European Central Bank

Brexit 101: All You Wanted to Know but were Afraid to Ask

euro

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

On June 23rd 2016, the United Kingdom of Great Britain voted to leave the European Union. In the era of Twitter tags, this event has come to be known as Brexit. David Cameron, the prime minister of Great Britain, resigned very soon after the result was announced.

The financial markets have been freaking out since then.  The question is what is Brexit all about and why are people worried about it. Before answering this, it is important to go back into history and understand the context that led to the formation of the European Union.

What led to the formation of the European Union?
The origins of the European Union can be traced to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC) formed by six countries (which were France, West Germany, Italy and the three Benelux countries i.e. Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg) in 1958.

The goal of ECSC was to create a common market for coal and steel in Europe. The EEC on the other hand worked towards advancing economic integration in Europe. The economic integration of Europe was deemed to be necessary by many experts to create some sort of bond between different countries in a continent destroyed by extreme forms of nationalism during the Second World War.

The Second World War had lasted from 1939 to 1945 and had more or less destroyed the European countries. Hence, the idea was that if economic integration happened, peace would automatically prevail.

When was the European Union formed?

These organizations (i.e. ECSC and EEC) gradually evolved into the European Union (EU) which was established by the Maastricht Treaty signed on December 9 and 10, 1991. The creation of a single European currency became an objective of the EEC in 1969, but nothing happened for the next two decades. It was only in the 1993, after the formation of the European Union by the passage of the Maastricht Treaty, that the members became bound to start a monetary union by January 1, 1999.

Currently, there are 28 countries which form the European Union. Further, there are 19 countries which use the euro as their currency (i.e. monetary union). The United Kingdom of Great Britain is not a part of the monetary union within the European Union. It has its own currency (i.e. the pound).

What were the advantages of the European Union?

The basic idea behind European Union was economic integration that led to peace. Let’s take the case of a company which makes cars in the United Kingdom. Before the European Union came into place, if the company wanted to sell its cars in Spain, it would have had to pay a tariff in Spain. (Not surprisingly, the British car companies were against the country leaving the European Union).

Or let’s consider someone British who wanted to work and enjoy the literary scene in Paris. Before the European Union came into place, he would have had to go through a long immigration process.

The European Union essentially did away with these problems and made the movement of both goods and people across the countries which became members, much easier than it was in the past.

So what happened in Great Britain?               

On June 23, 2016, the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain voted 52:48 to leave the European Union. This wasn’t expected. Both opinion polls as well as experts had been predicting that Britain would vote to stay in the European Union. But as is the case more -often than not, experts and opinion polls turned out be wrong.

Around half of Great Britain’s exports currently go to the European Union. At the same time around half of Great Britain’s imports come from the European Union[i]. Around one-third of Great Britain’s financial services exports are to the European Union. At the same time, more than half of the cross border lending that the banks of Great Britain carry out is to the European Union. Further, Great Britain receives half of its foreign direct investment from the European Union[ii].

In the days to come all this will have to be renegotiated with the European Union. It is estimated that negotiations will have to be carried out with 60 non Euro Union countries where trade as of now is governed by European Union rules[iii].

So why did Britain leave the European Union?

Given such strong trade as well as financial linkages, why did Britain leave the European Union? The major reason being now offered is that immigration is now a major issue in Britain. Given that, English is the second language of many Europeans, and the main language in Britain, it was easy for the continent based Europeans to move to work to Britain than vice versa.

The other reason being offered is that many of the people who voted for Britain leaving the European Union, did not understand that voting for Britain leaving the European Union, actually meant that Britain would have to leave the union. As dumb as it sounds, there are several news reports which have offered this theory along with examples.

The thing with reasons is that they can also be offered after the event has happened. Hindsight bias plays a huge role here. Hence, I don’t think it is very important to understand why Britain has left the European Union. It is more important to understand how this will play out from here.

What happens now?

It needs to be mentioned here that Britain’s vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding. The British Parliament still needs to pass the laws which will repeal the laws that got Britain into the European Union. This will have to start with the 1972, European Communities Act[iv].

Further, the British leadership (David Cameron or his successor) will have to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This will start the process formal legal process for Britain to get out of the European Union. At the same time, it will give them two years to negotiate the withdrawal.

Why is the world freaking out?

