The Fed’s Policy Mechanics Retool for a Rise in Interest Rates

It’s easy to take for granted the Federal Reserve’s ability to raise interest rates. Even among the legions who doubt that Fed officials will pick the ideal moment to start increasing rates for the first time since 2008, few question the Fed’s technical competence. The central bank has a long history. The engine is known to work.

So it may come as a surprise to learn that the old engine is broken. When the Fed decides that it’s time to “lift off” — perhaps this week, but more likely later this year — it will be relying on a new system, assembled from spare parts, to make interest rates rise.

There is a general agreement among economists and market analysts that the Fed’s plans make sense in theory. A team led by Simon Potter, a former academic who now heads the Fed’s market desk in New York, has been testing and fine-tuning the details by moving billions of dollars around the financial system.

But markets have a long history of scrambling the best-laid plans.

“If something is going to go wrong, I haven’t been able to figure out what, but there’s a lot of reason for caution,” said Stephen G. Cecchetti, the former chief economist at the Bank for International Settlements. “We’ve never done this before.”

The stakes are huge. The Fed is in charge of keeping economic growth on an even keel: minimal unemployment, moderate inflation. It tends to operate conservatively and to change very slowly because when it errs, the nation suffers.

Yet the Fed has found itself forced to experiment. The immense stimulus campaign that it started in response to the 2008 financial crisis changed its relationship with the financial markets. It has pumped so many dollars into the system that it cannot easily drain enough money to discourage lending, its traditional approach. Instead, the Fed plans to throw more money at the problem, paying lenders not to make loans.

The Fed, embedded in the banking system, has also concluded that working through the banks is no longer sufficient to influence the broader economy. It plans to strengthen its hold by working directly with an expanded range of lenders.

Fed officials have repeatedly expressed confidence that the plan will work. “The committee is confident that it has the tools it needs to raise short-term interest rates when it becomes appropriate to do so,” Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, told Congress earlier this year, referring to its policy-making body, the Federal Open Market Committee.

And if the new approach does not work at first, Mr. Potter said in a recent speech, then his team of monetary mechanics “stands ready to innovate” until it does.

Freezing, Not Draining

The markets desk at the New York Fed has put monetary policy into practice since the mid-1930s. In the decades before the Great Recession, the desk exercised its remarkable influence over the American economy through its control of an odd little marketplace in which banks could come to borrow money for a single night.

The Fed requires banks to set aside reserves in proportion to the deposits the banks accept from customers. The reserves can be kept in cash or held in an account at the Fed. Banks that need reserves at the end of a given day can borrow from banks that have a surplus. Before the crisis, the Fed controlled the interest rate on those loans by modulating the supply of reserves: It lowered interest rates by buying Treasury securities from banks and crediting their accounts, increasing the supply of reserves; it raised rates by selling Treasuries to banks and debiting their accounts.

As the crisis hit in 2008, the Fed pressed this machine to its limits. It bought enough securities and pumped enough reserves into the banking system to drive interest rates on short-term loans to nearly zero. The federal government now pays about a dime to borrow $1,000 for one month. Companies with good credit pay about a dollar to borrow $1,000 from money market funds and other investors.

But the Fed didn’t stop there. It kept buying Treasuries and mortgage bonds to eliminate safe havens, forcing money into riskier investments that might generate economic activity. As a byproduct, the Fed kept expanding the supply of reserves.

One result is a banking system almost comically awash in money. In June 2008, banks had about $10.1 billion in their Fed accounts. The total is now $2.6 trillion. Picture all of the money in June 2008 as a single brick; the Fed has added 256 bricks of the same size. On top of that first brick, there is now a stack five stories tall.

Bank of America, for example, had $388 million in its Fed account at the end of June 2008. Seven years later, at the end of June 2015, it had $107 billion. The bank could double in size and double again and still have more reserves than it needs.

To switch metaphors, the old monetary-policy machine sits at the bottom of a lake of excess reserves. The Fed would need to sell most of the securities it has accumulated before short-term rates would start to rise. Selling quickly could roil markets; selling slowly could allow the economy to overheat. So the Fed decided to find another way.

Instead of draining all that excess money, the Fed decided to freeze it.

Paying Banks Not to Lend

For the last seven years, the Fed has encouraged financial risk-taking in the service of its campaign to increase employment and economic growth. By starting to raise interest rates, the Fed intends to gradually discourage risk-taking.

The straightforward part of the plan is persuading banks not to make loans.

In a serendipitous stroke, Congress passed a law shortly before the financial crisis that let the Fed pay interest on the reserves that banks kept at the Fed. Written as a sop to the banking industry, it has become the new linchpin of monetary policy.

Say the Fed wanted to raise short-term interest rates to 1 percent, meaning that it did not want banks to lend at lower rates. Because the glut of reserves is so great, the Fed could not easily raise rates by reducing the availability of money. Instead, the Fed plans to pre-empt the market, paying banks 1 percent interest on reserves in their Fed accounts, so banks have little reason to lend at lower rates. “Why would you lend to anyone else when you can lend to the Fed?” Kevin Logan, chief United States economist at HSBC, asked rhetorically.

This is not a cheap trick. Since the crisis, the Fed has paid banks a token annual rate of 0.25 percent on reserves. Last year alone, that cost $6.7 billion that the Fed would have otherwise handed over to the Treasury. Paying 1 percent interest would cost four times as much. The Fed has sent roughly $500 billion to the Treasury since 2008. As the Fed raises rates, some projections show that it may not transfer a single dollar in some years. Instead, the Fed will pay banks tens of billions of dollars not to use the trillions it paid them previously.

