Another good article by the New York Times today (in addition to the article on torture in Afghanistan eloquently covered in Welshman’s story below): Krugman has a column which touches a topic I have written about here – the noxious and unsustainable trade and financial relationship between the US and China, and he covers it with his usual talent:
Here’s what I think will happen if and when China changes its currency policy, and those cheap loans are no longer available. U.S. interest rates will rise; the housing bubble will probably burst; construction employment and consumer spending will both fall; falling home prices may lead to a wave of bankruptcies. And we’ll suddenly wonder why anyone thought financing the budget deficit was easy.
In other words, we’ve developed an addiction to Chinese dollar purchases, and will suffer painful withdrawal symptoms when they come to an end.
And it’s actually even worse than that, because it appears the the US Treasury is lying about the scale of the problem.
The coming crash
Money is pouring into China, both because of its rapidly rising trade surplus and because of investments by Western and Japanese companies. Normally, this inflow of funds would be self-correcting: both China’s trade surplus and the foreign investment pouring in would push up the value of the yuan, China’s currency, making China’s exports less competitive and shrinking its trade surplus.
But the Chinese government, unwilling to let that happen, has kept the yuan down by shipping the incoming funds right back out again, buying huge quantities of dollar assets – about $200 billion worth in 2004, and possibly as much as $300 billion worth this year. This is economically perverse: China, a poor country where capital is still scarce by Western standards, is lending vast sums at low interest rates to the United States.
Yet the U.S. has become dependent on this perverse behavior. Dollar purchases by China and other foreign governments have temporarily insulated the U.S. economy from the effects of huge budget deficits. This money flowing in from abroad has kept U.S. interest rates low despite the enormous government borrowing required to cover the budget deficit.
Low interest rates, in turn, have been crucial to America’s housing boom. And soaring house prices don’t just create construction jobs; they also support consumer spending because many homeowners have converted rising house values into cash by refinancing their mortgages.
Borrow and binge, courtesy of “Bubbles” Greenspan and the complicity of the Chinese. If you don’t believe it is a binge, take a look at that graph:
(From Financial Sense)
Back to Krugman (I skip the parts where he explains how domestic US politics are feeding the calls to revalue the yuan) and what should be done:
But the negative effects of a change in Chinese currency policy will probably be immediate, while the positive effects may take years to materialize. And as far as I can tell, nobody in a position of power is thinking about how we’ll deal with the consequences if China actually gives in to U.S. demands, and lets the yuan rise.
Doesn’t this sound like Iraq all over again? No planning for the future? Except that this time, it’s not just a couple hundred billion at stake, it’s about ten trillion (yep, ten thousand billion) dollars worth of assets whose value may drop significantly. You’d expect them to care about that, maybe?
How it is actually worse than that
But they are actually doing something worse than nothing – they are apparently actively hiding the real numbers, as flagged by Rob Kirby over at Financial Sense, in two installments:
Two months ago he pointed out that the statistics on holdings of US treasuries by international investors had “gained” a new player, whose numbers seemes to move in strange ways:
Upon further examination of the red line in the table above depicting the Caribbean banking centre and their holdings of US securities; what stands out above all else is that this line, unlike any other jurisdiction in the world, looks contrived, lacks continuity and its erratic fluctuations give the appearance that this line is being used as a “plug”. Actually, the term `skullduggery’ comes to mind. It should be remembered that other jurisdictions in the world are home to hedge funds also, yet none of them exhibit such wild fluctuations in their monthly reporting. Strange, ehh?
You see folks, it’s officialdom and their Wall Street shills themselves that would have us believe that Caribbean based hedge funds have actually `picked up the slack’ so to speak [if you want to call 23 billion slack], and anted up this enormous amount of investment capital to float the American government’s profligacy pontoon boat.
(…)
The foregoing suggests that hedge funds categorically did not buy these securities. The explanations being offered up as plausible by officialdom and fed to us by the main steam financial press are not consistent with empirical facts or market observations. There are no wide spread or significant losses being reported by the hedge fund community from ill gotten losses in the Treasury market.
The answer to the question posed above, dear reader, rests with one determining who else in the world has pockets that deep, to buy 23 billion bucks worth of securities in a single month? One might surmise that a printing press would be required to come up with that kind of cash on such short notice, ehhh? Observing my surroundings, I can see rapidly rising prices for virtually everything. Look at the CRB index. Look at the price of oil. Look at the price of houses. Look at the sorry state of the dollar and listen to its biggest holders complain that they are holding too many of them?
Basically, he was saying that:
- the “Caribean” statistics behave very differently from others, including from other hedge fund centers
- these statistics for January imply that hedge funds lost a lot of money that month, which is not compatible with what happened in the market that month
- the only explanation left (he discounts others in his article) is that the US government is starting to print money.
Devaluation by inflation. Soth America in the 80s anyone?