It is clear that Great Britain has a lot to lose by getting out of the European Union. But why is everyone else worried? The simple reason is that calls are now being made in other European nations, including Spain and France, to get out of the European Union. While, no one knows, how this will play out, if anything along these lines happens, it is likely to jeopardise the entire idea of an integrated Europe. If this were to happen, the future of the euro as a currency would be put to test. Also, if anything like this materializes, it will be next Lehman Brothers kind of moment.

One result of this will be that the European Union will be fairly aggressive in its negotiations with Great Britain (like it was with Greece). It will try and send out the message that any sort of dissent will not be tolerated[v]. This will be done so that message is carried over to any other country that is thinking about leaving the European Union.

Further, calls are now being made in Scotland, for a referendum to leave the Great Britain. In fact, the Scots as a whole have voted to stay in the European Union. If Great Britain decides to get out of the European Union, then Scots want to have their own referendum to get out of Great Britain, in order to stay in the European Union. So the disintegration of Great Britain is also a possibility now.

What about the financial markets?

The basic point is that financial markets hate any sort of uncertainty. And there is simply too much uncertainty surrounding the Brexit issue right now. Also, this has reinvigorated, the dollar as the safe haven trade all over again. This has led to money going out from all parts of the world and into the United States. This explains other currencies losing value against the dollar.

Further, as Nomura Research points out in a research note: “This extreme uncertainty in the City of London, one of the world’s largest financial centres, is anathema to global financial markets, especially when the global economy is as fragile as it is and as there are limited monetary and fiscal policy easing buffers available to most of the world’s major economies.”

Also, Brexit has thrown up the rising risk of Donald Trump winning the elections in the United States, scheduled in November 2016. As Anatole Kaletsky writes in a Project Syndicate column: “The “Brexit” referendum is part of a global phenomenon: populist revolts against established political parties, predominantly by older, poorer, or less-educated voters angry enough to tear down existing institutions and defy “establishment” politicians and economic experts.” And that has really got the financial markets worried.

The column originally appeared in the Vivek Kaul’s Diary on June 28, 2016

Footnotes:

[i] Doug Criss, The non Brits guide to Brexit, CNN, June 20, 2016

[ii] Brexit: Expect waves of contagion on Asia, Nomura Research, June 24, 2016

[iii] Nomura Research

[iv] Brian Wheeler & Alex Hunt, The UK’s EU referendum: All you need to know, BBC, June 24, 2016

[v] Ben Hunt, “Waiting for Humpty Dumpty”, Epsilon Theory, June 23, 2016

Milton Friedman is having the last laugh on euro

Portrait_of_Milton_Friedman
The euro came into being on January 1, 1999. On this day, 11 countries in Europe joined together to form what came to be known as the Eurozone or countries which use the euro as their currency. Greece joined the Eurozone on June 19, 2000, and gave up on its own currency, the drachma.

Fifteen years on Greece is in a terrible economic state. More than 50% of its youth population is unemployed. The economy has contracted by 25% since 2010. And its debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio has jumped to 175% from 129% in 2009.

Also, the country has voted against a referendum which essentially asked the citizens whether they were ready to face more austerity measures in return for a third bailout by the economic troika of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank.

The country owes around 240 billion euros to the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the IMF. The troika has been lending money to Greece for a while now. As Mark Blyth writes in Austerity—The History of a Dangerous Idea: “In May 2010, Greece received a 110-billion-euro loan in exchange for a 20 percent cut in public-sector-pay, a 10 percent pension cut, and tax increases.”

Every time the troika lends money it demands more austerity measures from Greece. The troika wants to ensure that the budget of the Greek government enters into a positive territory so that the country is finally able to start repaying the debt it owes, instead of borrowing more to repay what it owes.

The troika wants the Greek government to run a surplus i.e. its revenues should be more than its expenditure. As Blyth writes that the idea seems to be to: “Cut spending, raise taxes—but cut spending more than you raise taxes—and all will be well.” The trouble is that the austerity that has accompanied Greece has hurt rather than helped Greece. As the GDP has contracted, the debt to GDP ratio has jumped up majorly.

This vote against the referendum has made Germany more aggressive on the question of allowing Greece to continue staying in the Eurozone. While it is difficult to predict which this will go, my guess is that ultimately Greece will allowed to stay in the Eurozone and the current crisis will be postponed for a latter day, for the simple reason that the euro is ultimately as much a political idea as it is an economic one.

