The Baseline Scenario
Krugman on Economics
Expert Panels and Bipartisan Consensus
Football, Statistics, and Agency Problems
Krugman on Economics
Posted: 04 Sep 2009 07:46 AM PDT
This weekend’s New York Times Magazine has the 7,000-word article about the state of macroeconomics that Paul Krugman has been hinting at for some time now. It’s a well-written, non-technical overview of the landscape and the position Krugman has been presenting on his blog, which for now I’ll just summarize for those who may not have the time to set aside just now.
Like many, Krugman faults the discipline for its infatuation with mathematical elegance:
“[T]he central cause of the profession’s failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess.
“Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong. They turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets — especially financial markets — that can cause the economy’s operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don’t believe in regulation.”
His history of post-Depression macroeconomics goes through roughly three phases: Keynesianism; Milton Friedman and monetarism, which, he argues, was relatively moderate compared to the positions of some of his self-styled followers; and the period from the 1980s until 2007, which he describes as the conflict between the Saltwater (coastal, pragmatic, New Keynesian) economists and the Freshwater (inland, efficient markets, neo-classicist) economists. According to Krugman, these two schools had differences on a theoretical level, but those differences were papered over by practical agreement on government policy: namely, monetary policy was superior to fiscal policy at managing the economy.
This false peace was exploded during the financial crisis by the zero bound, something Krugman has invoked often. The agreed-upon way to stimulate the economy in a recession is to lower interest rates. When interest rates hit zero, they can’t be lowered anymore (rather than lend you money and expect to get less back in the future, I should put it under my mattress), and then the policy question is what if anything else should be done. This provoked the fallout between people who favored the stimulus as a way of propping up demand and those who thought that for theoretical reasons a stimulus could not possibly have any positive impact.
In addition, Krugman argues, the two sides shared the same desire to represent the world using elegant mathematical models: “But the New Keynesian models that have come to dominate teaching and research assume that people are perfectly rational and financial markets are perfectly efficient.” Instead, we need to look to behavioral finance and behavioral economics, which has just gone from a hot fad in economics to the bandwagon to end all bandwagons. Krugman mentions Larry Summers’s “There Are IDIOTS” paper, which must now be the world’s most-cited-although-unpublished article, Robert Shiller, Andrei Schleifer, and Robert Vishny in particular.
This is from Krugman’s conclusion:
“So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics.”
In other words, the world is messy and people are irrational, and as a result the world breaks down occasionally.
The field of economics has been going on a massive land-grab over the past few decades. It’s ironic that the area it seems to understand the least well is how an overall economy functions.
By James Kwak
Expert Panels and Bipartisan Consensus
Posted: 04 Sep 2009 06:52 AM PDT
Last week, Planet Money aired an interview by Adam Davidson with Barney Frank, the blunt and colorful chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Davidson and Frank had a pitched disagreement over the question of whether it made sense to appoint a bipartisan, expert panel to take some time – figures between one and three years were thrown around – to study the causes of the financial crisis and, on that basis, recommend regulatory changes. Davidson thought it was a good idea; Frank thought it was nonsense.
I’m with Frank on this one, and the argument applies to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, also known hopefully as the “New Pecora Commission,” appointed by Congress to study the causes of the crisis.
A parallel is commonly drawn to the 9/11 Commission, which I believe is widely considered to have been both genuinely bipartisan and worthwhile. However, I think the differences are more important here. On September 12, 2001, most people – certainly including most people in government and policy, and almost certainly including even the most highly-placed people in the country – had only the vaguest idea of how nineteen terrorists had infiltrated the country and managed to hijack four plans, using three of them successfully as bombs. The Commission’s mandate was to understand how that happened, and in particular how our intelligence and security agencies had failed to prevent this attack. That is, there was a shortage of information, and most of the information was classified anyway, so a thorough investigation was called for.
By September 16, 2008, most people in the business already knew the causes of the financial crisis: cheap money, new and predatory mortgage products, lax underwriting practices, the transfer of risk through securitization. dependence on ratings by overwhelmed rating agencies, failure of regulatory agencies to regulate, greediness on the part of banks and bankers who ate up their own AAA-rated dog food, unhealthy dependence on short-term funding, etc. There has been argument about the relative importance of these factors, but the basic story is so well known that it has spawned multiple cartoon caricatures. There is little fact-finding necessary to determine the causes of the crisis; we should already be at the phase of analyzing empirical data, and I can predict with confidence that seventy years from now there will be economic historians arguing both sides of this question; after all, that’s what happened with the Great Depression.
I expect, and hope, that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will uncover some especially sordid details of bankers laughing about screwing their customers, or regulators on the take from the banking industry. And if that happened, then those people should be sued or put in jail. But we already know that bankers were screwing their customers, and we know that regulatory agencies were friendly toward the banking industry (whether because of corruption, simple ideological alignment, or orders by political appointees makes little difference in the broad story).
