I have argued that the best way to think of “black swan” events is as developments that, even though low-probability, can in fact be contemplated ahead of time.  Even if they are the sort of thing that has never happened before within an analyst’s memory, similar things may have happened before in the distant past or in other countries.   

     What current possible shocks have probabilities that, even if fairly low, are high enough to warrant thinking about now?  Some have been discussed ad infinitum, others hardly at all.

• Most widely discussed is the danger of a break-up of the euro. Considered unthinkable a short time ago, the probability that one or more euro members will drop out is now well above 50%. Currency unions have disintegrated before.
• Another is the possibility of a hard landing in China, analogous to the crisis that hit Korea and other East Asian markets in 1997.
• An oil crisis in the Mideast is the classic black swan event. Each one catches us by surprise: 1956, 1973, 1979, and 1990 (among others). Oil prices can rise for lots of reasons, not just crises in the Mideast, and have done so in recent years. But the most likely crisis scenarios currently stem from either military conflict with Iran or instability in some Arab government. The threatened loss of supply to world markets typically shows up as a sharp increase in demand for oil inventories and thus in prices.
• The most worrisome financial threat is a crash of currently over-priced bond markets. In theory such a crash could be precipitated by inflation (particularly commodity-induced inflation as in 1973 or 1979). But this seems unlikely. More likely triggers are (i) a breakdown in the eurozone or (ii) political dysfunction in Washington. A default in Greece or some other Mediterranean country could trigger a global debt crisis any time. The evidence of extreme dysfunction in US politics is already there for all to see, in the attempts by some politicians to repeat the macroeconomic policy mistakes of 1937 and in the debt-ceiling show-down of August 2011 (which led S&P to downgrade US government credit rating from AAA to AA). The obvious crunch date comes after the American election, as the “fiscal cliff” approaches in the last two months of this year. In theory, fears of what will happen January 1 should lead investors to start dumping bonds now. But it is still considered a sign of sophistication in financial markets to opine that, precisely because the consequences of going over the cliff would be so bad, the politicians will again find a last-minute way to avoid it. In truth, the fact that we haven’t gone over the cliff before does not necessarily mean we won’t this time. Perhaps observers think that a clear result in the election, one way or the other, would help settle things. A true black swan in the mix would be a repeat in November of the disputed 2000 presidential election; there has been no reform in the meantime to assure people that their votes will be counted or that a disputed outcome would be resolved by independent institutions rather than by interested political appointees.
• Scariest on the list is a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction. When politicians have used the specter of a September 11 repeat to scare the American public into supporting unhelpful policy responses, the mistake has been in the unhelpful policy responses, not in the “scare” part. There is long-standing gap between the probability of a nuclear event as perceived by terrorism experts and the probability as perceived by the public. Admittedly the probability is lower now that Osama bin Laden is dead.
• Last on this list is an unprecedented climate disaster. Environmentalists sometimes underestimate the benefits of technological and economic progress when they reason that a finite supply of resources must of necessity be exhausted eventually. But the disbelievers are just as faulty in their reasoning that because a global climate disaster has not happened in the past it can’t happen in the future.

       Throughout history, big economic and political shocks have often occurred in August, when leaders had gone on vacation in the belief that world affairs were quiet.   Examples of geopolitical jolts that came in August include the outbreak of World War I, the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 and the Berlin Wall in 1961.  Subsequent examples of economic and other surprises in August have included the Nixon shock of 1971 (when the American president enacted wage-price controls, took the dollar off gold, and imposed trade controls), 1982 eruption in Mexico of the international debt crisis, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the 1991 Soviet coup, 1992 crisis in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and US subprime mortgage crisis of 2007.   Many of these shocks constituted events that had previously not even appeared on most radar screens. They were considered unthinkable. 

The phrase “black swans” has come to be used to mean a very unlikely event of this sort.  Managers of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 or of most major banks in 2008 have suggested that they could not be expected to have allowed for a financial collapse such as the one that followed the default of Russia or the one that followed the bursting of the US housing bubble, because it was a “7-standard deviation event,” that is, an event of inconceivably tiny probability…in the realm of the probability that two major meteors hit the earth at the same time.   This is nonsense.  If the statistical model says the probability of a financial crisis is that low, it is the model that is wrong.  This is like the case when “hundred-year floods” turn up every few years.

A bit more enlightened are people who talk about Knightian uncertainty or “unknown unknowns.” Ignorance with humility is better than ignorance without it.    A still better interpretation is that statistical distributions have “fat tails,” in technical terms.  But it would be nice to get beyond the Jurassic Park lesson (”don’t be surprised if things go wrong”), to be able to say intelligent things about what causes tail events. 

       What does “black swan” really mean?   In my view, it should refer to an event that is considered virtually impossible by those whose frame of reference is limited in time span and geographical area, but that is well within the probability distribution for those whose data set includes other countries besides their own and other decades or centuries. 

      Consider five examples of mistakes made by those whose memory did not extend beyond a few years or decades of personal experience in a small number of countries.