A major reason for which countries within Europe came together to form a monetary union and start using a common currency was to ensure closer economic cooperation and integration in order to ensure that countries in Europe did not fight any more wars against each other. The First and the Second World Wars were the deadliest wars that the world had ever seen.

As the Nobel Prize winning American economist Milton Friedman wrote in a 1997 column: “The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe.”

Having said that monetary unions are not always easy to run. As Friedman wrote: “A common currency is an excellent monetary arrangement under some circumstances, a poor monetary arrangement under others…The United States is an example of a situation that is favorable to a common currency. Though composed of fifty states, its residents overwhelmingly speak the same language, listen to the same television programs, see the same movies, can and do move freely from one part of the country to another; goods and capital move freely from state to state; wages and prices are moderately flexible; and the national government raises in taxes and spends roughly twice as much as state and local governments.”

As far as countries coming together to start using the Eurozone were concerned, their residents spoke different languages, they watched different television programmes and movies and did not really move freely from one country to another. And most importantly different countries needed a different interest rate policy at different points of time.

But within a monetary union with a common currency that is not always possible. And this led to problems within the Eurozone. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes on Bloomberg View: “During the boom years a decade ago, Greece and other countries on Europe’s periphery over-borrowed because interest rates were inappropriately low for them.”

In 1992, before the euro came into being, the German government could borrow at 8% and the Greek government at 24%. By 2007, this difference had largely gone. The German government could borrow at 4.02%. And the Greek government could borrow at 4.29%. When the interest rates for the government fell, fell as dramatically as they did in parts of the Eurozone, the government as well as the private sector ended up borrowing a lot more.

And this primarily led to a huge housing bubble across large parts of the Eurozone. In a normal scenario where there was no monetary union the central bank of a country could have raised interest rates and made it more expensive for the private sector to borrow. This would have ensured that the real estate bubble wouldn’t have gone on for as long as it did.

But the European Central Bank had to keep the entire Eurozone in mind and not just Greece and other weaker countries like Spain, Italy and Portugal. Hence, it allowed the low interest rates to remain low.

In the aftermath of the crisis, the weaker countries in the Eurozone needed low interest rates. As Ponnuru writes: “During the bust, the European Central Bank’s efforts to keep inflation low in the core has led to a punishing deflation in the periphery. The European Central Bank raised interest rates in 2008 and 2011 — at both the start and the middle of Greece’s depressions.”

Even if Greece continues to be within the Eurozone in the days to come, these basic problems with the euro will continue to remain. And that would mean that euro and financial crises will continue to be closely linked.
The column appeared on The Daily Reckoning on July 8, 2015

 