I am skeptical that months or years of study will bring us any closer to consensus on the major questions, because the crisis is so overdetermined; there is plenty of evidence to construct multiple plausible narratives about how it happened, each one of which points to a different regulatory solution (and whether you could get that solution through Congress is yet another question).
Thinking cynically, spending 1-3 years studying the problem could also be cover to let the issue fade away; the impetus for reform is already far weaker today than it was in, say, February when Citigroup was going through its third near-death experience. I know that’s not Davidson’s intent, but I’m sure there are others who would be only too happy to bet that the economy and the popular mood will return to normal. Remember Sarbanes-Oxley? It was weaker than originally imagined, and by 2007 there was a movement afoot to repeal it, since people had already forgotten Enron and Worldcom. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen again.
By James Kwak
Football, Statistics, and Agency Problems
Posted: 03 Sep 2009 07:48 PM PDT
The most interesting part of Monday’s post on TARP may have been this little football example:
In honor of the changing seasons, imagine it’s the first quarter of a football game and you have fourth-and-one at the other team’s 40-yard line. Anyone who studies football statistics will say you should go for it; it’s not even close. (Some people have run the numbers and said that a football team should never – that’s right, never – kick a punt.) If the offense fails to make it, the announcer, and the commentators the next day, will all say that it was a bad decision. That’s completely wrong. It was a good decision; it just didn’t work out.
One of my friends was particularly intrigued by the theory that a football team should never punt. I recall reading this somewhere, but I couldn’t find it actually demonstrated anywhere, although this high school football team implemented the strategy – and won the state championship. That article cites “Do Firms Maximize? Evidence from Professional Football” by David Romer, who analyzes the punting question in detail.
He calculates the point value of a first down at any point on the field, and from that the point value of the “kicking” and “going for it” options at any point on the field; the point value of the punt option is based on the opponent’s expected field position, while the point values of the field goal and go for it options are based on your expected points and the expected resulting field position.
The conclusion (PDF p. 14) is that over most of the field you should go for it if you have four or fewer yards to go; there is a big spike around the opponent’s 33-yard line where you should go for it even on fourth and nine, because the net field position benefit of punting is low and the expected point value of attempting a field goal is low.
The implication, of course, is that football teams don’t maximize. Romer concedes that making the right decision on fourth down would lead to about one more win every three years, and this is probably outweighed by the asymmetric returns: you are more likely to be penalized (as a coach) if you go against convention and are wrong than if you follow convention, since the fans (and the owners) are more likely to notice departures from convention. So the incentives of football coaches are not simply to maximize points, but also to maintain their reputations.
It probably wouldn’t be too hard to come up with a banking analogy at this point, but I won’t beat a dead horse.
Update: Commenter Ian M. helpfully links to this analysis of the “never punt” strategy. Taunter also says that Gregg Easterbrook (Tuesday Morning Quarterback at ESPN) has been advocating this strategy.
By James Kwak
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Reich Says We're Not Even at the End of the Beginning
Let alone the beginning of the end.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-were-not-at-beginning-of-end-and.html
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-were-not-at-beginning-of-end-and.html
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Robert Merton Explains Our Crisis -- You've Got to See and Hear
First the Great Unwinding at AIG:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIGs-CDS-Hoard-The-Great-bizwk-14867385.html?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD
Merton, an economist with MIT, won the Nobel Prize in 1997. The first few minutes is boring introductions etc. After this there is an hour and 15 minutes of excellence. It too is boring until you catch on, as it explains that things aren't just linear as assumed probably by most of the "players" when they bought this stuff (credit default swaps, whatever). It's sort of the difference between algebra and advanced calculus, presented simply in the form of a chart on puts.
http://paul.kedrosky.com/
And this blog leads to this:
More
BigCharts
Graphics
OPINION
APRIL 6, 2009, 11:08 A.M. ET
From Bubble to Depression?
By STEVEN GJERSTAD and VERNON L. SMITH
Bubbles have been frequent in economic history, and they occur in the laboratories of experimental economics under conditions which -- when first studied in the 1980s -- were considered so transparent that bubbles would not be observed.
We economists were wrong: Even when traders in an asset market know the value of the asset, bubbles form dependably. Bubbles can arise when some agents buy not on fundamental value, but on price trend or momentum. If momentum traders have more liquidity, they can sustain a bubble longer.
But what sparks bubbles? Why does one large asset bubble -- like our dot-com bubble -- do no damage to the financial system while another one leads to its collapse? Key characteristics of housing markets -- momentum trading, liquidity, price-tier movements, and high-margin purchases -- combine to provide a fairly complete, simple description of the housing bubble collapse, and how it engulfed the financial system and then the wider economy.
