Perspectives on the Current International Financial and Macroeconomic Situation

Celebrity Speakers Ltd., London, May 14, 2007

Jeffrey FrankelHarpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth

Harvard University

2

Four points to be covered

• Emerging markets are now in the boom phase of the 3rd consecutive 15-yearemerging-market cycle. “Is this time different?”

• China: the miracle is real but the RMB is wrong

• Commodities and carry trade• Twin deficits:

Is US losing economic hegemony?

3

We are now in the 3rd big consecutive cycle of

capital inflows to developing countries

It’s the biblical rule:

7 fat years followed by 7 lean years

1) Recycling petrodollars: 1975-81– 1982 international debt crisis,

then 7 lean years: -1989

2) Emerging market boom: 1990-96 – 1997 East Asia crisis,

then 7 lean years: -2003

3) Current boom, 2003-

4

The cycles show up in capital flow quantities

Capital Inflows to Developing Countries as percent of Total GDP (Low and Middle Income)

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Net Total Private Capital Flows

Net Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Source: World Development Indicators

2nd boom1st boom

3rd

5

They also show up in prices: sovereign spreads.

EMBI was up in 1995 & 98; down in 2003-07

Calvo, BIS, 2006 The Economist 2/22/07

6

Is “this time different”?

• Ken Rogoff* says “no.”• Some things are different this time:

– Current accounts are stronger (esp. Asia)– Reserve holdings are much higher.– Exchange rates are more flexible.– More countries issue debt in domestic currency,

vs.$ (in part due to exchange rate volatility)– More debt carries Collective Action Clauses– More openness to trade and FDI.

* ”This Time It’s Not Different,” Newsweek International, Feb.16, 2004

7

Most large emerging markets are not usingthe capital inflows to finance CA deficits

as much as they did in the 1990s

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Average CA/GDP (%): 1990-99

Ave

rage

CA

/GD

P(%

): 20

00-0

4

Mexico

EcuadorBrazil

Turkey

SSouth Africa

Argentina

Indonesia

Malaysia

CAD 2000-04 < in 90s

CAD 2000-04 > in 90s

8

Instead, countries are using the inflows to build up forex reserves

Flows to Developing Countries (Low- & middle-income), Current Account, Capital Account and Change in Reserves as a % of Total GDP

1982-2004

(3.00)

(2.00)

(1.00)

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

Source: World Development Indicators

Net Total Private Capital Flows

Net Trade in Goods & Services

Change in Total Reserves (Including Gold)

9

Export/GDP ratios 2000-04 > than in 1990s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Average Export/GDP (%): 1990-99

Ave

rag

e E

xpo

rt/G

DP

(%):

200

0-04

Brazil

Argentina

Turkey

Mexico

South Africa

Ecuador

IndonesiaMoreopen

Lessopen

10

New emerging market crises will come; but

• they won’t necessarily take currency crisis form

(vs., e.g., crashes in land & securities markets).

• they won’t necessarily be soon: – Emerging markets not yet ripe for a new crisis round

• Memories are still fresh. • Traders’ jobs have not yet turned over.

– Global monetary policy has been easy (as in the boom phases of the late 1970s & early 1990s).

– Commodity prices are still near historic peaks

11

China

• China, in its own interest, should let the RMB appreciate.• Despite July 2006, the regime has not genuinely changed.• A global cooperative deal would simultaneously appreciate

the RMB & other currencies among Asian and oil-exporters, while the US raised national saving. – IMF could broker the deal. But it won’t happen.

• The Chinese growth miracle will probably encounter a crash somewhere along the road – the banking system, real estate, or stock market.

• Every new economic power goes through a rite of passage: financial bubble and crash.

12

Every new economic power goes through a rite of passage: financial bubble and crash

Hol-land

Great Britain

US Japan China

Take-off dates

16th century

17th century

19th century

1950s-1980s

Current

Change in GDP

X 3 (1500-1600)

X 6(1600-1820)

X6(1870-1913)

X8(1950-1973)

X10

Bubble Dutch tulip mania

South seas bubble

Roaring 20s (stocks & Fla. land)

Late 1980s (stocks & land)

2006-(stocks, real estate, & banks)

Crash 1637 1720 1929 1990s ?

13

Why did prices of oil & other commodities rise so much 2001-06?

• E.g., Copper, platinum, nickel & zinc all hit record highs in 2006

• Mankind has to live in the physical world after all !

• Many causes. One neglected cause is monetary policy: high real commodity prices can reflect low real interest rates.