At first, Fed officials thought that paying interest to banks would establish a minimum rate for all short-term loans, exerting the same kind of broad influence as the old system. It soon became clear, however, that rates on most such loans remained lower than 0.25 percent. Even banks that needed overnight loans found they could borrow more cheaply. The average rate in July was 0.13 percent — about half of the Fed’s new benchmark rate.

The rest of the financial system is also awash in cash, and lenders — like money market mutual funds — put downward pressure on interest rates as they fight to attract borrowers.

And here’s where the Fed’s plans got a little less orthodox.

The Fed lacks the legal authority to pay these lenders a minimum interest rate on deposits, as it does to the banks. But two years ago, Lorie Logan, one of Mr. Potter’s top aides, suggested the Fed could achieve the same goal by borrowing from these companies at a minimum interest rate.

The resulting deals, known as overnight reverse repurchase agreements, signal a significant break from the Fed’s history of working through only the banking industry.

“We’re pushing more activity out of the regulated banking sector, and so monetary policy has to take account of the unregulated sector,” said Jon Faust, an economist at Johns Hopkins University who until recently served as an adviser to Ms. Yellen, and before that to her predecessor, Ben S. Bernanke. “The world is changing, and I think the bigger risk is not changing along with it.”

When liftoff arrives, however, the Fed plans to place this machinery inside the familiar language of the old system. It is likely to announce that it is raising the federal funds rate, the interest rate that banks pay to borrow reserves, from its current range of 0 to 0.25 percent to a new range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent. The Fed does not plan to emphasize that this rate is now a stage prop or that the real work of raising rates will be done outside the limelight by its new tools.

Mission Control

On weekdays at about 12:45 p.m., the New York Fed’s trading portal, known as FedTrade, plays three musical notes — F-E-D — signaling that Mr. Potter’s shop is open for business. So begins another day of training camp, another test of the Fed’s plans to borrow money from nonbank financial companies.

The Fed’s traders sit at terminals in a converted conference room. Along one wall are five chairs and five sets of computer monitors beneath five historical photographs of the trading desk: men answering phones, men writing bids in chalk on a long board and, in the most recent photograph, from the 1980s, a glimpse of a woman in the background. On another wall is a screen that links the room in New York by videoconference with a backup trading room at the Chicago Fed.

Potential lenders — a preapproved group of 168, including a bevy of money market funds and the housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — have 30 minutes to offer the Fed up to $30 billion each. At 1:13 p.m., a warning message starts blinking red. At 1:15 p.m., the Fed closes the auction and accepts up to $300 billion in loans at an interest rate of 0.05 percent.

During two years of experiments, the Fed team has adjusted the rates it pays, the amounts it accepts and the time it enters the market, among other variables. Mr. Potter and his lieutenants have also held lunch meetings with investors on the other side of the portal to solicit advice and complaints.

The size of the program poses the most obvious risk. Fed officials limited daily borrowing to $300 billion because they didn’t want to freeze more money than necessary. They also worry about exacerbating market downturns by giving investors a new place to flee. These concerns were heightened by reports that some investment companies were interested in creating money market funds that would be advertised as the safest place to park money — because the money would be parked at the Fed.

Last year, at the end of September, shortly after the cap was imposed, lenders offered the Fed $407 billion on a single day. Demand was so high that instead of asking for interest, some lenders offered to pay the Fed to take the money. The Fed ended up borrowing at zero percent and turning away $107 billion in loans.

A cardinal rule of central banking is that you don’t starve financial markets during panics, and the Fed has been leaning in the direction of doing more. It has already announced that it is willing to borrow at least $200 billion through a parallel program at the end of September this year, for a total of $500 billion. It has also suggested that it may raise the cap during liftoff. “My sense is we’re better off making sure we can maintain control,” James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed, said in a recent interview.

Unpredictable Reactions

“This is where the nutty people on the bond-trading desks have control,” joked Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman, when asked if the Fed’s plan would work.

Mr. Blinder’s point was that markets ultimately determined the cost of borrowing money, particularly for longer-term loans like mortgages and corporate bonds. The Fed can be precise in its planning, but the market is unpredictable in its reactions.

Fed officials have emphasized that they do not want the liftoff to surprise investors. “This has probably been the most telegraphed 25-point rate hike in history,” said Wayne Schmidt, chief investment officer at Gradient Investments in Arden Hills, Minn. “I think when they actually do something, it will be more of a nonevent.”

But there are at least three reasons markets are becoming less predictable.

The rise of an interconnected global financial system has weakened the Fed’s influence over interest rates. When the Fed last raised short-term rates, beginning in 2004, officials were surprised that long-term rates failed to rise because foreign money was pouring into the housing market and other domestic investments. This time, there are plenty of warnings that the weaknesses of other developed economies could once again make it harder for the Fed to raise domestic interest rates.

“Financial market conditions have come to depend increasingly not only on developments at home but also on developments abroad,” William C. Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in a February speech in which he cautioned the Fed’s control over those conditions had been “loosened.”

The Fed’s audience also increasingly consists of computer programs that will start buying and selling securities before people have time to read the first words of the Fed’s policy statement, creating the potential for new kinds of chaos.

On Oct. 15, for example, automated trading programs drove up the price of 10-year Treasuries in a burst of buying so intense that a government report later found the machines bought more than 10 percent of the securities from their own firms. Then, just as quickly, the computers turned around and drove prices back down.

The 12-minute spree was among the largest price movements ever seen in one of the world’s most liquid markets, yet the government report found no clear cause.

