September 23, 2002
Steven Roach in the New York Times

Morgan Stanley's Steven Roach lays out why he is so scared of the business cycle. He's a lot more scared than I am--I am worried that deflation is a (relatively small) possibility two years hence, while he is worried that deflation is likely in the next year as what he sees as bubbles in housing prices and consumer spending pop. But he's been consistent in his views over the past six months, while I have been moving in his direction...


The Costs of Bursting Bubbles: ...There is good reason to believe that both the property and consumer bubbles will burst in the not-so-distant future. If they do, there is a realistic possibility that the United States, like Japan in the 1990's, will suffer a series of recessionary relapses over the next several years. Yet denial remains deep, just as it was when the Nasdaq composite index was lurching toward 5,000. Few want to believe that this economic expansion may be built on such a shaky foundation.

The evidence in support of a housing bubble is compelling. The 27 percent increase in inflation-adjusted American house prices since 1997 represents the sharpest five-year increase since 1945. This surge is about three times the increase in real housing rents over this period. (The divergence of home prices and rents, which usually move in tandem, is one measure of the speculative element of the housing market.) As their property values rise, hard-pressed consumers have been quick to extract purchasing power from their homes, taking advantage of low interest rates to refinance their property and use the savings to buy cars, furniture, appliances and other luxury goods. Thus the ever-expanding property bubble has become central to the culture of excess that is now driving the United States economy.

The consumer-spending bubble will undoubtedly be the last to pop. Short of savings and long on debt, an aging American population must begin to come to grips with the looming realities of retirement. Yet it must now do so in an era of defined contribution pension plans whose performance has been battered by a devastating bear market in equities. We all know that Americans are addicted to shopping. Yet we also know that, if they want to retire with any kind of financial security, they must increase their savings and rein in their spending.

What might cause the consumer-spending bubble to burst? It's hard to say, although several realistic possibilities come to mind...

The New York Times

September 22, 2002

The Costs of Bursting Bubbles

By STEPHEN S. ROACH

LONDON — A year after terrorism dealt a seemingly lethal blow to America, talk of resilience and economic recovery is in the air. The nation's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has risen for four consecutive quarters following a mild downturn in the first nine months of 2001. While the estimated 3.2 percent growth rate over the past year is subdued when compared with the more vigorous rebounds of the past, the hope is that it's a down payment on bigger and better things to come.

But while Sept. 11 was a defining event for America, it was not a defining event for the economy or the financial markets. That role belongs to the stock market bubble of the late 1990's that finally popped in March 2000. There was far more to the excesses of the 1990's, however, than an asset bubble. The bubble expanded high enough, and for long enough, to have infected the behavior of consumers and businesses alike.

The equity bubble helped to create other bubbles — most notably in the housing market and in consumer spending. Their continued existence poses a serious threat to lasting expansion — and yet, puncturing them raises the grave risk of deflation. This suggests the economy will prove as challenging to America's political leadership as any other issue in the year ahead.

There is good reason to believe that both the property and consumer bubbles will burst in the not-so-distant future. If they do, there is a realistic possibility that the United States, like Japan in the 1990's, will suffer a series of recessionary relapses over the next several years. Yet denial remains deep, just as it was when the Nasdaq composite index was lurching toward 5,000. Few want to believe that this economic expansion may be built on such a shaky foundation.

The evidence in support of a housing bubble is compelling. The 27 percent increase in inflation-adjusted American house prices since 1997 represents the sharpest five-year increase since 1945. This surge is about three times the increase in real housing rents over this period. (The divergence of home prices and rents, which usually move in tandem, is one measure of the speculative element of the housing market.) As their property values rise, hard-pressed consumers have been quick to extract purchasing power from their homes, taking advantage of low interest rates to refinance their property and use the savings to buy cars, furniture, appliances and other luxury goods. Thus the ever-expanding property bubble has become central to the culture of excess that is now driving the United States economy.

The consumer-spending bubble will undoubtedly be the last to pop. Short of savings and long on debt, an aging American population must begin to come to grips with the looming realities of retirement. Yet it must now do so in an era of defined contribution pension plans whose performance has been battered by a devastating bear market in equities. We all know that Americans are addicted to shopping. Yet we also know that, if they want to retire with any kind of financial security, they must increase their savings and rein in their spending.

What might cause the consumer-spending bubble to burst? It's hard to say, although several realistic possibilities come to mind — a spike in oil prices, a surge of white-collar layoffs or a collapse of the property bubble. Any one of those developments could send a wake-up call to the American consumer, thereby denying the United States and the broader global economy its main source of support.

But it gets worse. The saga of the post-bubble United States economy doesn't stop with the bursting of the housing and consumer bubbles. Since these events are likely to occur when inflation is already running at a very low rate, they could push the United States into a period of outright deflation — a decline in the nation's overall level of prices for goods and services.