1. “All swans are white.”  The origin of the black swan metaphor was the belief that all swans were white, a conclusion that might have been reached by a 19^th century Englishman based on a lifetime of personal observation and David Hume’s principle of induction.   But ornithologists already knew that there in fact existed black swans in Australia, having discovered them in 1697.  A 19^th-century Englishman encountering a black swan for the first time might have considered it an event of unthinkably low probability, even though the relevant information to the contrary had already been available in ornithology books.  It seems a waste of an excellent metaphor to use the term just to mean a highly unexpected event.  A better use of “black swan” would be to mean an event that would not have been quite so unexpected ex ante if forecasters had cast their data net over a broader set of countries and a longer time perspective.

 2. “Terrorists don’t blow up big office buildings.”   Before September 11, 2001, some terrorist experts warned that foreign terrorists might try to blow up tall American office buildings.   These warnings were not taken seriously by those in power at the time.   Many Americans did not know the history of terrorist events taking place in other countries and in other decades.  

 3. “Housing prices don’t fall.” Many Americans up to 2006 based their behavior on the assumption that nominal housing prices, even if they slowed down, would not fall.   After all, “they never had before,” which meant that they had not fallen in living memory in the United States.   They may not have been aware that housing prices had often fallen in other countries, and in the US before the 1940s.  Needless to say, many a decision would have been made very differently, whether by indebted homeowners or leveraged bank executives, if they had thought there was a non-negligible chance of an outright decline in prices.

 4. “Volatilities are low.”   During the years 2004-06, financial markets perceived market risk as very low.  This was most nakedly visible in the implicit volatilities in options prices such as the VIX.  But it was also manifest in junk bond spreads, sovereign spreads, and many other financial prices.  One of the reasons for this historic mis-pricing of risk is that traders were plugging into their Black-Scholes formulas estimates of variances that went back only a few years, or at most a few decades (the period of the late “Great Moderation”).  They should have gone back much farther - or better yet, formed judgments based on a more comprehensive assessment of what risks might lie in wait for the world economy.

 5. “Big banks don’t fail.”   ”Governments of advanced countries don’t default.”   ”European governments don’t default.”  Enough said.  Greece’s debt troubles, in particular, should not have caught anyone by surprise, least of all northern Europeans.   The perception was that euro countries were fundamentally different from emerging markets, that like Germany they were free of default risk.  Suddenly, in 2010, the Greek sovereign spread shot up, exceeding 800% by June. But even when the Greek crisis erupted, leaders in Brussels and Frankfurt seemed to view it as a black swan, instead of recognizing it as a close cousin of the Argentine crisis of ten years earlier, the Mexican crisis of 1994, and many others in history, including among European countries.

      My next blog post will list some of the shocks that, even though low-probability, have high enough probability that they should be treated as thinkable rather than unthinkable, they would have great consequences, and they therefore warrant some advance preparation.

With November’s election fast approaching, the Republican candidates seeking to challenge President Barack Obama claim that his policies have done nothing to support recovery from the recession that he inherited in January 2009. If anything, they claim, his fiscal stimulus made matters worse.  And, despite recent improvement, the level of unemployment indeed remains far too high.not blame George W. Bush for the recession that began two months after he took office in 2001. There hadn’t yet been time for bad policies to damage the economy.)

Obama’s Democratic defenders counter that his policies staved off a second Great Depression, and that the US economy has been steadily working its way out of a deep hole ever since.  Middle-ground observers, meanwhile, typically conclude that one cannot settle the debate, because one cannot know what would have happened otherwise.

There is a good case to be made that government policies - while not strong enough to return the economy rapidly to health — did indeed halt an accelerating economic decline.    By “government policies,” I mean not just the fiscal stimulus the new president steered through Congress when he took office, but also the Obama version of TARP, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s aggressive monetary stimulus.   All three policy initiatives remain extremely unpopular with Republicans, and ambiguous among swing voters.

But the middle-ground observers are of course right that one cannot prove what would have happened otherwise.   It is also true that it is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the economy immediately.  These things usually take time.  One cannot infer the merit of a new president’s policies from the path of the economy during his first few months in office.  (For example, I did

But here is the remarkable thing: whether one listens to the Republicans, the Democrats, or the middle-ground observers, one gets the impression that the economic statistics show no discernible improvement around the time that Obama took office. In fact, the reality could hardly be more different.

This is especially true if one looks at revised economic statistics, which show the US economy to have been in far worse shape in January 2009 than was reported at the time. In January 2009, the annualized growth rate in the second half of 2008 was officially estimated to have been negative 2.2%; but current figures reveal it to have been a horrendous negative 6.3%. This is the main reason why the level of economic activity in 2009 and 2010 was so much lower than had been forecast, which in turn explains why unemployment was so much higher.

Figure 1 shows the quarterly economic growth rate. The maximum rate of contraction — a veritable freefall in the economy — came in the last quarter of 2008 (the quarterly GDP data come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Commerce Department).   More specifically, it came in December, according to the monthly GDP estimates from the highly respected MacroAdvisers.   (See monthly income figures in the form of growth rates in Figure 2 or levels of GDP in Figure 3.)  This was the month before Obama was inaugurated.  The situation miraculously began to improve as soon as Obama’s term began! 