Janet Yellen’s excuses for not raising interest rates will keep coming

yellen_janet_040512_8x10
The Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) of the Federal Reserve of the United States, which is mandated to decide on the federal funds rate, met on March 17-18, 2015.
The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which one bank lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another bank on an overnight basis. It acts as a sort of a benchmark for the interest rates that banks charge on their short and medium term loans.
In the meeting the FOMC decided to keep the federal funds rate in the range of 0-0.25%, as has been in the case in the aftermath of the financial crisis which broke out in September 2008. Janet Yellen, the chairperson of the Federal Reserve also clarified that “an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate remains unlikely at our next meeting in April.” The next meeting of the FOMC is scheduled on April 27-28, 2015.
The question is when will the Federal Reserve start raising the federal funds rate? As the FOMC statement released on March 18 points out: “In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress–both realized and expected–toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 % inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.”
Other than a clear inflation target of 2%, this is as vague as it can get. The inflation number in January 2015 came in at 1.3%, well below the Fed’s 2% target. The Fed’s forecast for inflation for 2015 is between 0.6% to 0.8%. At such low inflation levels, the interest rates cannot be raised.
But the Federal Reserve wasn’t as vague in the past as it is now. In December 2012, the Federal Reserve decided to follow the Evans rule (named after Charles Evans, who is the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and also a part of the FOMC). As per the Evans rule, the Federal Reserve would keep interest rates low till the rate of unemployment fell below 6.5 % or the rate of inflation went above 2.5 %.
As the FOMC statement released on December 12, 2012 said: “ the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 % and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5%, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2% longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored.”
This is how things continued until March 2014, when the Federal Reserve dropped the Evans rule. In a statement released on March 19, 2014, one year back, the FOMC said: “In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 1/4 % target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess progress–both realized and expected–toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 % inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments.” In fact, this is exactly the wording the FOMC has used in the statement released on March 18, 2015.
What the FOMC meant in the March 2014 statement was that instead of just looking at the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, the Federal Reserve would also take into account other factors before deciding to raise the federal funds rate. So what made the Federal Reserve junk the Evans rule?
In February 2014, the rate of unemployment was at 6.7% and was closing in on the Evans rule target of 6.5%. In April 2014, the rate of unemployment had fallen to 6.2%.
If the Fed would have still been following the Evans rule, it would have to start raising the Federal Funds rate. This would have meant jeopardising the stock market rally which has been on in the United States. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve had cut the federal funds rate to 0-0.25%, in the hope of encouraging people to borrow and spend more, to get their moribund economies going again.
While people did borrow and spend to some extent, a lot of money was borrowed at low interest rates in the United States and other developed countries where central banks had cut rates, and it found its way into stock markets and other financial markets all over the world. This led to a massive rallies in prices of financial assets. In an era of close to zero interest rates the stock market in the United States has seen the longest bull market after the Second World War.
Any increase in the federal funds rate would jeopardise the stock market rally. And that is something that the American economy can ill-afford to. So, it is in the interest of the Federal Reserve to just let the stock market rally on.
Interestingly, the Federal Reserve has been changing the so-called “forward guidance” on raising the federal funds rate for a while now. In March 2009, it had said that short-term interest rates will stay low for an “extended period.” In August 2011, it said that short-term interest rates would stay low till “mid-2013.” In January 2012, the Fed said that short-term interest rates would remain low till “late 2014.” And by September 2012, this had gone up to “mid-2015.”
In March 2014, it junked the Evans rule. So, what this means is that the Federal Reserve will ensure that interest rates in the United States continue to stay low. Peter Schiff, the Chief Executive of Euro Pacific Capital, summarized the situation best when he said that the Federal Reserve would “keep manufacturing excuses as to why rates cannot be raised” and this was simply because it had “built an economy completely dependent on zero % interest rates.”
Given this, be prepared for Janet Yellen offering more excuses for not raising the federal funds rate in the days to come.

The column originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on Mar 20, 2015