But wait, it gets even worse. This week, he came up with a new twist in the data:
Economic history has apparently been rewritten folks. The inconsistencies and conflicting data being fed to us by officialdom are brazenly astonishing. In the month of Jan. 05 alone, Japan’s holdings of US securities have been retro altered to the tune of over 20 billion, China’s by close to 30 billion and the United Kingdom’s by more than 60 billion. Can any of us really believe anything these folks have to say? Imagine, a restatement of this magnitude without as much as an explanatory footnote or a press release? Somehow, none of this is even deemed to be newsworthy? What’s beginning to scare me; if the US Treasury tells us the world is flat – what happens to the South Pole?
Basically, he has looked at the data provided by the Treasury in May and in March about January numbers, and he has found wild differences, which cannot be explained away as simple corrections (you can see the full tables in his article).
Put simply, he says that the Treasury Dept. has cooked the books to the tune of at least 60 billion dollars, and that such manipulation puts in doubt all the slightly reassuring numbers that have come in recent months on the foreing debt holdings front – i.e. the apparent willingness of foreign central banks and investors to keep on buying US Treasuries and fund the US current account deficit and consumer binge.
This is really worrying, because if foreigners will not foot that bill anymore, the only two options (which ultimately amount to the same thing) are to print money (thus leading to inflation, and by reaction, to increasing interest rates) or to offer much higher interest rates to outside investors.
Either way, consumption will fall and house prices will not be sustainable.
Basically, what Krugman says could come even quicker than expected if the underlying number have been cooked by the Treasury.
Frankly, with this administration, this sounds all too credible. Hang in tight.
So that’s what “Who’s Ken Lay?” meant: “That’s nuthing. Now watch this, folks.”
Perhaps this is a good time for American tribbers to sell their houses; rent some flats temporarily; buy their houses back after the housing bust; and use the profit to order China as a take-away?
I noted this little tidbit two days ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk :
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 18/05/2005)
Norway has slashed its holdings of US Treasury bonds in the latest sign that foreign governments may be losing their appetite for “costly” American debt.
Europe’s second biggest investor in US Treasuries, Norway halved its holding in March from $33.8billion (£18.4billion) to $16.9billion, according to fresh data released in Washington.
Market analysts said Norway’s government petroleum fund was almost certainly responsible for the sell-off.
Flush with petrodollars, the $160billion fund invests worldwide to cover future pensions and health costs long after Norway runs out of oil and gas.
A US Treasury report on Monday revealed that Norwegian sales accounted for a surprise $15billion drop in net purchases of US securities by foreign institutions in March. Steiner Juel, Nordea bank’s chief economist in Norway, said the fund appeared to be making a timely exit before a possible bloodbath in the US debt markets.
“They’re afraid that long-term interest rates will go up strongly, leading to heavy losses in bonds. The view is that yields are much too low,” he said.
Another miner’s canary biting the dust?
Finance doesn’t come naturally to me, but the implication is that the US gov’t is surreptitiously buying back its own paper via the Caribbean (with the UK picking pu a part of the load according to the second figures) and lying about it. Is that about the size of it?
That kind of egregious behavior carries a risk of serious jail time if committed by you average (or average-contributor) CEO.
Jerome, thanks for another well-written post. As with your previous observations on these issues, I agree with your support for the Krugman argument about the relationship between China and the US domestic economy.
However, when it comes to your reference to Rob Kirby ‘revealing’ the US Treasury cooking the books, I have to declare that I am a cautious bureaucrat who likes to check facts. Remembering the famous aphorism about there being three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics, I usually ask myself questions about how particular statistics are collected, what definitions are used, etc.
Having said that, I’m afraid Rob Kirby doesn’t convince me at all that these statistics are lies.
A footnote to the US Treasury table he reproduces says:
This led me to look at how the US Treasury figures on foreign ownership of US securities are collected and reported:
So it would appear that the basic data (presumably those which contribute to the usual monthly Treasury release) are collected from reports by financial institutions on their transactions.
Then the US Treasury provides some information on revisions to the data:
I haven’t followed through far enough to be able to describe exactly how the annual survey is conducted, but suffice it to say that it is considered more reliable than the estimates based on monthly financial institution returns.
What seems apparent is that the Treasury International Capital report for April includes a revision of the January figures based on better data from the annual survey, whereas the initial report for January was based on returns from financial institutions who did not necessarily know or report accurately the beneficial owner of securities.
There is another dimension to what I think is Rob Kirby’s sensationalism. It relates to the relative size of the statistical changes he claims represent fraud. When he says that the April revision of January figures shows “Japan’s holdings of US securities have been retro altered to the tune of over 20 billion, China’s by close to 30 billion and the United Kingdom’s by more than 60 billion” he doesn’t give the full story. The adjustment for Japan, while a mind-boggling dollar number for most of us, is only about a 3.2% revision to the figure for Japanese holdings. The larger revision for Chinese holdings admittedly represents a 14.9% increase, but it is apparent that the whole series on Chinese holdings for the last year has been adjusted upwards on the basis of the annual survey.