(click here for larger graphs)

The full force of the fiscal stimulus package began to go into effect in the second quarter of 2009.    The NBER officially designates the end of the recession as having come in June of that year.  GDP growth turned positive in the third quarter.

US economic growth slowed down again in late 2010 and early 2011, as one can see in Figure 1.  The timing coincides with the beginning of withdrawal of the Obama fiscal stimulus. Indeed, the government has been the one sector to experience contraction in income and employment over the most recent five quarters.  The private economy has been expanding.

Other economic indicators, such as interest-rate spreads and the rate of job loss, also turned around in early 2009. Labor-market recovery normally lags behind that of GDP - hence the “jobless recoveries” of recent decades. But the graph of monthly job losses and gains reveals that here, too, the end of the freefall came precisely when Obama was inaugurated.  The last two charts show the same “V” shaped pattern in the monthly job change figures that are released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as the GDP growth figures that are released by the BEA.  The rate of job growth over the last two years, inadequate as it is, actually exceeds the rate of job growth during the Bush Administration, even if one counts only the period before the big recession hit in December 2007.

Again, these graphs do not demonstrate that Obama’s policies yielded an immediate payoff. In addition to the lags in policies’ effects, many other factors influence the economy every month, making it difficult to disentangle the true causes underlying particular outcomes.

What is the right way to assess whether the fiscal stimulus enacted in January 2009 had a positive impact?   Start with common sense. When the government spends $800 billion on such things as highway construction, teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off, and so on, it has an effect. Workers who would otherwise not have a job now have one. Furthermore, they may spend some of their income on goods and services produced by other people, creating a multiplier effect.

Those who claim that this spending does not boost income and employment (or that it even hurts), apparently believe that as soon as a teacher is laid off, a new job is created somewhere else in the economy, or even that the same teacher finds a new job right away. Neither can be true, not with unemployment so high and the average spell of unemployment much longer than usual.

They also think that the government deficit drives up inflation and interest rates, thereby crowding out other spending by consumers and firms. But interest rates are rock bottom, even lower than they were in January 2009, while core inflation is running at its lowest levels since the early 1960’s. The conditions of the last four years - high unemployment, depressed output, low inflation, and low interest rates - are precisely those for which traditional “Keynesian” remedies were designed.

Economists’ more sophisticated forecasting models also show that the fiscal stimulus had an important positive effect, for much the same reasons as the common-sense approach.   The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office reports that the 2009 spending increase and tax cuts gave a positive boost to the economy, and indeed had the extra multiplier effects of the traditional Keynesian models. Allowing for a wide range of uncertainty [to allow for different economists' views], the CBO estimates that the stimulus added 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent to the level of GDP by the fourth quarter, relative to where it otherwise would have been.  The boost to 2010 GDP, when the peak effect of the stimulus kicked in, was roughly twice as great.

To be sure, of the many theoretical models produced by eminent macroeconomists at prestigious universities, some say that fiscal stimulus has no positive effect on the economy, even under recent economic conditions.  (The theoretical innovations underlyng the models have even won Nobel Prizes for the innovators, and not without justice.)  But these models are not sufficiently realistic to meet the market test:  they are not used by private businessmen for whom getting good forecasts matters to their planning and in turn to the success of their businesses.

Of course, econometric models do not much interest the public at large. A turnaround needs to be visible to the naked eye to impress voters. Given this, one can only wonder why basic charts, such as the 2008-2009 “V” shape in growth, have not been used - and reused - to make the case.

(Click here for larger versions of all 5 graphs.)

[Appears also at Fair Observer,with a nice presentation of the charts.

A shorter version appeared as an op-ed at Project Syndicate, which has the copyright.]

A recent video interview from Project Syndicate recaps some of my recent op-eds.  It covers the following territory:

•           The Obama Recovery.    The U.S. economy was in free fall in late 2008, whether measured by GDP statistics, the monthly jobs numbers, or inter-bank spreads.     Was the end of the recession in mid-2009 attributable to policies adopted by President Obama?   A full evaluation of that question to economists’ standards would require delving into the complexity of mathematical models.  The public generally has a simpler standard:   was the impact big enough to be visible to the naked eye?   Amazingly, the answer is “yes.”   Whichever of those statistics one looks at, and whether it is coincidence or not:  the economic free-fall ended almost precisely the month that Obama took office, January 2009.
•           Emerging markets have generally had much better economic fundamentals over the last decade than advanced economies.    For example, one third of developing countries have succeeded in breaking the historical syndrome of procyclical (destabilizing) fiscal policy.   For the first time, they took advantage of the boom of 2003-08 to strengthen their budget balances, which allowed a fiscal easing when the global recession hit in 2008-09.
•           The 15-year cycle in EMs.  Market swings that start out based firmly on fundamentals can eventually go too far.   Some emerging markets like Turkey look vulnerable this year.  A crash would fit the biblical pattern: seven fat years, followed by seven lean years.  Here are the last three cycles of capital flows to developing countries:
  • 1975-81: 7 fat years (”recycling petrodollars”)
  • 1982: crash (the international debt crisis)
  • 1983-1989: 7 lean years (the “Lost Decade” in Latin America)
  • 1990-1996: 7 fat years (Emerging Market boom)
  • 1997: crash (the East Asia crisis)
  • 1997-2003: 7 lean years (currency crises spread globally)
  • 2003-2011: 7 fat years (the triumph of the BRICs)
  • 2012: ?

