overconfident—is evidenced by the fact that more than two-thirds of the small businesses fail within four years of inception.”

It is worth clarifying here that overconfidence here does not mean arrogance. So what does it mean? As Belsky and Gilovich write: “What research psychologists have discovered about overconfidence is that most people—those with healthy egos and those in the basement of self-esteem—consistently overrate their abilities, knowledge, and skill, at whatever level they might place them.”

The entrepreneurs work along similar lines. In fact, research shows that even when entrepreneurs are told that their chances of survival are small, they don’t believe in it. As Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman writes in Thinking, Fast and Slow: “The chances that a small business will survive for five years in the United States is about 35%. But the individuals who open such businesses do not believe that statistics apply to them. A survey found that

American entrepreneurs tend to believe that they are in a promising line of business…Fully 81% of the entrepreneurs put their personal odds of success at 7 out of 10 or higher, and 33% said their chance of failing was zero.”

Given that a whole host of Bengaluru denizens have worked in the United States or know someone who has, it is hardly surprising that the American way of doing things, has caught on, in the city as well. Nevertheless, this overconfidence works in several sways. It encourages people to become an entrepreneur in the first place. Further, it helps them to keep running the business in the face of all odds.

As Kahneman writes: “One of the benefits of an optimistic temperament is that it encourages persistence in the face of obstacles…[The] confidence [of the entrepreneurs] in their future success sustains a positive mood that helps them obtain resources from others, raise the morale of their employees, and enhance their prospects of prevailing. When action is needed, optimism, even of the mildly delusional variety, may be a good thing.”

On the flip side overconfidence also leads many entrepreneurs to launch businesses without any business model in place. Take the case of the Indian ecommerce companies, many of which are headquartered in Bengaluru. A significant number of these companies are operating without any business model, backed by an unending amount of private equity and venture capital money that has been pouring in.

The money that keeps pouring into these companies shows the ability of the entrepreneurs to keep raising money from investors in the hope of their companies making money someday. And this couldn’t have happened without them being overconfident.

As Kahneman explains: “Inadequate appreciation of the uncertainty of the environment leads economic agents to take risks they should avoid. However, optimism is highly valued, socially and in the market; people and firms reward the providers of dangerously misleading information more than they reward truth tellers.”

Given this, at this point of time, ecommerce is the flavour of the season, and anyone raising points about the viability of the entire sector, is usually shouted down upon. Nevertheless, as Warren Buffett said during the course of the dotcom bubble which burst in 2000, “but a pin lies in wait for every bubble.” And that is something worth remembering here as well.

The column originally appeared in the Bangalore Mirror on Sep 30, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Why believing that real estate prices will never fall is a stupid idea