Janet Yellen is not going to takeaway the punchbowl any time soon

yellen_janet_040512_8x10
Central banks are primarily in the business of sending out messages to the financial markets. In a statement released on January 28, 2015, the Federal Reserve of the United States had said: “Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy.”
In simple English what this means is that the Fed would be patient when it comes to increasing the federal funds rate, which in the aftermath of the financial crisis which started in September 2008, has been in the range of 0-0.25%. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which one bank lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another bank on an overnight basis. It acts as a sort of a benchmark for the interest rates that banks charge on their short and medium term loans. This is the longest period for which the rate has remained at such low levels, in over fifty years.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world had cut interest rates to very low levels in the hope of encouraging people to borrow and spend more, to get their moribund economies going again.
While people did borrow and spend to some extent, a lot of money was borrowed at low interest rates in the United States and other developed countries where central banks had cut rates, and it found its way into stock markets and other financial markets all over the world. This led to a massive rallies in prices of financial assets. In an era of close to zero interest rates the stock market in the United States has seen the longest bull market after the Second World War.
Given this, the stock markets in the United States and in other parts of the world have been doing well primarily because of this low interest rate scenario that prevails. With the return available from fixed income investments(like bonds and bank deposits) down to very low levels, money has found its way into the stock market.
The January 28 statement was released after a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) which is mandated to decide on the federal funds rate. These meetings of the FOMC are followed very closely all over the world simply because if the Federal Reserve does decide to start raising the federal funds rate or even give a hint of it, stock markets all over the world will fall.
After the January meeting, the FOMC met again on March 17-18, 2015. In a statement that the Federal Reserve released yesterday (i.e. March 18) after the FOMC meeting, it had dropped the word “patient”. So does this mean that the Federal Reserve will start to be “impatient” when it comes to the federal funds rate?
The Federal Reserve chairperson Janet Yellen held a press conference yesterday after the two day meeting of the FOMC, in which she clarified that: “Modification of our guidance should not be interpreted to mean that we have decided on the timing of that increase. In other words, just because we removed the word “patient” from the statement doesn’t mean we are going to be impatient.”
So what Yellen was essentially saying is that even though the Fed had removed the word “patient” from its statement released yesterday, it was not going to be “impatient,” when it comes to increasing the federal funds rate in particular and interest rates in general. Welcome to the world of central bank speak.
In fact, Yellen also clarified that the FOMC won’t increase the federal funds rate when it meets next towards the end of April, next month. At the same time she said there was a chance that the FOMC might raise the federal funds rate in the meetings after April.
This statement of Yellen has led to the conclusion in certain sections of the media that the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates June onwards, when it meets next after the April meeting. Only if things were as simple as that. Chances of the FOMC raising interest rates this year are remote. There are multiple reasons for the same.
First and foremost is the fact that inflation in the United States is well below the Federal Reserve’s preferred target of 2%. In fact, for the month of January 2015, this number was at 1.3% much below the Fed’s target of 2%. The Fed’s forecast for inflation for 2015 is between 0.6% to 0.8%. At such low inflation levels, the interest rates cannot be raised.
Inflation is down primarily because of low oil prices as well as the fact that the dollar has rallied (i.e. appreciated) against other major currencies of the world, in the process making imports cheaper for the people of United States. Lower import prices have a significant impact on inflation. The dollar has gone up in value against the yen and the euro primarily because of the money being printed by the Bank of Japan and the European Central bank. This money printing is not going to stop any time soon. As more money is printed and pumped into the financial system, interest rates are likely to remain low. At low interest rates the hope is that people will borrow and spend more and this will benefit businesses and the overall economy.
Getting back to the dollar, an appreciating currency has the same impact on the economy as higher interest rates. Higher interest rates are supposed to slowdown demand and in the process economic growth. Along similar lines when a currency appreciates, the exports of the country become expensive and this leads to a fall in exports. This slows down economic growth. Hence, in a way an appreciating dollar has already done a part of what the Fed would have done by raising interest rates.
With a lot of money printing happening in other parts of the world, chances are the dollar will continue to appreciate. Also, oil prices are likely to remain low during the course of this year, meaning low inflation in the US.
Further in December 2014, the Fed had forecast that economic growth in the US in 2015 will range between 2.6% to 3%. This has been slashed to 2.3% to 2.7%. In this scenario , it doesn’t seem likely that the Federal Reserve will raise the federal funds rate any time soon (may be not during the course of 2015).
William McChesney Martin, the longest serving Federal Reserve Chairman, once said that the job of the Fed is “to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.” Yellen as of now doesn’t want to spoil the party. What this means is that the stock market rallies in large parts of the world are likely to continue in the days to come.
The only thing one can say at this point of time is—Stay tuned!

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

The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Mar 19,2015

Is the stock market rally for real or will the bubble burst soon?