This morning the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its first estimate for 2011 GDP.   It showed national output for the first time surpassing the pre-recession peak, which occurred in the last quarter of 2007.    (See chart below)    The expansion in 2011 was led by autos, computers, and other manufactured goods.

Given that the economy hit its trough in mid-2009, the long slow climb since then has been disappointing.   The outcome turns out to have been worse than the conventional wisdom that sharp declines tend to be followed by sharp recoveries.   On the other hand, the outcome turns out to have been somewhat better than the Reinhart-Rogoff thesis that when the cause of a recession is a financial crisis, the recovery tends to take many years.  

To be sure, the housing market has yet to recover and households are still painstakingly rebuilding their battered balance sheets.   But is this the complete explanation for the disappointing state of the economy — the origins of the crisis in a housing bubble and financial collapse?   

The first point to note is that the biggest single reason why the level of GDP over the last three years has been lower than most people forecast in January 2009 has nothing to do with overly optimistic forecasts in January 2009 of the rate of growth looking forward, nor with how good or bad Obama’s policy proposals were, nor with how effective the Republicans turned out to be at blocking them.  The BEA subsequently revised the GDP statistics substantially downward, and now reports that the real growth rate of the economy in the last quarter of the Bush Administration, instead of negative 3.8% per annum as reported that January, was in fact negative 8.9% per annum! The trough of the V was far deeper than was realized at the time.

The second point to note is that construction, which usually helps lead the economy out of a recession, remained, indeed had a strong negative influence on GDP throughour 2006-2010.   Fortunately, in the latest figures, residential construction finally returned to a (small) positive source of growth in the economy over the last three quarters.

The third point to note is that the government sector has been the one component of demand to exert a substantial negative effect througout the last five quarters.   The reason is the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus at the federal level, at a time when state and local governments are also cutting back sharply on spending and employment. 

Emerging markets have performed amazingly well over the last seven years. They have outperformed the advanced industrialized countries in terms of economic growth, debt-to-GDP ratios, and countercyclical fiscal policy.  Many now receive better assessments by rating agencies and financial markets than some of the advanced economies.

As 2012 begins, however, emerging markets may be due for a correction, triggered by a new wave of “risk off” behavior among investors. Will China experience a hard landing? Will a decline in commodity prices hit Latin America? Will the sovereign-debt woes of the European periphery spread to neighbors such as Turkey in a new “Aegean crisis”?

Engorged by large capital inflows, some emerging market countries were in an overheated state a year ago. It is unlikely that the rapid economic growth and high trade deficits that Turkey has experienced in recent years can be sustained. Likewise, high GDP growth rates in Brazil and Argentina over the same period could soon reverse, particularly if global commodity prices fall - not a remote prospect if the Chinese economy falters or global real interest rates were to rise this year. China, for its part, could land hard as its real-estate bubble deflates and the country’s banks are forced to work off their bad loans.

The World Bank has now downgraded economic forecasts for developing countries in 2012 (Global Economic Prospects, Jan.18, 2012).    Brazil’s economic growth, for example, came to a halt in the third quarter of 2011 and is forecast at only 3.4 percent in 2012 …well below the rapid 2010 growth rate of 7.5 percent.  Reflecting a sharp slowdown in the second half of the year in India, South Asia is coming off of a torrid six years, including 9.1 percent growth in 2010.  Regional growth is projected to ease further to 5.8 percent in 2012.

But will economic slowdown turn to financial crash?   Three possible lines of argument support the worry that emerging markets’ performance are fated to suffer dramatically in 2012: empirical, literary, and causal. Each line of argument is admittedly tentative.

The empirical argument is just historically based numerology: emerging-market crises seem to come in 15-year cycles. The international debt crisis surfaced in Mexico in mid-1982, and then spread to the rest of Latin America and beyond. The East Asian crisis erupted 15 years later, in Thailand in mid-1997, and then spread to the rest of the region and beyond. We are now another 15 years down the road. So is 2012 the time for the third round of emerging markets crises?

The hypothesis of regular boom-bust cycles is supported by a long-standing scholarly literature, such as the writings of Carmen Reinhart. But I would appeal to an even older source: the Old Testament - in particular, the story of Joseph, who was called upon by the Pharaoh to interpret a dream about seven fat cows followed by seven skinny cows.

Joseph prophesied that there would come seven years of plenty, with abundant harvests from an overflowing Nile, followed by seven lean years, with famine resulting from drought. His forecast turned out to be accurate. Fortunately the Pharaoh had empowered his technocratic official (Joseph) to save grain in the seven years of plenty, building up sufficient stockpiles to save the Egyptian people from starvation during the bad years. That is a valuable lesson for today’s government officials in industrialized and developing countries alike.