• High interest rates reduce the demand for storable commodities, or increase the supply through a variety of channels:

1. By increasing incentives for extraction today rather than tomorrow2. By decreasing firms’ desire to carry inventories3. By encouraging speculators to shift from commodities to T bills

14

CRB Commodity Price Index vs. Real Interest Rate

Annual, 1950-2005

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5Real Interest Rate

Log R

eal C

om

modity P

rice I

ndex

Source: Global Financial Data Inc.

Statistical relationship 1950-2005.

15

Results of regressing $ real commodity prices against US real interest rates

• Statistically significant at 5% level for all 3 major price indices available since 1950-- from Dow Jones, Commodity Resources Board, & Moody’s -- and

significant for 1 of 2 with a shorter history (Goldman Sachs). • All are of hypothesized negative sign.

• The estimated coefficient for the CRB index, -.06, is typical. => when the real interest rate goes up 100 basis pts., real commodity price falls by .06, i.e., 6 %.

16

UK regression: real commodity prices in £ on real interest rates

Short Rates Long Rates

US r r differential US r r differential

Coeff. -0.053* -0.086* -0.106* -0.023*

s.e. 0.010 0.007 0.007 0.006

* indicates coefficient significant at 5%. (Robust s.e.s)

17

• Theory: Dornbusch overshooting model, with spot price of commodities replacing exchange rate, and convenience yield replacing foreign interest rate.

• Implication: beginning in 2001, easy monetary policy & low real interest rates among the FRB, BoJ, ECB & PBoC sent liquidity into commodity markets, pushing up real prices.

• Similar “carry-trade” arguments apply to other markets as well: has sent money not only into commodities, but also into housing, securities, and emerging markets.

• This phenomenon may start to reverse.

18

It is still puzzling that long-term interest rates remained so low, even as short-

term rates rose 2004-2006• spreads on high-income corporate debt in particular

have been inexplicably low.• Implied options price volatilities have been too low.• Private equity may also be overdone.• Part of a general pattern: private markets are

underestimating risk– a result of 5 years of low real interest rates & of

formulas that estimate volatility from lagged prices – which look calm – rather than from an intelligent assessment of the macro outlook & the odds of unexpected shocks.

• Private markets may in particular be under-estimating future budget deficits.

• In short, both risk curve & yield curve are too flat.

19

Medium-term global risks

• Bursting bubbles– Housing market downturns, underway– Bond market crash, not yet

• Possible new oil shocks, – e.g., from Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran…

• Possible new security setbacks– Big new terrorist attack, perhaps with WMD– Korea or Iran go nuclear/and or to war– Islamic radicals take over Pakistan, S.A. or Egypt

• Hard landing of the $: foreigners pull out =>$ ↓ & i ↑ => possible return of stagflation .

The US Current Account Deficit:Origins and Implications

Revsied version of Our Fiscal Future, 2006

21

Trade balance is deteriorating

U.S. Trade Balance and Current Account Balance, 1960-2004

-7.00

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Balance on goods and services expressedas a share of GDP

Current account balance expressed as ashare of GDP

.

% of GDP

Sources: Department of Commerce (Bureau of Economic Analysis) U.S. Economic Accounts

22

Trade deficit• Current account deficit for 2006 ≈ 6% GDP, a record.

– Would set off alarm bells in Argentina or Brazil

• Short-term danger: Protectionist legislation, such as Schumer-Graham bill scapegoating China

• Medium-term danger: – CA Deficit => We are borrowing from the rest of the world.– Dependence on foreign investors may => hard landing

• Long-term danger: – US net debt to RoW now ≈ $3 trillion. – Some day our children will have to pay it back

=> lower living standards.

– Dependence on foreign central banks may => loss of US global hegemony

23

The Bush Budget Bungle

24

Official forecast of US budget deficit vanishing by 2012 is fantasy

25

White House forecast of eliminating budget deficit by 2012 will not be met

under their policies• WH and CBO projections still do not allow for

– The full cost of Iraq and other “national security” spending– Fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax– Making permanent the tax cuts as it has asked for– More realistic forecasts of spending growth, e.g., in line

with population. (Actually spending growth since 2001 has far exceeded that.)

• More likely, deficits will not fall at all.

• Just as the budget forecasts were predictably overoptimistic throughout the first Bush term.– The surplus of $5 trillion+ forecasted in Jan. 2001 over 10

years became a 10-year deficit of $5 trillion.

26

Further, the much more serious deterioration will start after 2009.

• The 10-year window is no longer reported in White House projections

• Cost of tax cuts truly explodes in 2010 (if made permanent), as does the cost of fixing the AMT

• Baby boom generation starts to retire 2008• => soaring costs of social security and, • Especially, Medicare

27