India-Real-Estate-MarketVivek Kaul

In a piece I wrote yesterday I said that banks in India play an important role in ensuring that real estate prices do not fall. The main point was that loans given by banks to commercial real estate, between November 2012 and November 2013, has grown at a much faster rate than their overall lending.
This has happened in an environment where real estate companies have a lot of unsold homes(or what is referred to as inventory in technical terms). The number of new projects being launched by real estate companies has also fallen significantly.
Hence, fresh loans given by banks has helped real estate companies pay off their old loans. And this has ensured that they haven’t had to cut prices in order to sell their unsold inventory. If bank loans to commercial real estate hadn’t grown as fast as it has, then the real estate companies would have had to sell off their existing inventory to repay their bank loans. And in order to do that they would have to cut prices.
In response to this piece several readers said that real estate prices never fall. Still others agreed that there is a real estate bubble in India but that bubble would never burst (whatever that meant). And this is not the first time I have received such responses.
So what is it that leads people to believe that real estate prices never fall? People have seen real estate prices only go up over the last 10 years. A home that was bought for Rs 25 lakh is now worth Rs 2 crore. Hence, there is a firm belief that real estate prices can only keep going up.
In fact such confidence was observed even during the American real estate bubble that ran from the late 1990s to late 2006.
As Alan S. Blinder writes in After the Music Stopped “A survey of San Francisco homebuyers… found that the average price increase expected over the next decade was 14 percent per annum…The Economist reported a survey of Los Angeles homebuyers who expected gains of 22 percent per annum over the same time span.”
At an average price increase of 14% per year, a home that cost $500,000 in 2005 would have cost $1.85 million by 2015. At 22% it would have cost $3.65 million.
If we apply this in an Indian context we get some fairly interesting numbers. A three bedroom apartment near the Sector 12 metro station in Dwarka, a sub-city of Delhi, went for around Rs 25 lakh nearly 10 years back.
Now it costs around Rs 2 crore. If prices rise at 14% per year it will cost Rs 7.4 crore in 10 year’s time. At 22% it will cost Rs 14.6 crore. If prices rise at the same rate as they have in the last ten years, then the home would cost around Rs 16 crore. And these are huge numbers that we are talking about here. This small calculation tells us how ridiculous it is to assume that real estate prices will continue to go up at the same rate as they have in the past.
We all know what happened in the United States. The real estate bubble peaked in 2006. Prices started to fall after the last. For the last 16 months real estate prices as measured by the 20 City S&P/ Case- Shiller Home Price Index, have been rising. But they are still 20.7% below their 2006 peak.
A similar thing is playing out in the Indian context as well, wherein people are extrapolating the price rise of the last 10 years over the future. They are “anchored” into the price rise that real estate has seen over the last 10 years and this has led them to believe that prices will continue to rise forever.
What they forget is that real estate prices fell dramatically between 1997 and 2003. As Manish Bhandari of Vallum Capital writes in a report titled The End game of speculation in Indian Real Estate has begun “The previous deleveraging cycle in year 1997-2003 witnessed price correction by more than 50% in Mumbai Metro Region (MMR) property.” Yes, you read it write, prices fell by 50% in Mumbai, the last place you expect prices to fall, given that the city is surrounded by the sea on three sides and can grow only in one direction.
Other than the price rise, another reason behind the belief that real estate prices will continue to go up is the fact that there is only so much land going around. In fact, this reason has been offered for more than 100 years.
As George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller point out in Animal Spirits “In a computer search of old newspapers, we found a newspaper articles from 1887—published during the real estate boom in some U.S. cities including New York—which used the idea to justify the boom amid a rising chorus of skeptics: “With the increase in population, the demand for land increases. As land cannot be stretched within a given area, only two ways remain to meet demands. One way is to build high in the air; the other is to raise price of land…Because it it perfectly plain to everyone that land must always be valuable, this form of investment has become permanently strong and popular.”
The point I am trying to make here is that the ‘limited land’ argument to justify high real estate prices is as old as land being bought and sold. Nevertheless, in most cases there is enough land going around. This is reflected in the American context in the fact that real estate prices have barely risen over the last 100 years, once they are adjusted for inflation.
As Akerlof and Shiller write “Moreover, real home prices in the United States rose only by 24% from 1900 to 2000, or 0.2% per year. Apparently land hasn’t been the constraint on home construction. So home prices have had negligible real appreciation from the source.”
What about India? While land maybe an issue in a city like Mumbai, it clearly is not much of an issue anywhere else. There is enough land going around.
Economist Ajay Shah did some number crunching in a May 2013 column in The Economic Times. He showed that there is enough land to house India’s huge population. As he wrote “A little arithmetic shows this is not the case. If you place 1.2 billion people in four-person homes of 1000 square feet each, and two workers of the family into office/factory space of 400 square feet, this requires roughly 1% of India’s land area assuming an FSI(floor space index) of 1. There is absolutely no shortage of land to house the great Indian population.”
Also, it is worth pointing out here that real estate prices have fallen dramatically even in countries like Japan where land unlike the United States is scarce. “Urban land prices have recently fallen in Japan (where land is every bit as scarce as it is in other countries). In fact they fell 68% in real terms in major Japanese cities from 1991 to 2006,” write Akerlof and Shiller. And the property prices in Japan are still lower than they were in the 1980s.
The moral of the story is that just because something has continued to happen till now, does not mean that it will continue to happen in the future as well. There are many fundamental reasons behind why the Indian real estate bubble is unsustainable (I made some of them in yesterday’s piece).
Let me make a few more here. Indian real estate has now become totally unaffordable. As Bhandari writes “The current real estate price represents affordability of very few, while average users have to sell their twenty years of future earnings to afford a house.”
The employment situation remains extremely grim. In a report titled Hire and Lower – Slowdown compounds India’s job-creation challenge,Crisil estimates that “employment outside agriculture will increase by only 38 million between 2011-12 and 2018-19 compared with 52 million between 2004-05 and 2011-12.” This in an environment where “India’s working age population would have swelled by over 85 million. Of these, 51 million would be seeking employment.”
With fewer non agriculture jobs being created a direct implication would be that incomes will not continue to grow at the same pace as they have in the past. And that in turn will mean a lower amount of money waiting to get into real estate. There are other economic indicators also which clearly show that the Indian economy has slowed down considerably than in comparison to the past. And the real estate sector will have to adjust to this reality.
Bhandari believes that the scenario that played out during the period 1997 ad 2003 will play out again, very soon. As he points out “One of the most important proponents of fall in the property prices is likely to start from the deleveraging cycle, by the Indian banking sector, which is running a multi decade investment to deposit ratio (108%). The reversal of easy business cycle, scarcity of capital, tight monetary cycle in domestic and international market will force scheduled commercial banks to deleverage their balance sheet over the next three to four years. One can observe the same scenario, witnessed in 1997-2003, when deleveraging by the Indian Banking Sector was accompanied by deleveraging corporates that had accumulated huge debts on their books during good times. This augurs a difficult time for the Real Estate Industry.”
Even with all these reasons it is difficult to predict when the Indian real estate bubble will start running out of steam. But that does not mean that real estate prices will never fall in India. It may happen this year. Or in 2015. Or the year after that.
But in the end, all bubbles burst. It is just a matter of time. As Blinder aptly puts it “Anyway, one thing we do know about speculative bubbles—whether in houses, stocks, or anything else—is that they eventually burst.” And what that tells us is that days of earning huge returns from Indian real estate are more or less over.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on January 8, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Try Again. Fail again. Fail better – Disaster formula of US Federal Reserve