For emerging markets, the first phase of seven years of plentiful capital flows occurred in 1975-1981, with the recycling of petrodollars in the form of loans to developing countries.  The international debt crisis that began in Mexico in 1982 was the catalyst for the seven lean years, known in Latin America as the “lost decade.” The turnaround year, 1989, was marked by the first issue of Brady bonds, which helped write down the debt overhang and put a line under the crisis.

The second cycle of seven fat years was the period of record capital flows to emerging markets in 1990-1996.  Following the 1997 “sudden stop” in East Asia came seven years of capital drought. The third cycle of inflows, often identified as a “carry trade,” came in 2004-2011 and persisted even through the global financial crisis. If history repeats itself, it is now time for a third sudden stop of capital flows to emerging markets.

Are a couple of data points and a biblical parable enough to take the hypothesis of a 15-year cycle seriously?  We need some sort of causal theory that could explain such periodicity to international capital flows.

Here is a possibility: 15 years is how long it takes for individual loan officers and hedge-fund traders to be promoted out of their jobs. Today’s young crop of asset pickers knows that there was a crisis in Turkey in 2001, but they did not experience it first hand. They think that perhaps this time is different.  

If emerging markets crash in 2012, remember where you heard it first - in ancient Egypt.

[This article was published in Project Syndicate, which holds the copyright.]

Many questions in the field of financial regulation are hard to answer:    Would the separation of commercial banking and investment banking help prevent crises?   To what extent should individual consumers be protected against foolishly borrowing too much?  Should Credit Default Swaps be regulated out of existence?    What should regulators do about patterns of high executive compensation that is evidently not a reward for performance?  I have views on these questions, just as other observers do.  But in these cases I see the arguments on both sides.

The question of funding the U.S. financial regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is easy to answer, however.  I do not see the argument  for cutting funding  of the SEC and CFTC or for the other ways that Republicans in Congress are finding to make it difficult for these agencies to do their jobs.   They are also deliberately impeding two new agencies set up in response to the 2008 financial crisis — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, lodged at the Fed, and the Office of Financial Research at the Treasury — from doing their respective jobs.

Bernard Madoff was the most obviously venal of the figures in the financial crisis of the fall of 2008.  There is nothing hard to understand about the swindle he perpetrated, no ambiguities about where the legal line is drawn, no free-market interpretation that anyone uses to justify what he did.  The SEC had been warned over and over again in the years before 2008.   Why did it do nothing?  In large part because it had in effect been given a mandate to regulate as little as possible. 

I realize that in the United States, as in every country, we have some regulations that are excessive or undesirable.  But how anyone can think that regulation by the SEC was excessive during 2001-08 and that this contributed to the financial crisis?

That is the irrationality on the Right.   There is an equally irrational point of view on the Left.  It goes like this:  because the head of the CFTC is a former investment banker from Goldman Sachs, it must necessarily be that he is serving the interests of the financial community.  It happens that Gary Gensler is doing a great job, against great odds.   He has been trying to force derivatives trading into clearinghouses with lower counterparty risk, as required by the Dodd-Frank bill, to try to avoid repeats of September 2008.  I can see, when an investment banker is appointed to such a position, asking questions that one would not ask if he came from some other profession.  But he has been in office for 2 ½ years, pursuing regulation of derivatives with sufficient vigor to make most of Wall Street angry.  Reading the words “Goldman Sachs” on someone’s resume should not be a substitute for all other thought processes.

     After the currency crises of 1994-2001, and especially the East Asia crises of 1997-98, a lot of research investigated what countries could do to protect themselves against a future repeat.  More importantly, policy makers in emerging markets took some serious measures.  Some countries abandoned exchange rate targets and began to float.   Many accumulated high levels of foreign exchange reserves.  Many moved away from dollar-denominated debt, toward other kinds of capital inflow that would be less vulnerable to currency mismatch, such as domestic currency debt or Foreign Direct Investment.   Some instituted Collective Action Clauses in their debt contracts to facilitate otherwise-messy restructuring of debt in the event of a severe negative shock.  A few raised reserve requirements or otherwise tightened prudential banking regulations (clearly not enough, in retrospect). And so on.

When the Global Financial Crisis hit ten years later, it was bad news for everyone, except that it was good news for econometricians:  we could observe which countries got hit badly by this common external shock in 2008-09 and which did not, and could try to draw inferences about which strategies helped countries withstand the shock better than others.  The NBER is holding a public symposium in Washington on September 22.   The topic of the 3^rd and final session is: What ex ante policies can help reduce vulnerability to future shocks?

     Three papers that were presented at the earlier NBER conference in Bretton Woods (the culmination of a project on the Global Financial Crisis  sponsored by the Sloan Foundation) fall naturally into this category:

• International Reserves and the Global Financial Crisis, Kathryn Dominguez (University of Michigan), Yuko Hashimoto (IMF), and Takatoshi Ito (University of Tokyo);
• Managing Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls and Prudential Policies,  Jonathan Ostry, Atish Ghosh, Marcos Chamon, and Mahvash Qureshi (all of the IMF);
• International Financial Crises and the IMF: What the Historical Record Shows, Bergljot Barkbu (IMF), Barry Eichengreen (UC, Berkeley), and Ashoka Mody (IMF). 