Finally, investors say regulatory changes are keeping some large traders on the sidelines, making it harder to buy and sell, even in the highly liquid market for Treasuries. That can exacerbate market movements because when people are in a hurry to buy or sell, they tend to chase the best available offers. “The depth of the market is not what it used to be,” said Tad Rivelle, chief investment officer for fixed income at TCW, a Los Angeles investment firm that manages some of the world’s largest bond funds. “You can get the same trades done, but it takes more time.”

Other observers, however, urge a broader perspective.

“People are very concerned about those 12 minutes last year,” said Mr. Cecchetti, now a professor of finance at the Brandeis International Business School. “I’m very reassured by the fact that there were only 12 minutes.”

Moreover, Mr. Cecchetti said that removing some liquidity was a good thing because much of that liquidity was a result of public subsidies for the banking system that had encouraged undue risk-taking.

“Does it mean that there’s going to be more high-frequency volatility? Sure,” he said. “It means the Simon Potters of the world are going to have to be much more careful about what they’re doing. But that seems to me to be kind of O.K.”

Volcker’s Messy Lesson

Mr. Potter has worked at the New York Fed since the late 1990s, but he spent most of his career there in the research department before taking over the markets desk in 2012. He became more involved in the practical side of the Fed’s work during the financial crisis. In a 2012 speech at New York University, Mr. Potter said the experience — particularly during a four-week period at the peak of the crisis — had impressed upon him the limits of theory, the need to understand what investors are thinking and the value of flexibility in policy making.

“For economists who did not have the opportunity to observe the panic up close as I and most of my colleagues had, the developments in this four-week period must have been bewildering, given how widely events on the ground and theory diverged,” he said.

That perspective may come in handy. The last time the Fed shifted the basic mechanics of monetary policy was in the early 1980s, when Paul Volcker was its chairman. That campaign is remembered as a triumph of central banking. Mr. Volcker succeeded in driving inflation down toward modern levels, ending a long period in which governments had floundered helplessly to prevent rising prices.

But Mr. Faust, the Johns Hopkins economist, says the messiness of Mr. Volcker’s triumph is often overlooked. The Fed’s initial plans did not work and were revised and did not work and were revised again — and still didn’t work.

He said the Volcker episode was a reminder that monetary policy is not figure skating. The Fed is likely to flail, he says, but it will be measured by its success in getting interest rates to rise, not by the grace of its performance.

“If you’re into the internal plumbing, I suspect there will be times when that looks messy because this is new,” Mr. Faust said. “But central banks can raise interest rates, and they will. And as long as that happens, from the standpoint of the broader economy, everything is fine and the rest will be forgotten or become a footnote of history.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/business/economy/the-feds-policy-mechanics-retool-for-a-rise-in-interest-rates.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/business/economy/the-feds-policy-mechanics-retool-for-a-rise-in-interest-rates.html

Fed risks using wrong tool to tighten

The Federal Reserve has been sending strong signals that it is preparing to raise interest rates for the first time since 2006. As the Fed prepares for lift-off, its operational framework and large balance sheet may pose challenges to market functioning.

The Fed’s balance sheet has increased from roughly $1tn at the end of 2007 to well over $4tn at present. This stems from about $3.4tn of purchases of US Treasuries and other bonds under the Fed’s quantitative easing programmes. This took such assets out of market ownership to reside on the Fed’s balance sheet.

This is important because market interest rates are effectively determined in the collateral market, such as the repo, or repurchase market, where banks and other financial institutions exchange collateral (such as US Treasuries, mortgage securities, corporate debt, equities) for money.

Financial agents that settle daily margins may post cash or collateral; this forms the core of the financial plumbing. Such “pledged” collateral is generally received by banks not only via repo markets but also from securities lending, prime brokerage agreements with hedge funds, and derivative positions. The largest suppliers of pledged collateral are hedge funds; other sources include insurers, pension funds, central banks and sovereign wealth funds.

The repo rate is an important market signal and should move in tandem with the fed funds rate; hence the need to have good plumbing.

In 2007, the collateral market was $10tn in size; now it is only $6tn. A further reduction lies ahead, threatening to rust the financial plumbing, as the Fed prepares to raise interest rates.

There are two ways the Fed can tighten monetary policy to control interest rates once it has raised them. The first is to use and expand its so-called reverse repo programme, which soaks up large sums of money from non-banks such as money market funds, but does not release collateral from the Fed’s balance sheet back into the market.

The second is to sell US Treasuries, which similarly mops up cash while also supplying collateral.

The reverse repo programme is currently capped at $300bn per day, but the Fed may raise this cap to ensure reverse repos mop up enough cash to maintain a floor on interest rates. Reverse repos work by persuading non-banks to remove dollars deposited with banks and place them with the Fed, in exchange for collateral such as Treasury bonds. So the Fed becomes the new counterparty to the non-bank, while the bank gets “balance sheet space” as the deposits move to the Fed.

Crucially, this process does not release collateral to the market as the operational structure of the reverse repo facility puts practical restrictions on the reuse of collateral. Thus, none of the collateral within the reverse repo programme can be used to post at central clearing houses, in the bilateral derivatives markets, in the bilateral repo market or delivered against short positions.

The consequence of a sizeable reverse repo programme would be that money becomes scarcer as it is drained from the market, thus raising the repo rate, while collateral becomes proportionately more abundant and therefore cheaper. Thus, by targeting the size of the programme, the repo rate can be made to track the fed funds rate; however, this will result in the repo rate not being a market rate.