In just the past 40 years there were two other housing bubbles, with peaks in 1979 and 1989, but the largest one in U.S. history started in 1997, probably sparked by rising household income that began in 1992 combined with the elimination in 1997 of taxes on residential capital gains up to $500,000. Rising values in an asset market draw investor attention; the early stages of the housing bubble had this usual, self-reinforcing feature.
The 2001 recession might have ended the bubble, but the Federal Reserve decided to pursue an unusually expansionary monetary policy in order to counteract the downturn. When the Fed increased liquidity, money naturally flowed to the fastest expanding sector. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations aggressively pursued the goal of expanding homeownership, so credit standards eroded. Lenders and the investment banks that securitized mortgages used rising home prices to justify loans to buyers with limited assets and income. Rating agencies accepted the hypothesis of ever rising home values, gave large portions of each security issue an investment-grade rating, and investors gobbled them up.
But housing expenditures in the U.S. and most of the developed world have historically taken about 30% of household income. If housing prices more than double in a seven-year period without a commensurate increase in income, eventually something has to give. When subprime lending, the interest-only adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), and the negative-equity option ARM were no longer able to sustain the flow of new buyers, the inevitable crash could no longer be delayed.
The price decline started in 2006. Then policies designed to promote the American dream instead produced a nightmare. Trillions of dollars of mortgages, written to buyers with slender equity, started a wave of delinquencies and defaults. Borrowers' losses were limited to their small down payments; hence, the lion's share of the losses was transmitted into the financial system and it collapsed.
During the 1976-79 and 1986-89 housing price bubbles, the effective federal-funds interest rate was rising while housing prices rose: The Federal Reserve, "leaning against the wind," helped mitigate the bubbles. In January 2001, however, after four years with average inflation-adjusted house price increases of 7.2% per year (about 6% above trend for the past 80 years), the Fed started to decrease the fed-funds rate. By December 2001, the rate had been reduced to its lowest level since 1962. In 2002 the average fed-funds rate was lower than in any year since the 1958 recession. In 2003 and 2004 the average fed-funds rates were lower than in any year since 1955 when the rate series began.
Monetary policy, mortgage finance, relaxed lending standards, and tax-free capital gains provided astonishing economic stimulus: Mortgage loan originations increased an average of 56% per year for three years -- from $1.05 trillion in 2000 to $3.95 trillion in 2003!
By the time the Federal Reserve began to slowly raise the fed-funds rate in May 2004, the Case-Shiller 20-city composite index had increased 15.4% during the previous 12 months. Yet the housing portion of the CPI for those same 12 months rose only 2.4%.
How could this happen? In 1983, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began to use rental equivalence for homeowner-occupied units instead of direct home-ownership costs. Between 1983 and 1996, the price-to-rental ratio increased from 19.0 to 20.2, so the change had little effect on measured inflation: The CPI underestimated inflation by about 0.1 percentage point per year during this period. Between 1999 and 2006, the price-to-rent ratio shot up from 20.8 to 32.3.
With home price increases out of the CPI and the price-to-rent ratio rapidly increasing, an important component of inflation remained outside the index. In 2004 alone, the price-rent ratio increased 12.3%. Inflation for that year was underestimated by 2.9 percentage points (since "owners' equivalent rent" is about 23% of the CPI). If home-ownership costs were included in the CPI, inflation would have been 6.2% instead of 3.3%.
With nominal interest rates around 6% and inflation around 6%, the real interest rate was near zero, so household borrowing took off. As measured by the Case-Shiller 10 city index, the accumulated inflation in home-ownership costs between January 1999 and June 2006 was 151%, but the CPI measured a mere 23% increase. As the Federal Reserve monitored inflation in the early part of this decade, home-price increases were no longer visible in the CPI, so the lax monetary policy continued. Even after the Fed began to slowly raise the fed-funds rate in May 2004, the average rate remained low and the bubble continued to inflate for two more years.
The unraveling of the bubble is in many ways the most fascinating part of the story, and the most painful reality we are now experiencing. The median price of existing homes had fallen from $230,000 in July to $217,300 in November 2006. By the beginning of 2007, in 17 of the 20 cities in the Case-Shiller index, prices were falling. Serious price declines had not yet begun, but the warning signs were there for alert observers.
Kate Kelly, writing in this newspaper (Dec. 14, 2007), tells the story of how Goldman Sachs avoided the fate of many of the other investment banks that packaged mortgages into securities. Goldman loaded up on the Markit ABX index of credit default swaps between early December 2006 and late February 2007, as their price dropped from 97.70 on Dec. 4 to under 64 by Feb. 27. But the market was not yet in free-fall: The insurance on AAA-rated parts of the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) remained inexpensive. By mid-summer 2007, concern spread to the AAA-rated tranches of MBS.