To simplify a bit, Dominguez and co-authors study whether holding high levels of reserves helped countries do better in the Global Financial Crisis;  Ostry and co-authors study whether capital controls and bank regulation helped; and Barkbu, Eichengreen and Mody consider possible new mechanisms to improve the risk structure of capital inflows and to smooth adjustment to shocks, such as sovereign CoCos (Contingent Convertible bonds) and indexing of debt.

     The question that Dominguez, Hashimoto, and Ito address in International Reserves and the Global Financial Crisis, had been actively debated in the years before 2008.   Some economists thought that China, especially, but other emerging market countries as well, were holding far more foreign exchange reserves than they needed to withstand shocks.  Larry Summers (2006) was one prominent example; I must admit that his argument sounded sensible to me at the time.  When the global financial crisis hit, it was possible to test the proposition.   Some of the early studies found that reserve holdings did not seem to help countries withstand the crisis better.  Blanchard, Faruqee and Klyuev (2009) was one.   A series of papers by Andy Rose and Mark Spiegel (2009a, b) also found no significant effect.   But others found an important effect.    One of the technical contributions of the paper by Dominguez and co-authors is to subtract estimates of interest income and valuation changes from officially report levels of reserves in order to get at the actively managed component.  Their single most important finding is that real GDP growth recovery after the global financial crisis was stronger for countries that had accumulated large reserve holdings before the crisis.

This is the same thing I had found in a study with George Saravelos (NBER WP no.16047, 2010) .   Out of dozens of potential early warning indicators, foreign exchange reserves are the indicator that had been most often identified as significant by eighty pre-2008 studies conducted on earlier data.  We found that reserves are also the indicator that was the strongest predictor of which countries got into trouble in 2008-09. A particularly useful indicator is the ratio of reserves to short-term debt (Guidotti, 2003).   We found that the second most consistently important early warning indicator was overvaluation of the currency by criteria like PPP.   Also important in the recent crisis were measures of national saving.

Why did the Dominguez paper and my paper find that reserves had a significant effect, and others did not?    My guess is that it has to do with different definitions.  In particular, we define the crisis period as late 2008 and early 2009, whereas the earlier papers I mentioned ended in 2008.

     In Managing Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls and Prudential Policies, Ostry, Ghosh, Chamon, and Qureshi do something very important.  Too many discussions lump financial regulations together (speaking indiscriminately of Tobin taxes, Chile-style or Brazil-style controls on short-term capital inflows, Venezuela’s  controls on outflows, etc., even though these are completely different things).  Chamon and co-authors develop three new country indices: one for financial-sector capital controls, one for prudential regulation of foreign exchange transactions in the domestic banking sector, and one for domestic prudential policies.  This helps avoid exacerbating what is often a sterile oversimplified debate.  For example, even if one is ideologically opposed to capital controls, or has been persuaded by research such as Kristin Forbes (2007) that the famous Chile controls caused undesirable distortions, it is hard to be opposed to prudential banking regulations, especially in light of the origins of the 2008 crisis.   Chamon and co-authors find that capital controls and FX-related prudential measures can both help shift the composition of lending, away from FX-denominated bank loans and toward equity and FDI components of capital inflows.   Previous researchers have found that shifts of this sort in the composition of inflow, as opposed to reductions in the level of inflows per se, reduce the probability of a crisis. (Frankel and Rose, 1996, among many others.)   Probably the most important finding by Chamon et al is a reasonably strong statistical association between pre-crisis prudential and capital control policy and resilience to the sudden stop.   Countries in the upper quarter of restrictiveness of FX-related prudential measures do better in a crisis than those in the bottom quarter, by a whopping margin of 2 ½ - 3 ½ % percentage points of growth.  An important lesson for countries facing large inflows today.

     One of the co-authors of International Financial Crises and the IMF: What the Historical Record Shows, Barry Eichengreen, is not just the pre-eminent economic historian of this field but also supplied a lot of the intellectual force behind the adoption of Collective Action Clauses after the preceding round of emerging market crises (e.g., Eichengreen, 2003; and Eichengreen and Mody, 2004).  Thus it is well worth listening to what they have to say about further ideas for structuring capital flows ex ante in such a way as to avoid messy and costly restructuring ex post.

Barkbu, Mody, and Eichengreen explore how to automate the restructuring decision.  Automating the process has key advantages: it preserves the integrity of the contract (which avoids the uncertainties involved in triggering CDS); it is predictable; and it can be priced.   It can also avoid the need for what otherwise might be a lengthy process of renegotiation between debtors and creditors during which time economic activity falls and everyone suffers.  To this end, they discuss the idea of adding to future government bond issues so-called sovereign cocos, contractual provisions that automatically lengthen maturities or reduce interest and amortization payments when a pre-specified debt/GDP ratio is reached.  