A better option would be to keep the reverse repo programme size at its present level and sell US Treasuries . These bonds could be sliced and diced for repos and related collateral usage. While the Fed can control the amount sold, collateral gets reused, which is not under the Fed’s control, so the repo rate may not equate to the fed funds rate. However, selling of US Treasuries can be fine-tuned, to reduce a large wedge between two rates.

It is crucial to ensure that the market plumbing does not get rusty through the use of a large reverse repo programme. A deep and liquid collateral market provides price signals (like the repo rates) that would be weaker under a large programme.

For effective monetary policy transmission, all rates should move in sync with the fed funds rate and this requires good plumbing.

Manmohan Singh is the author of Collateral and Financial Plumbing and a senior economist at the International Monetary Fund; views are his own and not those of the IMF

Source: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0d72eaa8-885f-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c.html

Investing in airports: Flying high

IMAGINE owning a shopping centre that your customers are forced to stay in for several hours. Better yet, everyone who visits is relatively rich, and many are in a giddy holiday mood. Now imagine that the number of these special shopping centres is strictly regulated, giving you a near-monopoly. On top of this you get paid a fee per visitor. No wonder buying airports has become something of an investment fad.

Though potentially lucrative, airports tie up a lot of capital, which is why governments around the world are selling them. Some are being listed on stockmarkets, others sold to private investors. The Japanese government is selling 30-40-year concessions to run some of its airports. France is flogging its regional airports: it sold a 49.9% stake in Toulouse airport to a Chinese-led consortium in December. Investors include pension funds, sovereign-wealth funds, infrastructure specialists and private-equity houses.

What sets airports apart from most investments in infrastructure is their dual income stream: they bring in money both on the aeronautical side (landing fees, contracts with carriers) and from passengers (parking, shopping, hotels). If you own a toll road and traffic dwindles, there’s not much you can do. But with an airport there are lots of levers to pull, such as cutting capital costs, firing staff and upping the price of parking. “We love them because they pay a steady income for our retirees, protect against inflation and are a diversifier,” says Andrew Claerhout of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), which is an investor in four European airports including Birmingham and Copenhagen. Best of all is the bonus that comes from being a monopoly. Returns from well-run airports tend to be in the double digits, markedly higher than more boring assets like bridges.

One way to boost profits is to increase the number of passengers who can be herded through the buildings. Investors including OTPP and Macquarie, a bank, as well as the Belgian government, recently helped to upgrade Brussels airport by linking the European and international terminals, thus centralising security and shopping. Ardian, an investment firm that owns a stake in Luton airport, near London, helped to convince the local train company to increase London-bound services during rush-hour. It also removed a bottleneck at security by opening more lanes and hiring “smiling people” in yellow T-shirts to point passengers to the shortest queue. An upgrade of the terminal, aimed at increasing the number of passengers from 12m to 18m a year, is next.

When an airport has been in public hands, the non-aeronautical parts of the business have often been especially neglected. Buyers often invest in good parking (ie, under a roof and close by), which can become one of the biggest single sources of income. But not all airports are created equal. Those serving capital cities tend to be safer bets, with a steady supply of visitors, come rain or shine (unlike holiday destinations). Ensuring the airport is not dominated by a single carrier is another golden rule, as this makes it vulnerable to strikes or bankruptcy. Buying a stake in an airport of which the government owns a controlling share is risky, as public and private interests are not always aligned.

Europe is currently the hub for airport investing, accounting for more than half of all deals since 2011, according to Preqin, a data firm. That compares to 15% in Asia, 14% in Australasia and 9% in America. But European valuations are reaching dizzying altitudes: Ljubljana airport was sold last year to Fraport, a German airport specialist, reportedly for a lofty 20 times annual earnings. Michael Burns of PwC, a consultancy, points out that the number of passengers is growing twice as fast at many Asian and African airports. By 2020 Indonesian airports will have more traffic than British ones, predicts PwC. More adventurous investors may end up flying long-haul.

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21653675-why-buying-airports-has-taken-flying-high

Financing capital goods: Keeping the grease

THE headlines focused on the fact that GE, a big industrial conglomerate, is beginning to sell off its $500 billion finance arm in small chunks. This week it put a $40 billion portfolio of corporate loans up for sale. But not all of GE Capital will end up on the block: GE is keeping the $90 billion division that finances purchases of medical equipment, power-generation gear and aeroplanes, or leases them to users. In part, that is because those fields are critical to GE: it makes all or part of the products being financed or leased. But it is also because the financing of old-fashioned capital goods is a booming business.

 
 

The gear GE sells is expensive; would-be buyers often lack the capital to buy it outright. For GE, therefore, the financial engineering that underpins the use of its wares is as important as the mechanical engineering that created them. Many hospitals, for instance, do not buy expensive scanners from GE, but lease them instead. When it develops improved versions, it helps the hospitals swap the new generation for the old, by passing the outmoded gear to another, thriftier institution, and so on down a long chain. By the same token, the sale of a plane that appears to be from Boeing to an airline may in fact be a sale to GE and a lease to the airline. In 85% of these cases, the plane will have engines made by GE or a joint venture.

Manufacturers have financed purchases of their own products for a long time, with mixed results. General Motors started its own finance operation, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), in 1919, which helped it to expand its customer base and thus boosted its profits for decades. Eventually, and disastrously, GMAC expanded into mortgages. Just before the crisis, GM sold half of GMAC to raise money. Its subsequent collapse and nationalisation contributed to GM’s own bankruptcy in 2009.