Bernanke-BubbleVivek Kaul
“Now we know better. If we learn from experience, history need not repeat itself,” wrote economists George Akerlof and Paul Romer, in a research paper titled Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case with the Federal Reserve of United States, which seems to be making the same mistakes that led to the financial crisis in the first place. Take its decision to continue printing money, in order to revive the American economy.
In a press conference to explain the logic behind the decision, Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of United States, said “we should be very reluctant to raise rates if inflation remains persistently below target, and that’s one of the reasons that I think we can be very patient in raising the federal funds rate since we have not seen any inflation pressure.”
The Federal Reserve of United States prints $85 billion every month. It puts this money into the financial system by buying bonds. With all this money going around interest rates continue to remain low. And at low interest rates the hope is that people will borrow and spend more money.
As people spend more money, a greater amount of money will chase the same number of goods, and this will lead to inflation. Once a reasonable amount of inflation or expectations of inflation set in, people will start altering their spending plans. They will buy things sooner rather than later, given that with inflation things will become more expensive in the days to come. This will help businesses and thus revive economic growth.
The Federal Reserve has an inflation target of 2%. Inflation remains well below this level. As Michael S. Derby writes in the Wall Street Journal “As of the most recent reading in July, the Fed’s favoured inflation gauge, the personal consumption expenditures price index, was up 1.4% from a year ago.”
So, given that inflation is lower than the Fed target, interest rates need to continue to be low, and hence, money printing needs to continue. That is what Bernanke was basically saying.
Inflation targeting has been a favourite policy of central banks all over the world. This strategy essentially involves a central bank estimating and projecting an inflation target and then using interest rates and other monetary tools to steer the economy towards the projected inflation target. The trouble here is that inflation-targeting by the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world had led to the real estate bubble a few years back. The current financial crisis is the end result of that bubble.
Stephen D King, Group Chief Economist of HSBC makes this point When the Money Runs Out. As he writes “the pursuit of inflation-targetting…may have contributed to the West’s financial downfall.”
King writes about the United Kingdom to make his point. “Take, for example, inflation targeting in the UK. In the early years of the new millennium, inflation had a tendency to drop too low, thanks to the deflationary effects on manufactured goods prices of low-cost producers in China and elsewhere in the emerging world. To keep inflation close to target, the Bank of England loosened monetary policy with the intention of delivering higher ‘domestically generated’ inflation. In other words, credit conditions domestically became excessive loose…The inflation target was hit only by allowing domestic imbalances to arise: too much consumption, too much consumer indebtedness, too much leverage within the financial system and too little policy-making wisdom.”
What this means is that the Bank of England(as well as other central banks like the Federal Reserve) kept interest rates too low for too long because inflation was at very low levels. Low interest rates did not lead to inflation, with people borrowing and spending more, primarily because of low cost producers in China and other parts of the emerging world.
Niall Ferguson makes this point in The Ascent of Money – A Financial History of the World in the context of the United States. As he writes “Chinese imports kept down US inflation. Chinese savings kept down US interest rates. Chinese labour kept down US wage costs. As a result, it was remarkably cheap to borrow money and remarkably profitable to run a corporation.”
The same stood true for the United Kingdom and large parts of the Western World. With interest rates being low banks were falling over one another to lend money to anyone who was willing to borrow. And this gradually led to a fall in lending standards.
People who did not have the ability to repay were also being given loans. As King writes “With the UK financial system now awash with liquidity, lending increased rapidly both within the financial system and to other parts of the economy that, frankly, didn’t need any refreshing. In particular, the property sector boomed thanks to an abundance of credit and a gradual reduction in lending standards.” What followed was a big bubble, which finally burst and its aftermath is still being felt more than five years later.
As newsletter write Gary Dorsch writes in a recent column “Asset bubbles often arise when consumer prices are low, which is a problem for central banks who solely target inflation and thereby overlook the risks of bubbles, while appearing to be doing a good job.”
A lot of the money printed by the Federal Reserve over the last few years has landed up in all parts of the world, from the stock markets in the United States to the property market in Africa, and driven prices to very high levels. At low interest rates it has been easy for speculators to borrow and invest money, wherever they think they can make some returns.
Given this argument, it was believed that the Federal Reserve will go slow on money printing in the time to come and hence, allow interest rates to rise (This writer had also argued something along similar lines). But, alas, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
As Claudio Borio and Philip Lowe wrote in the BIS working paper titled Asset prices, financial and monetary stability: exploring the nexus (the same paper that Dorsch talks about) “lowering rates or providing ample liquidity when problems materialise but not raising rates as imbalances build up, can be rather insidious in the longer run.”
Once these new round of bubbles start to burst, there will be more economic pain. The Irish author Samuel Beckett explained this tendency to not learn from one’s mistakes beautifully. As he wrote “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.”
The Federal Reserve seems to be working along those lines.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on September 20, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)