bubble

The BSE Sensex closed at 28,177 points on November 17, up by around half a percent from its last close. Its been good going for the Sensex, having rallied by 33.3% since the beginning of this year. This probably led to a reader asking me on Twitter whether the stock market rally was for real or would the bubble burst soon?
These are essentially two questions here. First, whether the current rally is a bubble? Second, how long will it last? These are not easy questions to answer. Also, instead of trying to figure out whether the current rally is a bubble or not, I will stick to answering the second question, that is, how long will the current rally last.
As I have written on a few occasions in the past, the current rally is being driven by foreign institutional investors (FIIs). The domestic institutional investors(DIIs) have had very little role to play in it. The FIIs have made a net investment of a little over Rs 68,000 crore since the beginning of the year. During the same period the DIIs have made net sales of Rs 32,468 crore.
This data makes it very clear who has been driving the market up. Given this, instead of trying to figure out whether the current market is a bubble or not, it makes more sense to figure out whether the FIIs will keep bringing in fresh money into the Indian stock market.
The foreign investors have been borrowing money at very low interest rates and investing it in financial markets all around the world. They have been able to do that because Western central banks have been printing money to maintain low interest rates.
The Federal Reserve of the United States (the American central bank) recently decided to stop printing money and almost at the same time, the Bank of Japan decided to increase it. The Japanese central bank will now print around 80 trillion yen per year. The central bank had been printing around 60-70 trillion yen since April 2013, when it got into the money printing party, big time.
Like other central banks it pumped this money into the financial system by buying bonds. Interestingly, the size of the balance sheet of the Bank of Japan stood at around 164.8 trillion yen in March 2013. Since then, it has increased dramatically and as of October 2014 stood at 286.8 trillion yen.
The Bank of Japan hopes that by printing money it will manage to create some inflation. Once people see the price of goods and services going up, they will go out and shop, in the hope of getting a better deal. Also, with all the money printed and pumped into the financial system, interest rates will continue to remain low. And at low interest rates people were more likely to borrow and spend. Once people start to shop, it will lead to economic growth. Japan has had very little economic growth over the last two decades.
The trouble is that the Japanese aren’t falling for this oft tried central bank formula. And there is a clear reason for it. James Rickards in his book The Death of Money explains the point using what Eisuke Sakakibara, a former deputy finance minister of Japan, said in a speech on May 31, 2013, in South Korea.
As Rickards writes “Sakakibara…pointed out that Japanese people are wealthy and have prospered personally despite decades of low nominal growth. He made the often-overlooked point that because of Japan’s declining population, real GDP per capita will grow faster than aggregate GDP. …Combined with the accumulated wealth of the Japanese people, this condition can result in well-to-do-society even in the face of nominal growth that would cause central bankers to flood the economy with money.”
The question to ask here is will the Japanese continue to print money? The answer is yes. The Japanese politicians are desperate to create some inflation and the central bank has decided to get into bed with them. Also, more than that the Japanese government spends much more than it earns and needs to be bailed out by the Bank of Japan.
As analyst John Mauldin wrote in a recent column titled The Last Argument of Central Banks “According to my friend Nouriel Roubini, in 2013 Japan’s total tax revenue fell to a 24-year low. Corporate tax receipts fell to a 50-year low. Japan now spends more than 200 yen for every 100 yen of tax revenue it receives. It is likely Japan will run an 8% fiscal deficit to GDP this year, but the Bank of Japan is currently monetizing at a rate of over 15% of GDP, thereby theoretically reducing the level of debt owed by government institutions other than the central bank.”
Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends.
What Mauldin basically means is that a part of the debt raised by the Japanese government is being repaid through the Bank of Japan printing money and lending it to the government. With all this money continuing to float around in the financial system, interest rates in Japan will continue to remain low.
This will allow large financial institutions to borrow money at low interest rates in Japan and invest it in financial markets all over the world, including India.
The European Central Bank (ECB) also seems to be in the mood to start quantitative easing (QE, i.e. printing money to buy bonds). As Mohamed A. El-Erian, Chief Economic Adviser at Allianz wrote in a recent column “In fact, ECB President Mario Draghi signaled a willingness to expand his institution’s balance sheet by a massive €1 trillion ($1.25 trillion).”
While the United States might have decided to stop printing money, Japan and the Euro Zone, want to take a shot at it. Interestingly, chances are that the United States might go back to money printing in the years to come. As Niels C. Jensen writes in The Absolute Return Letter for November 2014 “If my growth expectations are about correct, QE is far from over – at least not in some parts of the world, and it is even possible that the Fed[the Federal Reserve of the United States] will come creeping back after having distanced itself from QE recently.”
The Federal Reserve of the United States has been financing the American fiscal deficit by printing money and buying treasury bonds issued by the government. In mid September 2008, around the time the financial crisis started, the Fed held treasury bonds worth $479.8 billion dollars. Since then, the number has shot up dramatically and as on October 29, 2014, it stood at $2.46 trillion dollars.
The fiscal deficit of the United States government shot up in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was financed by more than a little help from the Federal Reserve. Nevertheless, the fiscal deficit has now been brought down. As Mauldin points out “The 2014 government deficit will be only 2.8% of GDP (it last saw that level in April 2005), the first time in a long time it has been below nominal GDP.”
The bad news is that the fiscal deficit will start rising again in 2016. “It is projected to fall again next year before rising in 2016. For the United States, this represents a reprieve, allowing us some time to deal with potential future problems before government spending rises to a proportion of income that is impossible to manage without severe economic repercussions. Government spending on mandated social programs will rise more than 50%, from $2.1 trillion this year to $3.6 trillion in 2024, potentially blowing the deficit out of control,” writes Mauldin.
The Federal Reserve might have to start printing money again in order to finance the government fiscal deficit.
Moral of the story: There are enough reasons for the Western nations to continue printing money and ensuring low interest rates. This means, FIIs can continue to borrow money at low interest rates and invest it in financial markets all over the world, including India.
The easy money party hasn’t ended. The only condition here is that the current government should not create a negative environment like the previous one did.
To conclude, the difficult thing to predict is, until when will this easy money party continue. I don’t have any clue about it. Do you, dear reader?

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Nov 18, 2014