Yet in 2010, shortly after GM had emerged from bankruptcy and while it was still under government control, it spent $3.5 billion in cash—a vast amount given its straitened circumstances—to purchase AmeriCredit, a Texan subprime auto lender. The company has since been renamed GM Financial. Its assets have grown from $11 billion to $49 billion in five years, an astonishing rate for a financial institution in recent years. China, where car-buyers are beginning to rely more on credit instead of buying with cash, is one area where it is growing fast.

Toyota continues to own a bank in America to help customers finance car purchases. BMW does as well. Car loans, after all, proved much more resilient during the crash than other forms of credit. For companies that do not have such financing arms, often because they use all the capital they can raise cheaply in their core business, a relationship with a finance firm is vital. This is all the more true, says Vincent Caintic of Macquarie, a bank, as ever stricter regulation makes it increasingly expensive for banks to offer car loans and the like.

Element Financial, a Canadian firm, has carved out a lucrative niche financing specific items, such as the railcars produced by Trinity Industries, an American conglomerate, and the small diggers made by Bobcat, part of a South Korean one. It went public in 2011 and its shares are up fourfold since (see chart). Over the same period, the S&P index of North American firms in financial services has not even doubled.

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21653674-why-ge-retaining-one-bit-its-finance-arm-keeping-grease

The economics of bluffing

WILL Greece default on its debts and leave the euro? Will Britain decide to leave the European Union? Politicians in the two countries have threatened, implicitly or explicitly, to take these drastic steps if their European colleagues do not offer them inducements to stay.

Many people regard these threats as a bluff. They think that Greece does not really want to leave the euro, and that David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, does not want his country to exit the EU. When push comes to shove, Greece will do a deal (see article) and Mr Cameron will persuade British voters to stay in the EU in his planned referendum. But there are risks that neither outcome will turn out as planned. In both cases, political leaders are making a risky bet.

The financial analogy is with writing (selling) an option. In the markets, an option is the right to buy (a call) or sell (a put) an asset at a given price; say shares of Apple at $130. In return for granting the buyer of the option this right, the writer receives a payment called a premium, rather like an insurance company receives a premium for protecting a homeowner against fire or theft. But if Apple shares do rise above $130, the buyer of a call option is likely to exercise it, to the writer’s cost; if they fall below it, the holder of a put option is likely to cash in.

Political leaders in Greece and Britain have in effect written an option on exit. The premium they receive is political popularity—for opposing the demands of international creditors, in the case of Greece, or for asserting Britain’s sovereignty, in Mr Cameron’s.

But in the financial markets, option-writing is a very risky strategy, unless the position is properly hedged. A lot of small profits can be earned from the option premia, only for all the gains to be wiped out when an option is exercised at an unfavourable time. Of course, the buyer of an option is most likely to exercise it when the cost to the writer is greatest.

For the political leaders of Greece and Britain, the difficulty is that they do not get to decide whether the option gets exercised. The other nations within the euro zone and the EU may decide to call Greece or Britain’s bluff. In Britain, the electorate also has the right to exercise the option of exit—which they might use in the referendum to protest against government policies in general rather than voting on the merits of EU membership in particular.

This leads to some complex calculations. Unlike Apple’s shares, the price of Grexit or Brexit at any moment is highly uncertain; political leaders cannot be sure what the costs and benefits will be. So this is rather like an option on one of the complex securities that proliferated before 2007—a collateralised debt obligation based on subprime mortgages, for example. The uncertainty makes it less likely that Europe will exercise the option and risk the departure of Britain or Greece.

If that gives the bluffing states an advantage, they also face a difficult trade-off. The more intransigent their demands, the more they may please their electorates (ie, the greater the “option premium”). However, such intransigence may make it more likely that the option will be exercised. European leaders may feel that making too many concessions to Greece or Britain will simply encourage other countries to make similar demands, and thus destroy the European project. In Britain, there may be a huge gap between the expectations fostered during the negotiating process and the reforms that emerge. This may create the impression that the government has failed, making the public more inclined to vote for exit.

This discrepancy between the high-flying nature of political promises and the mundane reality of policy outcomes lies at the heart of recent voter discontent. Promises may result in short-term electoral success but at the cost of increasing disillusionment in the long term. The most significant short-term influences on growth—the oil price, Federal Reserve policy, China’s success in managing its economic growth—are outside the control of European politicians. National leaders are, in effect, bluffing when they say their own policies can make much difference.

Europe’s failure to generate much in the way of economic or wage growth over the past decade means that voters are not just turning against the parties in power—they have lost faith with the mainstream opposition as well. The effect can be seen everywhere, from the rise of Marine Le Pen in France to the emergence of brand new parties like the Five Star Movement in Italy and Podemos in Spain. Years of short-term gains for the mainstream parties have resulted in a long-term loss.

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21652362-when-political-leaders-turn-option-writers-economics-bluffing

Sewing up lower costs from falling commodity prices

In the past year the prices of many commodities—including cotton and oil—have fallen 30 to 50 percent. That should be good news for most apparel and footwear companies, since these are key raw materials for the production of yarns and the synthetic rubbers used in footwear. Companies are asking themselves how these price falls will translate into cost reductions from their suppliers, and how fast that will happen.

The basic estimates look promising. In a typical, mid-priced knit garment, raw cotton represents around 50 to 60 percent of the total cost of cotton yarns, yarn accounts for about 60 percent of fabric, and fabric for about 50 to 60 percent of the cost of a finished garment. Therefore, given the 30 percent drop in the price of raw cotton in the past year (Exhibit), a buyer might expect a 5 to 7 percent drop in apparel cost, depending on the complexity of the garment. The picture is similar in synthetics, with the price of PET¹ dropping around 25 percent between March 2014 and February 2015.