This is a rare and worrisome condition for most economies. The impact of deflation would be most acute for wage earners and debtors. To stay profitable, companies would have to cut jobs or wages, eventually inhibiting consumer purchasing power. And the fixed obligations of indebtedness would have to be paid back in deflated dollars, squeezing overextended borrowers all the more.

America is already on the brink of deflation. Our broadest price gauge, the G.D.P. price index, recorded just a 1 percent annualized increase in the second quarter of 2002. That's the lowest inflation rate in 48 years. Prices of goods and structures — covering nearly half the economy — are already contracting at an annual rate of 0.6 percent. Only in services, where price statistics are notoriously unreliable, are prices still rising.

The hows and whys of America's deflationary perils will long be debated. Two sources seem most likely. First, the bubble-induced boom of business capital spending led to an overhang of new information technologies and other forms of capital equipment in the late 1990's. The result was excess supply, a textbook recipe for lower prices.

Also at work are the unmistakable effects of globalization. The modern-day American economy now has a record exposure to global competition. In the second quarter of 2002, America imported a third as many goods as it produced, well in excess of the 20 percent ratio prevailing at the onset of the last recovery in the early 1990's. Significantly, more and more of these goods are coming from highly competitive Asian producers who have much lower cost structures than their American counterparts.

Moreover, with the exception of Korea, every major Asian economy is now in the throes of its own deflation. Consequently, courtesy of ever-expanding trade relations with Asia, America is now buying more and more from countries like China and Japan that are already in deflation. The growing share of these increasingly cheap foreign goods helps drive down prices of products made at home, thereby deepening deflationary pressures.

History tells us that when major asset bubbles burst, deflation is often the result. That was true of the United States in the 1930's and Japan in the 1990's. Most are quick to claim that America is not Japan — that its more flexible, dynamic economy stands in sharp contrast to Japan's economic inertia. But the United States is already a lot closer to the deflationary edge than most concede — and it could go further.


Deflationary risks can never be taken lightly in a post-bubble economy. Yet that's precisely what American investors and policy makers now seem to be doing. If the housing and consumer bubbles pop, then the risk of outright deflation will only increase. It's time to stop pretending this can't happen in the United States.

Stephen S. Roach is chief economist and director of global economics at Morgan Stanley.

Posted by DeLong at September 23, 2002 10:19 AM | Trackback

Email this entry
Email a link to this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

the lex column today on the US economy, generally sides with the "bond bubble theory" as opposed to deflation. the bond market has certainly been telling people deflation is around the corner, and i've tended to believe it, but i have to admit it's hard to see rising budget deficits and ongoing dollar weakness (as a result of lower FDI) being anything but inflationary.

also, too, it's been noted that recent treasury purchases are the result of mortgage cos buying to increase their porfolio durations as a result of massive refis and the japanese are big buyers after the recent JGB auction failed. also all the corporate issuance going on is being hedged by underwriters with treasuries. it's debateable about how long all this buying can go on, but it is not indefinite, and a lot of it is premised on falling treasury yields...

***
The world's government bond markets have become a battleground for two schools of thought: those who support the bond bubble theory, and followers of the "D-word" - deflation. For the moment, the deflationary camp is gathering strength, egged on by those who have profited in the bond markets from Japan's slump conditions but who now see more reasons for steering clear of JGBs. A statement from the Federal Reserve this week suggesting perils for the US economy ahead would help their cause.

With growth in the third quarter above a 3 per cent annual rate, the Fed will probably remain on hold. But forward-looking indicators are weak, as is the labour market, and the danger of a double-dip has not disappeared. Weak financial markets, anaemic growth outside the US, rising energy prices and the possibility of war in Iraq make for an uncertain environment. But disinflation is different from deflation. Inflation in the US is low but it is still positive and core inflation is actually rising.

Those who believe a bond market bubble is in the making are supported by valuations. Ten-year US Treasury yields are at 40-year lows, and the real rate is more than one percentage point below the 3.6 per cent average of the 1990s. Inflation expectations, measured by the spread between inflation-indexed US bonds and nominal government bonds, have barely budged this year. The drop in yields, therefore, suggests a flight to safety from the equity and corporate bond markets, more than deflation concerns. But how much safety is there in inflation-sensitive assets that take oil prices near $30 a barrel in their stride?

It takes a long time to double your money with yields under 4 per cent. That suggests there is good reason to be cautious about bonds. Moreover, even without war, budget deficits are increasing across the developed world and eventually that will be felt along the yield curve. Meanwhile, the talk of global deflation recalls those "paradigm shifts" peddled in the go-go equities era of the 1990s - and it is clear that much of that was bubble talk.