At the end of February 2007, the cost of $10 million of insurance on the AAA-rated portion of a mortgage-backed security was still only $68,000 plus a $9,000 annual premium. Housing-market conditions deteriorated further in the first half of 2007. Case-Shiller tiered price sequences in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Miami all show serious declines by the summer of 2007. Prices in the low-price tier in San Francisco were down almost 13% from their peak by July 2007; in San Diego they were off 10% by July 2007. Startling developments began to unfold that month. Between July 9 and Aug. 3, 2007, the cost of insuring AAA MBS tranches went from $50,000 upfront plus a $9,000 annual premium for $10 million of insurance to over $900,000 upfront (plus the annual premium).
Once the cost of insuring new mortgage-backed securities skyrocketed, mortgage financing from MBS rapidly declined. Subprime originations plummeted from $160 billion in the third quarter of 2006 to $28 billion in the third quarter of 2007. Mortgage-backed security issuance fell comparably, from $483 billion in all of 2006 to only $30.7 billion in the third quarter of 2007. Other measures of new loan originations were falling at the same time. The liquidity that generated the housing market bubble was evaporating.
Trouble quickly spread from the cost of insuring mortgage-backed securities to problems with credit markets generally, as the spread between short-term U.S. Treasury debt and the LIBOR rate increased to 2.40% from 0.44% between Aug. 8 and Aug. 20, 2007. Since U.S. Treasury debt is generally considered secure, but a bank's loans to another bank carry some risk of default, the spread between these rates serves as an indicator of perceived risk in financial markets.
In one city after another, prices of homes in the low-price tier appreciated the most and then fell the most; prices in the high-priced tier appreciated least and fell the least. The price index graphs for Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Miami show that in all of these cities, prices in the low-price tier have fallen between 50% and 57%. Moreover, housing prices have continually declined in every market in the Case-Shiller index. According to First American CoreLogic, 10.5 million households had negative or near negative equity in December 2008. When housing prices turned down, many borrowers with low income and few assets other than their slender home equity faced foreclosure. The remaining losses had to be absorbed by the financial system. Consequently, the financial system has suffered a blow unlike anything since the Great Depression, and the source is the weak financial position of the people holding declining assets.
Earlier, during the downturn in the equities market between December 1999 and September 2002, approximately $10 trillion of equity was erased. But a measure of financial system performance, the Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods BKX index of financial firms, fell less than 6% during that period. In the current downturn, the value of residential real estate has fallen by approximately $3 trillion, but the BKX index has now fallen 75% from its peak of January 2007. The financial sector has been devastated in this crisis, whereas it was almost completely unaffected by the downturn in the equities market early in this decade.
How can one crash that wipes out $10 trillion in assets cause no damage to the financial system and another that causes $3 trillion in losses devastate the financial system?
In the equities-market downturn early in this decade, declining assets were held by institutional and individual investors that either owned the assets outright, or held only a small fraction on margin, so losses were absorbed by their owners. In the current crisis, declining housing assets were often, in effect, purchased between 90% and 100% on margin. In some of the cities hit hardest, borrowers who purchased in the low-price tier at the peak of the bubble have seen their home value decline 50% or more. Over the past 18 months as housing prices have fallen, millions of homes became worth less than the loans on them, huge losses have been transmitted to lending institutions, investment banks, investors in mortgage-backed securities, sellers of credit default swaps, and the insurer of last resort, the U.S. Treasury.
In an important paper in 1983, Ben Bernanke argued that during the Depression, severe damage to the financial system impeded its ability to perform its economic role of lending to households for durable goods consumption and to firms for production and trade. We are seeing this process playing out now as loan funds for automobile purchases have withered. Auto sales fell 41% between February 2008 and February 2009. Retail and labor markets too are now part of the collateral damage from the housing debacle. Housing peaked in early 2006. Losses from the mortgage market began to infect the financial system in 2006; asset prices in that sector began to decline at the end of 2006. Meanwhile, equities and the broader economy were performing well, but as the financial sector deteriorated, its problems blindsided the rest of the economy.
The events of the past 10 years have an eerie similarity to the period leading up to the Great Depression. Total mortgage debt outstanding increased from $9.35 billion in 1920 to $29.44 billion in 1929. In 1920, residential mortgage debt was 10.2% of household wealth; by 1929, it was 27.2% of household wealth.
The Great Depression has been attributed to excessive speculation on Wall Street, especially between the spring of 1927 and the fall of 1929. Had the difficulties of the banking system been caused by losses on brokers' loans for margin purchases in 1929, the results should have been felt in the banks immediately after the stock market crash. But the banking system did not show serious strains until the fall of 1930.