Few apparel and footwear companies have captured significant commodity-related savings from their suppliers, however. Some companies don’t have a structured process in place to ask for supplier cost reductions when commodity prices fall; others don’t know what cost reduction to ask for when they do. Of those that do ask, many receive small reductions of 1 to 2 percent from some suppliers, while others receive no savings at all.

When pressed to offer commodity-related cost reductions, suppliers may argue that the effects of raw material prices on their own costs have been smaller than estimated, have been diluted by other players in the value chain, or have yet to trickle through to them. (In practice, changes in cotton yarn prices typically lag commodity prices by one to three months.) Without a deep understanding of the whole value chain and such facts at their fingertips, companies find it very hard to counter these points.

To claw back the full savings potential offered by commodity price drops, companies need to develop a detailed picture of the end-to-end value chains of their products, and of the way input cost fluctuations percolate through that chain. That is a complex business, requiring an understanding of the underlying chemistry of key raw materials, the structure of the industries that produce those materials, and the evolution of supply and demand over time. The sidebar below (“From oil to polyester”) describes some of the complexities surrounding the production of PET, one of the most important apparel inputs. A similarly complex value chain exists for many important polymers used in the footwear industry, like EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate), PU (polyurethane) and SBR (styrene-butadiene rubber).

From oil to polyester

While most apparel companies understand the cotton value chain relatively well, the value chain for polyester is often more of an enigma. Polyester fiber is made from PET (polyethylene terephthalate) that has been melted and spun. PET, in turn is made of two materials: Purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and mono ethylene glycol (MEG). Both these materials are made from oil, and their price tracks the oil price. MEG can also be made from natural gas, but since the marginal producers, especially in East Asia, currently use oil as a feedstock, the MEG price tends to follow the oil price rather than that of gas.

Analysis of the value chain shows that when oil was at $100 per barrel, it constituted approximately 50 percent of the cost of PET. If oil prices stay around $50 per barrel, PET prices should remain around 25 percent lower than last year. Moreover, overcapacity in the industry means the PET market is highly competitive and prices are set by the marginal producer, resulting in price declines over the past ten years. Thanks largely to overcapacity in China, the PET industry is currently running at only 66 percent of its full utilization. With demand projected to grow at 3 percent a year, overcapacity is likely to continue to keep prices down. Together these factors suggest that polyester prices will stay low at least until the end of 2015.

Companies that have taken such a fact-based and structured approach to supplier negotiations in the response to commodity price changes have been able to capture savings of 4 to 6 percent from their suppliers in a wide range of categories. One large apparel retailer did this by building a “rapid response system” based on detailed analysis of the effect of commodity price changes on the costs of different yarn and fabric types. Significant swings triggered assertive communications with its suppliers, asking for price adjustments within 30 days. The company was able to support subsequent negotiations with the data from its analyses.

The bigger picture

Beyond the specific opportunities related to a better understanding of commodity price effects, a procurement approach built on a deeper understanding of the whole value chain has the potential to offer more than just quick wins. It can also help the industry meet some of its most enduring challenges. For a decade or more, apparel companies have been fighting rising costs, driven by increasing labor, raw material and energy prices, as well as compliance costs in Asia. Their main weapon in this war against inflation has been to move production to lower cost countries and regions. But this strategy has many drawbacks: Supply chains must be reconfigured, and companies need to expend time and effort ensuring new suppliers meet the required standards of quality and environmental and social responsibility. Worse, by focusing so much on where their products are manufactured, these companies may not be paying enough attention to how they are made—and to the opportunities to reduce costs, manage risk and improve efficiency in their existing value chains.
There is also a significant opportunity for the apparel sector to make use of procurement best practices from other sectors. For example, the automotive and electronics industries for years have used advanced sourcing approaches such as Design to Value (DTV) teardowns, cleansheet “should cost” modeling and supplier collaboration. We will show in subsequent articles how these approaches can be adapted for apparel and footwear companies, and how leading players have driven 10 to 20 percent savings through their use.

Source: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/operations/sewing_up_lower_costs_from_falling_commodity_prices

Money for old folk: The relationship between ageing and inflation is not as simple as economists assume

WHEN it comes to the economic impact of demography, Japan is the wizened canary in the world’s coal mine. It has become older faster than any other big country: its median age went from 34 in 1980 to 46 today, and will continue rising for decades. But it will soon have plenty of greying company, from wealthy countries such as Finland and South Korea to developing giants, including China and Russia. Economists generally agree that the ageing of populations leads to slower growth, because a country’s potential output tends to fall as its labour force shrinks. They also expect heavier fiscal burdens, with governments providing for more pensioners from a smaller tax base.

Until recently, though, there had been little research into how demography affects inflation. The Japanese example of persistent deflation over the past two decades was seen as evidence enough that prices fall when countries age and their growth slows. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, has sought to disprove that, espousing massive monetary easing to get prices rising. With inflation slumping far below the Bank of Japan’s 2% target in recent months, it is tempting to conclude that ageing is too powerful a force to overturn. But a new body of research* gives advocates of Abenomics a bit of support, at least on the demographic front. It shows that deflation is not the preordained outcome of ageing.

The problem lies not in identifying the possible links between ageing and prices, but in working out which way they cut. Consider the factors of production. When growth slows businesses rein in investment, so the cost of capital may decline. Yet wages ought to rise when the supply of workers falls. In the realm of fiscal policy, some indebted governments may make painful cuts as pensioners multiply, leading to slow growth and sluggish inflation. But others may opt to monetise their debt, pushing inflation up. (Some suspect this is the ultimate aim of Abenomics.)