When it comes to the UK figure being changed by $60 billion or 38.5%, I am quite prepared to believe that this sort of change, representing 3.2% of US securities on issue, is explained by the role of London as a financial centre (ie the initial monthly transaction summary showed purchases by London banks – later info reveals this to have been purchases on behalf of foreign clients).
Similarly I think the conspiracy theory surrounding the “Pirates of the Caribbean” dissolves when you consider that the “walloping 23 billion in additional US debt in the latest reporting month [Jan. 05]” followed a similarly ‘walloping’ $21 billion reduction in holdings between October and November last year. Again, I’d have to say that the Caribbean is not just a financial centre, but it is a centre through which those who want to conceal themselves like to operate. Therefore statistics collected in the form described by the US Treasury are quite likely to alter with annual survey data improving the monthly transaction reports from Caribbean banks.
In summary, I think that it is entirely credible that better data after the event could lead to the kind of adjustments the Treasury is reporting. In my very humble experience (bureaucrats are, after all, mere servants), this sort of revision is common with the most respectable of independent statistics in my own country.
cb – all reasonable points.
But:
It’s possible that it’s nothing out of the ordinary, but it does smell strange.
Assuming your second point is referring to the $20 billion month-on-month change in Caribbean holdings; why assume it is the operation of hedge funds? Surely the beneficial owners could still be hidden, both as to nationality and nature.
Isn’t it more significant to note that there has been no significant upwards or downwards trend in aggregate foreign holding of US securities over the last eight months, and that there is also no clear trend in Caribbean holdings? Month-on-month figures jump around wildly.
.
The US of A left the Western World pay for the Vietnam adventures, West-Germany took on the investments for the GDR, sharing debt with Western Europe, and George #43 is trying to burden the World with his adventures in the Middle East.
One fantasy too many, wrong time and wrong planet. I believe this time it will backfire and is gonna hurt!
Plenty of sayings about the third time:
“Third Time Lucky?” I don’t think so.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
The “adjusted” annotation to the Home Values graph should raise some eyebrows.
Anyone in the construction industry can tell you that “quality” started taking a nosedive around 1978. If the house is built before 1974 or so, chances are it has actual no.1 grade pine in it. And 2x4s not 2x3s… What you get now is mostly glued sawdust. And even the quality of glue today is suspect.
So the Bubble “Value” of a new house, today, really only exists on paper. Which is also “sawdust.” In other words it looks like real inflation in the housing industry is completely out of control…
And has been under Bubbles Greenspan.
Deliberately it would seem.
Houses going up within a week do raise eyebrows (and mold from what I hear) – but you find those willing to pay 1 to 2 million for them. Historically it’s always a bad sign when things become cheaper. Technology doesn’t get repaired – it gets thrown out and replaced
And you’re right about the glue…
Loss of jobs in the private sector, yet an increase in government jobs. The war is continuously demanding more money, unemployment numbers only mean something if you’re receiving unemployment benefits (lasts 6-12 months). Tax cuts (though that is a bit misleading when you figure in the alternative minimum tax, which primarily targets the NE – it’s a underhanded way of increasing taxes – with that and the increase in home heating oil which has almost doubled, and the lack of tax money being redirected to this area, our government cash cow days are numbered). The dollar holdings of foreign countries (which some are now slowly switching to the EURO – since it’s viewed as more stable) and our staggering international debt are phenomenal. Our “wealth” is artificial, and I don’t see this being sustained very much longer without heavy inflation. I also get the impression that our friends are not blatantly ditching us because if we go down it may well cause a worldwide recession.
The only way for us to keep believing everything is good is if they tell us it is good, and I’m sure they’re working very hard on that.
“Bubbles” Greenspan gave a speech at the Economic Club of New York. Get the skinny at CNN.
A couple of money quotes:
“We don’t perceive that there is a national bubble but it’s hard not to see … that there are a lot of local bubbles…”
I see. We don’t have a national problem just lots of little bitty problems all over the place like Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Los Angles, New York, San Diego, Baltimore, Boston – ya know, insignificant geographical areas that that.
“Without calling the overall national issue a bubble, it’s pretty clear that it’s an unsustainable underlying pattern. What we see are a number of forces, which are, as far as I can judge, not infinitely projectable,” he said.”
So … if it’s a “unsustainable underlying pattern” that is “not infinitely projectable” it’s not a bubble. What is it? “Alan Greenspan said Friday the booming U.S. housing sector shows signs of some “froth”…”
Look again at the chart Jerome put up:
And now let’s look at a FRED (Fed Reserve Economic Database) for M3 over the last 20 years (Seasonably Adjusted):
From 1990 to 1995, when M3 growth was flat the housing prices declined. And, by gum, right about the time – 1995 – Bubbles started cranking the old printing press house prices started to sky rocket.
Now either Alan is stupid or he knows damn well the US is in a classic inflation-driven asset price bubble and he is lying.