Bank earnings reached a record $729 million in 1929. Yet bank exposures to real estate were substantial; as the decline in real estate prices accelerated, foreclosures wiped out banks by the thousands. Had the mounting difficulties of the banks and the final collapse of the banking system in the "Bank Holiday" in March 1933 been caused by contraction of the money supply, as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz argued, then the massive injections of liquidity over the past 18 months should have averted the collapse of the financial market during this current crisis.
The causes of the Great Depression need more study, but the claims that losses on stock-market speculation and a monetary contraction caused the decline of the banking system both seem inadequate. It appears that both the Great Depression and the current crisis had their origins in excessive consumer debt -- especially mortgage debt -- that was transmitted into the financial sector during a sharp downturn.
What we've offered in our discussion of this crisis is the back story to Mr. Bernanke's analysis of the Depression. Why does one crash cause minimal damage to the financial system, so that the economy can pick itself up quickly, while another crash leaves a devastated financial sector in the wreckage? The hypothesis we propose is that a financial crisis that originates in consumer debt, especially consumer debt concentrated at the low end of the wealth and income distribution, can be transmitted quickly and forcefully into the financial system. It appears that we're witnessing the second great consumer debt crash, the end of a massive consumption binge.
Mr. Gjerstad is a visiting research associate at Chapman University. Mr. Smith is a professor of economics at Chapman University and the 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.Printed in The Related Articles and Blogs from WSJ.com
China Housing Market Shows Signs of Life APR 01. 2009
Alan Greenspan Says the Federal Reserve Didn't Cause the Housing Bubble MAR 11. 2009
Renters Lose Edge on Homeowners FEB 25. 2009
Related News From the Web
British house prices up in Feb. after 17 falls APR 02. 2009
news.aol.com
Home Sales May Have Already Bottomed - Barrons.com APR 01. 2009
online.barrons.com
Record drop in home price index MAR 31. 2009
money.cnn.com
Riskiest Places For U.S. Homeowners MAR 31. 2009
forbes.com
Sponsored by
next
Obama's Auto Ultimatum 5:30
Aid Keeps Latin America Poor 3:00
Is This the End of Capitalism? 3:00
More in Opinion
Democrats and Poor Kids
John Bolton: Obama's NK Reaction: More Talks
O'Grady: Aid Keeps Latin America Poor
The Song of Kim Jong Il
Warnings on Iran
Most Popular
Read
Emailed
Video
Commented
1.
Opinion: Obama Wants to Control the Banks
2.
Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out
3.
IBM, Sun Talks Teeter Over Price
Subscriber Content Read Preview
4.
Opinion: From Bubble to Depression?
5.
Opinion: John Bolton: Obama's NK Reaction: More Talks
1.
Opinion: Obama Wants to Control the Banks
2.
Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out
3.
Opinion: From Bubble to Depression?
4.
Opinion: Democrats and Poor Kids
5.
When Two Boys Made the Midwest Proud
1.
North Korea Launches Rocket
2.
Taliban Punishment of Young Girl
3.
Deadly Quake Hits Italy
4.
Ad: "Welcome to the Now Network"
5.
U.S. Addresses North Korea Rocket Launch
1.
Hedge Fund Paid Summers $5.2 Million in Past Year127 comments
2.
U.S. Offers to Cut Nuclear Arms120 comments
3.
North Korea's Rocket Launch Spurs Broad Condemnation92 comments
4.
Geithner Says Government Would Remove Bank Chiefs if Needed87 comments
5.
For Boston Globe, an Ultimatum79 comments
Most Read Articles Feed
Most Emailed Feed
Most Popular Video Feed
Most Commented Feed
Editors' Picks
previous
next
R&D Spending Holds Steady in Slump
Subscriber Content Read Preview
When Two Boys Made the Midwest Proud
Is Your Investing Personality in DNA?
City Tries to Hang On Amid Auto Crisis
Cherry Season in Japan
When Readers Think Fiction Is Real
The End of the Affair With Cars
The American Plan
Luxury Munis Hit a Rough Patch
Holiday Stirs Painful Quake Memories
Alec Baldwin Goes Indie
MLB Previews: NL East
Preparing the Presidential Roast
Dress Code for Hedge-Fund Women
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIGs-CDS-Hoard-The-Great-bizwk-14867385.html?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD
Merton, an economist with MIT, won the Nobel Prize in 1997. The first few minutes is boring introductions etc. After this there is an hour and 15 minutes of excellence. It too is boring until you catch on, as it explains that things aren't just linear as assumed probably by most of the "players" when they bought this stuff (credit default swaps, whatever). It's sort of the difference between algebra and advanced calculus, presented simply in the form of a chart on puts.
http://paul.kedrosky.com/
And this blog leads to this:
More
BigCharts
Graphics
OPINION
APRIL 6, 2009, 11:08 A.M. ET
From Bubble to Depression?