How to disentangle these possibilities? In a recent working paper, Mitsuru Katagiri of the Bank of Japan and Hideki Konishi and Kozo Ueda of Waseda University distinguish between the ageing caused by a falling birth rate and that brought on by increased longevity. The main effect of fewer births would be a shrinking tax base; that might prompt the government to embrace inflation to erode its debts and thus stay solvent. But longer lives would cause the ranks of pensioners to swell; their increased political influence, in turn, would augur for tighter monetary policy to prevent inflation eating into savings.

In the case of Japan the authors estimate that the ageing process has led to deflation of about 0.6 percentage points a year over the past 40 years—a huge cumulative impact. That, they believe, is because the big surprise in Japanese demography has been ever-increasing longevity. Fertility rates are close to the levels projected in 2002, but the government has steadily revised up its estimates of lifespans. It is unexpected longevity, not simply ageing, that has been deflationary in Japan.

What about the impact of ageing on financial assets? Economic theory—“the life-cycle hypothesis”—holds that people smooth their consumption over their lifetimes, going into debt when young, buying assets when their earnings peak and selling them to pay for retirement. That, in theory, should lead to lower asset values as countries enter their dotage, but the empirical record is mixed: house prices often fall, but stocks sometimes rise.

An important variable is whether assets sold by pensioners are domestic or foreign. Derek Anderson, Dennis Botman and Ben Hunt of the International Monetary Fund looked at the decrease in Japan’s net savings rate from some 15% of disposable income in the early 1990s to about zero in 2011. What stands out is that many of the liquidated savings had been invested in foreign assets. When Japanese pensioners sold stocks and bonds abroad and repatriated the funds, they fuelled an appreciation in the yen—a consistent problem until 2012. This in turn contributed to deflationary pressure, by lowering the cost of imports. But the researchers also reckon that strong monetary easing combined with a credible commitment to an inflation target would have been sufficient to negate the effect of ageing. In other words, they believe Japan needed Abenomics long before it got it.

Greyflation

A recent paper by Mikael Juselius and Elod Takats for the Bank for International Settlements offers a very different take on how ageing affects inflation, suggesting that Japan may not be typical after all. They look at 22 advanced economies from 1955 to 2010. Japan is, after all, not the only country to have experienced deflation. Sure enough, they find a steady correlation between deflation and demography, but just the opposite of what is commonly assumed. A larger share of dependents—both young and old—is associated with higher inflation, whereas having more people of working age is linked to lower inflation. Their explanation, albeit tentative, is straightforward. Countries with more people consuming goods and services than producing them are liable to have excess demand and thus inflationary tendencies. Those with more producers than consumers will, by contrast, have excess supply and a deflationary bias.

That raises the question of why prices in Japan have fallen for so many years, given its rapidly ageing population. There are several potential culprits: the damaged balance-sheets left by the popping of the asset bubble of the 1980s, say, or the hesitant monetary policy before Mr Abe. But if the paper’s thesis holds true, an ageing population could yet lead to rising prices in the coming years. As the Bank of Japan seeks to vanquish deflation, demography may turn out to be friend, not foe.

Source: http://www.economist.com/ageing15

Economists: Don’t leave home without one

As business leaders seek to stay ahead of the curve, they should ensure that somewhere in their range of view are the ideas of economists. Not forecasts or models or the dry parade of graphs and equations found in the typical introductory textbook, but rather economists’ insights and ideas, which sometimes have an enormous impact on the evolution of industries and also have been put to use in very practical and profitable ways by real companies. I am an economist, so this assertion may seem a bit self-serving. But I wouldn’t make it if there weren’t powerful evidence in its corner.

In this article, I’ll focus on one example: the Internet economy we know today would not have been possible, in scale or in speed of adoption, without an extremely important policy development of the 1970s and 1980s—the deregulation of transportation—in which economists played an important role. Nor would the business model of two of the Internet’s well-known players have been possible without the embrace of an idea—auctions—that has its roots deep in economics. I don’t think the Internet is an isolated case. I’ll close with an example of how a big economic idea could, in the future, have major implications for another major industry: pharmaceuticals.

Transportation deregulation
Had the transportation industry not been deregulated in the 1970s and early 1980s, and had the much more efficient and flexible systems built by companies such as UPS not emerged in response to competition, it is difficult to see how Internet retailers like Amazon, which came along roughly two decades later, would have been able to get started or succeed. Amazon would have had to begin with its own fleet of trucks or even planes to escape the strictures of the pre-1980 regulatory regime, a barrier to entry that almost certainly would have been impossible for new retailers to overcome.

The deregulation of prices and of entry into the transportation industry—especially interstate cargo air traffic and trucking in the mid to late 1970s—is an exciting story in retrospect, but its importance would have been easy to miss at the time. As such, it is a useful reminder for business leaders of the value of keeping their ears to the ground when big economic ideas are playing out in policy arenas. That this particular dismantling of economic regulation happened at all is an amazing fact that contradicts one widely held notion of political economy: a policy benefiting large numbers of people and businesses in a small way is unlikely to be adopted if it imposes large harm on a small, concentrated number of other individuals and businesses.

Air cargo and trucking fit this description to a T. Economic regulation artificially suppressed competition and kept prices of freight (and passenger) traffic too high. But since freight costs represent only a small fraction of the costs of any retail operation and are not separately broken out, consumers paid only a little bit more than they otherwise might. Moreover, even if consumers knew this, they were too diffuse to oppose the concentrated lobbying efforts of the firms in the transportation industry (and its workforce), which would have been hurt greatly by additional competition. That was true even if the price for keeping it at bay had to be price regulation.