There are also other ways of improving risk sharing and avoiding the need for costly restructuring negotiations.  An idea that is older but that I think merits more of a try-out than it has received — applicable for countries that export oil, minerals or agricultural commodities — is to index the debt to the world price of the export commodity.  Also in this category is the basic movement away from dollar-denominated debt and toward domestic-denominated debt, equity and FDI .  It seems to me that countries that heeded such lesson of the 1990s (including many emerging markets in Asia and Latin America) came through the GFC relatively well, whereas those that did not (Eastern Europe), did not.   

References

Barkbu, Bergljot, Barry Eichengreen, and Ashoka Mody, International Financial Crises and the IMF: What the Historical Record Shows, NBER Conference on The Global Financial Crisis, Bretton Woods, NH, June 2011, organized by C.Engel, K.Forbes, and J.Frankel.
Berkmen, Pelin, Gaston Gelos, Robert Rennhack, and James P Walsh (2009), “The Global Financial Crisis: Explaining Cross-Country Differences in the Output Impact“, IMF Working Paper 09/280.
Blanchard, Olivier, Hamid Faruqee, and Vladimir Klyuev (2009), “Did Foreign Reserves Help Weather the Crisis“, IMF Survey Magazine, October.
Chamon, Marcos, Atish Ghosh, Jonathan Ostry, and Mahvash Qureshi, Managing Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls and Prudential Policies,   NBER Conference on The Global Financial Crisis, Bretton Woods, NH, June 2011, organized by C.Engel, K.Forbes, and J.Frankel.
Dominguez, Kathryn, Yuko Hashimoto, and Takatoshi Ito, International Reserves and the Global Financial Crisis, , NBER Conference on The Global Financial Crisis, Bretton Woods, NH, June 2011, organized by C.Engel, K.Forbes, and J.Frankel.
Eichengreen, Barry, 2003, “Restructuring Sovereign Debt,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 4, 1 November , 75-98.
Eichengreen, Barry and Ashoka Mody. 2004, “Do Collective Action Clauses Raise Borrowing Costs?,” Economic Journal, v114 (495,April), 247-264.   NBER WP 7458.
Forbes, Kristin, “One cost of the Chilean capital controls: Increased financial constraints for smaller traded firms,” Journal of International Economics,  71, Issue 2, April 2007, Pages 294-323
Frankel, Jeffrey and George Saravelos (2010), “Are Leading Indicators of Financial Crises Useful for Assessing Country Vulnerability? Evidence from the 2008-09 Global Crisis,” NBER WP 16047, June.
Frankel, Jeffrey, and Andrew Rose (1996) “Currency Crashes in Emerging Markets,” Journal of International Economics 41, no. 3/4, 351-66.
Guidotti, Pablo (2003), in J Antonio Gonzalez, V.Corbo, A.Krueger, and A.Tornell, (eds.), Latin American Macroeconomic Reforms: The Second Stage, University of Chicago Press.
Obstfeld, Maurice, Jay Shambaugh, and Alan Taylor (2009), “Financial Instability, Reserves, and Central Bank Swap Lines in the Panic of 2008,” American Economic Review, 99(2):480-486.
Obstfeld, Maurice, Jay Shambaugh, and Alan Taylor (2010), “Financial Stability, the Trilemma, and International Reserves“, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics.
Rose, Andrew and Mark Spiegel (2009a), “The Causes and Consequences of the 2008 Crisis: Early Warning,” Global Journal of Economics. NBER Working Paper 15357.
Rose, Andrew, and Mark Spiegel (2009b), “The Causes and Consequences of the 2008 Crisis: International Linkages and American Exposure,” Pacific Economic Review.
Summers, Lawrence, 2006,  “Reflections on Global Account Imbalances and Emerging Markets Reserve Accumulation,” March 24.

My preceding blogpost identified three mistakes made by leaders of the European Economic and Monetary Union in dealing with Greece.   But what is done is done.  The mistakes now lie in the past.  How can Europe’s fiscal regime be reformed to avoid future repeats of this crisis?  

The reforms that are now underway are not credible.  (”We are going to make the fiscal rules more explicit and make sure to monitor them more tightly next time.”)    Similarly, most proposals for how to put teeth into the rules are not credible — penalties such as monetary fines or loss of voting privileges. 

It is too late for Greece. But it is not too late for a euroland reform that would help avoid the re-emergence of unsustainable sovereign debt levels next time around by applying the lesson of mistake number two: to adjust the ECB policy of accepting the debt of all member states as collateral.  This is the policy that short-circuited warning signals that the private markets would otherwise have sent via interest rates during 2002-2007.  

My proposal:   The eurozone should in the future adopt a rule that whenever a country violates the fiscal criterion of the Stability and Growth Pact (say, a budget deficit in excess of 3% of GDP, structurally adjusted), the ECB must stop accepting that government’s debt as collateral.  This system would achieve the elusive objective of true automaticity.   If a country exceeded the threshold for justifiable reasons, such as natural disaster, the private markets could perceive that and impose little or no default risk premium.   No judgment of the merits by bureaucrats or politicians would be required.   More likely, for periphery countries, the result of such a re-classification would be the re-emergence of sovereign spreads of moderate magnitudes, in between the extremes of the 2002-07 lows and the 2009-11 highs (see chart).  The interest rate premium would send a message far more credibly, forcefully, and promptly than any warning that any Brussels bureaucracy will ever turn out.  