Posted by: kenny on September 23, 2002 02:31 PM

People seem to be getting a little profligate with the "B" word. As far as I've known "bubble" has always referred to dramatic asset price inflation -- a rapid rise in the price of stocks, real estate, tulips, some thing. (Followed, by definintion, by a dramatic corresponding drop in such price).

Now we have a bubble in consumer spending, how's that supposed to work?

And after looking at the data any worries I had about a US real estate bubble have been largely assuaged. A rise of 5% a year for five years hardly matches the classical description of a "bubble". The real estate index that the Economist recently published indicates that over the last 20 years US real estate has risen only half as fast as the stock market with the latter measured from its recent busted-bubble low.

If "bubble" now means an increase in *anything* (prices, expenditures, whatever) that might lead to some kind of offseting decrease later -- just a cyclical high -- the word's not going to have much meaning left. (Not that I've ever seen any rigorous definiton of it to begin with.)

Posted by: Jim Glass on September 23, 2002 02:45 PM

OK, after complaining about too much use of the b-word I'll add two reports on bbs -- bond bubbles, in Japan and the US.

The late Rudy Dornbusch gave a nightmare scenario for Japan beginning with the government being unable to sell its bonds -- the Japanese bond bubble bursts. http://web.mit.edu/rudi/www/editorials.html
"Two Big Risks For the World Economy" (the other being oil).

In fact, Japan was unable to sell its bonds this week. The current Barrons reports on the situation with quotes such as "the biggest financial bubble still left in the world is the JGB market .... The BoJ's proposal to purchase shares from the banks implies that the crisis in Japan's banking system is at or near the boiling point... That could trigger a veritable stampede into Treasuries and other sovereign bonds"

Which brings us to the US bond bubble, allegedly bad enough to begin with and perhaps being further inflated by Fannie Mae.

From Barrons again: "...the 10-year Japanese government bond may no longer be the most overpriced security on the planet. That honor may now rest with its American counterpart, which hit 3.75% during the stocks' slide Thursday. To put that in perspective, Uncle Sam hasn't seen his 10-year obligations yield so little since the early days of the Kennedy administration. Moreover, just last spring, the Treasury benchmark yielded as much as 5.40%. ... Treasury yields are out of whack with just about any criteria you could mention...

"The attraction of Treasuries hasn't been in what they are but what they aren't, most particularly equities. On a day-to-day basis of late, Treasuries trade as if they're S&P put options....

"[Moreover] Fannie Mae, the big mortgage agency, just announced that its duration mismatch had grown to a negative 14 months....Fannie finds her assets are being paid off faster than expected by homeowners merrily refinancing and locking in cheap mortgages of a little over 6%. The liabilities are maturing more slowly, so Fannie's profit margin gets squeezed.

"What's that got to do with Treasuries? The way mortgage investors quickly and cheaply extended their assets' lives is to buy U.S. government notes, the only securities that are completely protected from early redemptions and have the highest credit quality, even higher than the mortgage pass-throughs issued by Fannie ...

"Jim Bianco of Bianco Research in Chicago, guesstimates that Fannie may need to buy $100 billion of 10-year securities to fix this problem. He thinks that much of that buying has already taken place and has been behind the ski-slope drop in yields, from 4.14% just since Aug. 30. The risk is that all this frantic buying related to mortgage prepayments could be creating a bubble in the bond market, he thinks. That is, the government bond market..."

Bubbles, bubbles, everywhere.

Posted by: Jim Glass on September 23, 2002 04:13 PM

Roach compares housing price inflation to rent inflation. But a more appropriate comparison would be between monthly carrying costs of a house vs. monthly rents. That's what drives the buy vs. rent decision. Falling mortgage rate could support faster growth in home purchase prices than rents since monthly carrying costs for home owners wouldn't be rising as fast as the price of houses.

Avery Shenfeld

Posted by: on September 24, 2002 06:55 AM

Roach simply asserts that people are pulling significant amounts of cash out of their refinanced mortgages-- Is there evidence for this? What about people who refinance for lower payments (and perhaps to increase personal savings rate at the same time)?

Posted by: Matt on September 24, 2002 09:42 AM

The level of consumer debt relative to income is about 110%. This ratio has been increasing for years. A substantial part of refinancing is for consumption rather than investment or saving.

Saw the data a few days ago....

Posted by: on September 24, 2002 10:06 AM

Though business conditions appear to be fine for us and for friends about the country, I am trying to understand why the bear market in stocks and bull market in bonds are so pronounced and lengthy. After 30 months, the S&P is down about 45% and the European index is down more than 45%. Brazil is deep in a bear market, despite the IMF aide. Japan and China are deflating.

What really is happening? Are conditions really fine, and "feeling" askew, or are we weakening?

Posted by: on September 24, 2002 10:20 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?