By STEVEN GJERSTAD and VERNON L. SMITH
Bubbles have been frequent in economic history, and they occur in the laboratories of experimental economics under conditions which -- when first studied in the 1980s -- were considered so transparent that bubbles would not be observed.
We economists were wrong: Even when traders in an asset market know the value of the asset, bubbles form dependably. Bubbles can arise when some agents buy not on fundamental value, but on price trend or momentum. If momentum traders have more liquidity, they can sustain a bubble longer.
But what sparks bubbles? Why does one large asset bubble -- like our dot-com bubble -- do no damage to the financial system while another one leads to its collapse? Key characteristics of housing markets -- momentum trading, liquidity, price-tier movements, and high-margin purchases -- combine to provide a fairly complete, simple description of the housing bubble collapse, and how it engulfed the financial system and then the wider economy.
In just the past 40 years there were two other housing bubbles, with peaks in 1979 and 1989, but the largest one in U.S. history started in 1997, probably sparked by rising household income that began in 1992 combined with the elimination in 1997 of taxes on residential capital gains up to $500,000. Rising values in an asset market draw investor attention; the early stages of the housing bubble had this usual, self-reinforcing feature.
The 2001 recession might have ended the bubble, but the Federal Reserve decided to pursue an unusually expansionary monetary policy in order to counteract the downturn. When the Fed increased liquidity, money naturally flowed to the fastest expanding sector. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations aggressively pursued the goal of expanding homeownership, so credit standards eroded. Lenders and the investment banks that securitized mortgages used rising home prices to justify loans to buyers with limited assets and income. Rating agencies accepted the hypothesis of ever rising home values, gave large portions of each security issue an investment-grade rating, and investors gobbled them up.
But housing expenditures in the U.S. and most of the developed world have historically taken about 30% of household income. If housing prices more than double in a seven-year period without a commensurate increase in income, eventually something has to give. When subprime lending, the interest-only adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), and the negative-equity option ARM were no longer able to sustain the flow of new buyers, the inevitable crash could no longer be delayed.
The price decline started in 2006. Then policies designed to promote the American dream instead produced a nightmare. Trillions of dollars of mortgages, written to buyers with slender equity, started a wave of delinquencies and defaults. Borrowers' losses were limited to their small down payments; hence, the lion's share of the losses was transmitted into the financial system and it collapsed.
During the 1976-79 and 1986-89 housing price bubbles, the effective federal-funds interest rate was rising while housing prices rose: The Federal Reserve, "leaning against the wind," helped mitigate the bubbles. In January 2001, however, after four years with average inflation-adjusted house price increases of 7.2% per year (about 6% above trend for the past 80 years), the Fed started to decrease the fed-funds rate. By December 2001, the rate had been reduced to its lowest level since 1962. In 2002 the average fed-funds rate was lower than in any year since the 1958 recession. In 2003 and 2004 the average fed-funds rates were lower than in any year since 1955 when the rate series began.
Monetary policy, mortgage finance, relaxed lending standards, and tax-free capital gains provided astonishing economic stimulus: Mortgage loan originations increased an average of 56% per year for three years -- from $1.05 trillion in 2000 to $3.95 trillion in 2003!
By the time the Federal Reserve began to slowly raise the fed-funds rate in May 2004, the Case-Shiller 20-city composite index had increased 15.4% during the previous 12 months. Yet the housing portion of the CPI for those same 12 months rose only 2.4%.
How could this happen? In 1983, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began to use rental equivalence for homeowner-occupied units instead of direct home-ownership costs. Between 1983 and 1996, the price-to-rental ratio increased from 19.0 to 20.2, so the change had little effect on measured inflation: The CPI underestimated inflation by about 0.1 percentage point per year during this period. Between 1999 and 2006, the price-to-rent ratio shot up from 20.8 to 32.3.
With home price increases out of the CPI and the price-to-rent ratio rapidly increasing, an important component of inflation remained outside the index. In 2004 alone, the price-rent ratio increased 12.3%. Inflation for that year was underestimated by 2.9 percentage points (since "owners' equivalent rent" is about 23% of the CPI). If home-ownership costs were included in the CPI, inflation would have been 6.2% instead of 3.3%.
With nominal interest rates around 6% and inflation around 6%, the real interest rate was near zero, so household borrowing took off. As measured by the Case-Shiller 10 city index, the accumulated inflation in home-ownership costs between January 1999 and June 2006 was 151%, but the CPI measured a mere 23% increase. As the Federal Reserve monitored inflation in the early part of this decade, home-price increases were no longer visible in the CPI, so the lax monetary policy continued. Even after the Fed began to slowly raise the fed-funds rate in May 2004, the average rate remained low and the bubble continued to inflate for two more years.