How then did things change in the United States? The starting point was congressional hearings organized by the late Senator Edward Kennedy and his chief staffer on these issues, Stephen Breyer (currently a Supreme Court Justice). The hearings featured economic research that made clear the large price cuts to be expected from dismantling price and entry controls in the airline industry. When Jimmy Carter was elected president, he joined forces with Kennedy (and senators whom Kennedy recruited to the cause) to push deregulation. Carter started with the appointment of two prominent economists, the late Alfred Kahn (as chairman) and Elizabeth Bailey, to the Civil Aeronautics Board, which oversaw the airline industry.

Airline deregulation passed Congress in 1978. Once the deregulation ball was rolling, it next went to the trucking industry, whose prices and routes were just as strictly controlled, even though there were thousands of firms in the industry. Trucking deregulation came in 1980, with the help of some heavy pushing along the way by the Interstate Commerce Commission, headed by another highly regarded economist whom Carter had appointed as chairman (on Kahn’s recommendation): Darius Gaskins. The bottom line is that neither deregulation success would have been possible without many years of prior economic research and, most likely, without articulate economists such as Kahn, Bailey, Gaskins, and the economists they appointed to key regulatory positions. When the stars align in this way, it’s worth paying attention.

Auctions

Economists and their ideas also have had an important impact on the evolution of the Internet directly, not mediated by policy changes, through their championing and theorizing about auctions. In the early 1900s, the whole notion of how prices are set in a market economy was analogized to an auctioneer, since frequently referred to as a “Walrasian auctioneer” in the academic literature. The auctioneer conducts continuous auctions for all kinds of commodities, not just those in scarce supply, to which it was once commonly thought that auctions would be limited.

Auctions played a role in the rise of mobile telephony, which has become deeply intertwined, through smartphones, with the Internet itself. (Economist Ronald Coase proposed auctioning off segments of the electromagnetic spectrum in the late 1950s, an idea that was not adopted until the 1990s.) And auctions also played a direct role in the growth of two well-known Internet companies.

One example is Priceline, launched by Jay Walker, who studied economics at Cornell as an undergraduate and learned his lessons well, especially the lectures and reading materials relating to demand curves, which are constructs in economic textbooks but not directly observable in the real world. Shortly after the Internet’s commercial possibilities became evident, Walker and his colleagues came up with the idea of “name your own price travel”—essentially reversing the typical process, in which firms set prices and then hope that consumers pay them. But Walker’s idea was not just to have consumers offer to pay their own prices: if it had only been that, travelers would have bid a dollar or two, and the airlines and hotels he was seeking to participate (TWA and America West became the first) would have refused. No, Walker’s clever innovation was to require consumers to pay the price they bid if the airlines and hotels on Priceline decided to accept it. That condition made travelers think hard about their bids and induced them to make serious offers.

Priceline is an example of a company founded by an innovator with a background in economics. Another company where economic principles later proved to have importance is Google. The search-engine pioneer generates most of its revenue through an auction-based system of selling ads. The system was developed by two engineers but validated by Google’s chief economist, Hal Varian, who was also the first dean of the School of Information at the University of California at Berkeley.

It’s worth mentioning as a side note that Varian has since overseen the hiring of a large corps of statisticians (mostly) and economists who developed other innovations for the company. Google Trends, for example, tracks search-term volumes, which can be helpful in predicting various real-world events, such as the progress of the flu or forthcoming official unemployment statistics. Indeed, the big data revolution ushered in by the ease of capturing, storing, and analyzing large bodies of data has generated new demand for economists and statisticians. High-tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Yahoo! now employ economists to sift through all kinds of data—retail transactions, browsing patterns, mobile-phone usage—to fine-tune their product offerings, pricing, and other business strategies. While teasing out relationships from masses of data can be helpful, correlations found in them often speak to the past and have limited forward-looking utility. Data mining is likely to be more useful if guided by underlying theories, which is what economists can do.

Looking forward

What do these stories of economic ideas have to do with business leaders today? I’d suggest that, every now and then, economic concepts are likely to make their way forward in surprising places, creating real opportunities for watchful executives and threats for unsuspecting ones. Here’s an idea, developed by economists at MIT, that I believe has promise: the securitization of research and development for pharmaceuticals or medical devices.1

The notion here is to pool the R&D expenses of many different research endeavors, most likely ones that have passed some preliminary vetting (for example, Phase 1 clinical trials mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration). I know that the mere word “securitization” has a bad name in the wake of the financial crisis. But the notion itself is not bad; it’s what’s inside the pools of securities and the completeness of disclosure for investors that matter. Structured the right way, pharma R&D bonds could be not only attractive for investors but also a potentially important way to bring more capital to support research for drug therapies and medical devices that both extend and improve the quality of life for millions of people.

When and how this kind of securitization will happen I don’t know. But I do believe that pharmaceutical researchers and leaders should keep an eye on the potential for it, and I will be surprised if, at some point, economic and financial value don’t shift in surprising ways as a result. Business leaders are unlikely to catch signals like these, though, if they limit their focus on economics to one-off situations—listening periodically to the forecasts of economists, hiring them as experts in lawsuits, or seeking their assistance in very specific projects, such as how best to bid in upcoming federal auctions for the electromagnetic spectrum.

I believe economists have a broader and more ongoing usefulness for business. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most famous economists of them all, surely was right when he observed that “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” The one qualification I would add is that the originators of the ideas need not be defunct; economics is a living field whose generation of ideas with business relevance bears watching all the time.

Source: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/economists_dont_leave_home_without_one