This is how it works among the U.S. states and municipalities.  Despite the absence of their own currencies, the recurrence of dysfunctional local politics and excessive deficits, and even a history of state defaults in the 19^th century, federal bailouts are not delivered and are not expected.   Without some such device, the new European Stability Mechanism is in danger of becoming a mechanism for instability.

[Niels Thygesen made the case in favor of the current reform track in "Governance in the Euro Area" at the Challenge of Europe session of INET's Annual Conference, Bretton Woods, NH, April 10, 2011. I gave my comment there as well. (Video)]

[Comments can be posted on the Vox.eu site (which has the copyright.)]

By now just about everybody agrees that the European bailout of Greece has failed:  The debt will have to be restructured.    As has been evident for well over a year, it is not possible to think of a plausible combination of Greek budget balance, sovereign risk premium, and economic growth rates that imply anything other than an explosive path for the future ratio of debt to GDP.

There is plenty of blame to go around.  But three big mistakes can be attributed to the European leadership.  This includes the European Central Bank - surprisingly, in that the ECB has otherwise been the most competent and successful of Europe-wide institutions.

Mistake number 1 was the decision in 2000 to admit Greece in the first place.   The country was an outlier, geographically and economically.  It did not come close to meeting the Maastricht Criteria, particularly the 3 % ceiling on the budget deficit as a share of GDP.  No doubt most Greeks would agree with the judgment that they would be much better off today if they were outside the euro, free to devalue and restore their lost competitiveness.

The second mistake was to allow the interest rate spreads on sovereign bonds issued by Greece (and other periphery countries) to fall almost to zero during the period 2002-2007.   Despite budget deficits and debt levels that far exceeded the limits of the Stability and Growth Pact, Greece was able to borrow almost as easily as Germany.  Part of the blame belongs to international investors who grossly underestimated risk on all sorts of assets during this period.  And part of the blame belongs to the rating agencies who, as usual, have been lagging indicators of European debt troubles, rather than leading indicators.  But in this case, both groups might justify their attitudes by pointing out that the ECB accepted Greek debt as collateral, on a par with German debt.

The third mistake was the failure to send Greece to the IMF early in the crisis, before Greek interest rates went to 600 basis points (see graph).  By January 2010 the need to go to the Fund should have been clear.  Rather than going into shock, leaders in Frankfurt and Brussels could have welcomed the Greek crisis as a useful opportunity to establish a precedent for the long-term life of the euro.   The idea that a debt problem of this sort would eventually arise somewhere in euroland cannot have come as a surprise.  After all, why had the architects of the Maastricht fiscal criteria and the No Bailout Clause (1991) and the Stability & Growth Pact (1997) written them in the first place?   Skeptical German taxpayers believed that, before the project was done, they would be asked to bail out some spendthrift Mediterranean country.  European elites adopted the fiscal rules precisely to combat these fears.   

When the rules failed and the crisis came, the leaders should have thanked their lucky stars that the first test case had arisen in a country that met two characteristics admirably:   
(i) The Greek government had broken the rules so egregiously and so frequently that one could with a clear conscience judge that a firm stand was merited.  The only alternative was to risk establishing the precedent that even profligate governments can expect ultimately to be bailed out, with all the moral hazard headaches that precedent implies.    (ii) The Greek economy was small enough to make it feasible for Europe to come up with the funds necessary to insulate others who were vulnerable to contagion but not as blameworthy:  banks that hold Greek debt and governments such as Ireland that had tried to follow responsible policies in the period before the global financial crisis.

European leaders also should have thanked their stars that the IMF exists.   Instead of acting as if such a crisis had never been seen before, they should have realized that imposing policy conditionality in rescue loan packages is precisely the IMF’s job.  International politics is less likely to prevent the Fund from enforcing painful fiscal retrenchment and other difficult conditions than it is among regional neighbors or other political allies.   Europe is no different in this respect than Latin America or Asia.  

But the reaction of leaders in both Frankfurt and Brussels was that going to the Fund was unthinkable, that this was a problem to be settled within Europe.   They chose to play for time instead, to treat insolvency as illiquidity.  Against all evidence — despite a decade of SGP violations — they still wish to believe that they can impose fiscal discipline on member states.  Despite two decades in which citizens of Germany and other European countries have expressed clearly that they do not share their leaders’ enthusiasm for Economic and Monetary Union, the latter apparently still wish to believe that further progress to political and fiscal union is possible.  The emu has long since become an ostrich, burying its head in the sand.

It turned out that the German taxpayers had been right all along.   How, in light of that democratic deficit, can anyone think that Europe is ready for a transfer union? 

Next week’s post:   A proposal to avoid future repeats of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis.

These matters were discussed in a session on the Challenge of Europe at the Annual Conference of George Soros’ INET, April 10, 2011.  Video & slides are available, including my own comment.

[Comments can be posted on the Vox.eu site.]