The unraveling of the bubble is in many ways the most fascinating part of the story, and the most painful reality we are now experiencing. The median price of existing homes had fallen from $230,000 in July to $217,300 in November 2006. By the beginning of 2007, in 17 of the 20 cities in the Case-Shiller index, prices were falling. Serious price declines had not yet begun, but the warning signs were there for alert observers.
Kate Kelly, writing in this newspaper (Dec. 14, 2007), tells the story of how Goldman Sachs avoided the fate of many of the other investment banks that packaged mortgages into securities. Goldman loaded up on the Markit ABX index of credit default swaps between early December 2006 and late February 2007, as their price dropped from 97.70 on Dec. 4 to under 64 by Feb. 27. But the market was not yet in free-fall: The insurance on AAA-rated parts of the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) remained inexpensive. By mid-summer 2007, concern spread to the AAA-rated tranches of MBS.
At the end of February 2007, the cost of $10 million of insurance on the AAA-rated portion of a mortgage-backed security was still only $68,000 plus a $9,000 annual premium. Housing-market conditions deteriorated further in the first half of 2007. Case-Shiller tiered price sequences in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Miami all show serious declines by the summer of 2007. Prices in the low-price tier in San Francisco were down almost 13% from their peak by July 2007; in San Diego they were off 10% by July 2007. Startling developments began to unfold that month. Between July 9 and Aug. 3, 2007, the cost of insuring AAA MBS tranches went from $50,000 upfront plus a $9,000 annual premium for $10 million of insurance to over $900,000 upfront (plus the annual premium).
Once the cost of insuring new mortgage-backed securities skyrocketed, mortgage financing from MBS rapidly declined. Subprime originations plummeted from $160 billion in the third quarter of 2006 to $28 billion in the third quarter of 2007. Mortgage-backed security issuance fell comparably, from $483 billion in all of 2006 to only $30.7 billion in the third quarter of 2007. Other measures of new loan originations were falling at the same time. The liquidity that generated the housing market bubble was evaporating.
Trouble quickly spread from the cost of insuring mortgage-backed securities to problems with credit markets generally, as the spread between short-term U.S. Treasury debt and the LIBOR rate increased to 2.40% from 0.44% between Aug. 8 and Aug. 20, 2007. Since U.S. Treasury debt is generally considered secure, but a bank's loans to another bank carry some risk of default, the spread between these rates serves as an indicator of perceived risk in financial markets.
In one city after another, prices of homes in the low-price tier appreciated the most and then fell the most; prices in the high-priced tier appreciated least and fell the least. The price index graphs for Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Miami show that in all of these cities, prices in the low-price tier have fallen between 50% and 57%. Moreover, housing prices have continually declined in every market in the Case-Shiller index. According to First American CoreLogic, 10.5 million households had negative or near negative equity in December 2008. When housing prices turned down, many borrowers with low income and few assets other than their slender home equity faced foreclosure. The remaining losses had to be absorbed by the financial system. Consequently, the financial system has suffered a blow unlike anything since the Great Depression, and the source is the weak financial position of the people holding declining assets.
Earlier, during the downturn in the equities market between December 1999 and September 2002, approximately $10 trillion of equity was erased. But a measure of financial system performance, the Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods BKX index of financial firms, fell less than 6% during that period. In the current downturn, the value of residential real estate has fallen by approximately $3 trillion, but the BKX index has now fallen 75% from its peak of January 2007. The financial sector has been devastated in this crisis, whereas it was almost completely unaffected by the downturn in the equities market early in this decade.
How can one crash that wipes out $10 trillion in assets cause no damage to the financial system and another that causes $3 trillion in losses devastate the financial system?
In the equities-market downturn early in this decade, declining assets were held by institutional and individual investors that either owned the assets outright, or held only a small fraction on margin, so losses were absorbed by their owners. In the current crisis, declining housing assets were often, in effect, purchased between 90% and 100% on margin. In some of the cities hit hardest, borrowers who purchased in the low-price tier at the peak of the bubble have seen their home value decline 50% or more. Over the past 18 months as housing prices have fallen, millions of homes became worth less than the loans on them, huge losses have been transmitted to lending institutions, investment banks, investors in mortgage-backed securities, sellers of credit default swaps, and the insurer of last resort, the U.S. Treasury.
In an important paper in 1983, Ben Bernanke argued that during the Depression, severe damage to the financial system impeded its ability to perform its economic role of lending to households for durable goods consumption and to firms for production and trade. We are seeing this process playing out now as loan funds for automobile purchases have withered. Auto sales fell 41% between February 2008 and February 2009. Retail and labor markets too are now part of the collateral damage from the housing debacle. Housing peaked in early 2006. Losses from the mortgage market began to infect the financial system in 2006; asset prices in that sector began to decline at the end of 2006. Meanwhile, equities and the broader economy were performing well, but as the financial sector deteriorated, its problems blindsided the rest of the economy.
The events of the past 10 years have an eerie similarity to the period leading up to the Great Depression. Total mortgage debt outstanding increased from $9.35 billion in 1920 to $29.44 billion in 1929. In 1920, residential mortgage debt was 10.2% of household wealth; by 1929, it was 27.2% of household wealth.
The Great Depression has been attributed to excessive speculation on Wall Street, especially between the spring of 1927 and the fall of 1929. Had the difficulties of the banking system been caused by losses on brokers' loans for margin purchases in 1929, the results should have been felt in the banks immediately after the stock market crash. But the banking system did not show serious strains until the fall of 1930.
Bank earnings reached a record $729 million in 1929. Yet bank exposures to real estate were substantial; as the decline in real estate prices accelerated, foreclosures wiped out banks by the thousands. Had the mounting difficulties of the banks and the final collapse of the banking system in the "Bank Holiday" in March 1933 been caused by contraction of the money supply, as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz argued, then the massive injections of liquidity over the past 18 months should have averted the collapse of the financial market during this current crisis.
The causes of the Great Depression need more study, but the claims that losses on stock-market speculation and a monetary contraction caused the decline of the banking system both seem inadequate. It appears that both the Great Depression and the current crisis had their origins in excessive consumer debt -- especially mortgage debt -- that was transmitted into the financial sector during a sharp downturn.
What we've offered in our discussion of this crisis is the back story to Mr. Bernanke's analysis of the Depression. Why does one crash cause minimal damage to the financial system, so that the economy can pick itself up quickly, while another crash leaves a devastated financial sector in the wreckage? The hypothesis we propose is that a financial crisis that originates in consumer debt, especially consumer debt concentrated at the low end of the wealth and income distribution, can be transmitted quickly and forcefully into the financial system. It appears that we're witnessing the second great consumer debt crash, the end of a massive consumption binge.
Mr. Gjerstad is a visiting research associate at Chapman University. Mr. Smith is a professor of economics at Chapman University and the 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.Printed in The Related Articles and Blogs from WSJ.com
China Housing Market Shows Signs of Life APR 01. 2009
Alan Greenspan Says the Federal Reserve Didn't Cause the Housing Bubble MAR 11. 2009
Renters Lose Edge on Homeowners FEB 25. 2009
Related News From the Web
British house prices up in Feb. after 17 falls APR 02. 2009
news.aol.com
Home Sales May Have Already Bottomed - Barrons.com APR 01. 2009
online.barrons.com
Record drop in home price index MAR 31. 2009
money.cnn.com
Riskiest Places For U.S. Homeowners MAR 31. 2009
forbes.com
Sponsored by
next
Obama's Auto Ultimatum 5:30
Aid Keeps Latin America Poor 3:00
Is This the End of Capitalism? 3:00
More in Opinion
Democrats and Poor Kids
John Bolton: Obama's NK Reaction: More Talks
O'Grady: Aid Keeps Latin America Poor
The Song of Kim Jong Il
Warnings on Iran
Most Popular
Read
Emailed
Video
Commented
1.
Opinion: Obama Wants to Control the Banks
2.
Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out
3.
IBM, Sun Talks Teeter Over Price
Subscriber Content Read Preview
4.
Opinion: From Bubble to Depression?
5.
Opinion: John Bolton: Obama's NK Reaction: More Talks
1.
Opinion: Obama Wants to Control the Banks
2.
Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out
3.
Opinion: From Bubble to Depression?
4.
Opinion: Democrats and Poor Kids
5.
When Two Boys Made the Midwest Proud
1.
North Korea Launches Rocket
2.
Taliban Punishment of Young Girl
3.
Deadly Quake Hits Italy
4.
Ad: "Welcome to the Now Network"
5.
U.S. Addresses North Korea Rocket Launch
1.
Hedge Fund Paid Summers $5.2 Million in Past Year127 comments
2.
U.S. Offers to Cut Nuclear Arms120 comments
3.
North Korea's Rocket Launch Spurs Broad Condemnation92 comments
4.
Geithner Says Government Would Remove Bank Chiefs if Needed87 comments
5.
For Boston Globe, an Ultimatum79 comments
Most Read Articles Feed
Most Emailed Feed
Most Popular Video Feed
Most Commented Feed
Editors' Picks
previous
next
R&D Spending Holds Steady in Slump
Subscriber Content Read Preview
When Two Boys Made the Midwest Proud
Is Your Investing Personality in DNA?
City Tries to Hang On Amid Auto Crisis
Cherry Season in Japan
When Readers Think Fiction Is Real
The End of the Affair With Cars
The American Plan
Luxury Munis Hit a Rough Patch
Holiday Stirs Painful Quake Memories
Alec Baldwin Goes Indie
MLB Previews: NL East
Preparing the Presidential Roast
Dress Code for Hedge-Fund Women
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)