Lords of Finance was a stirring book. It bought alive the events of 1920s with its terrific narrative on how a few men actually bought disaster onto the world economy. These few good men were the central bankers of US, UK, Germany and France. The narrative then was these central bankers did not do enough to bail out their economies. To emphasize, they did not let go off gold standard which converted a crisis into a large scale depression.
Cometh 2008 crisis and central bankers just did the opposite. They let all hells break loose and intervened in ways never imagined before. However, the results are not really different. The same havoc continues.
Alexander Friedman, Group CEO of GAM Holding, reviews the lessons:
In his Pulitzer-Prize-winning book, Lords of Finance, the economist Liaquat Ahamad tells the story of how four central bankers, driven by staunch adherence to the gold standard, “broke the world” and triggered the Great Depression. Today’s central bankers largely share a new conventional wisdom – about the benefits of loose monetary policy. Are monetary policymakers poised to break the world again?
Orthodox monetary policy no longer enshrines the gold standard, which caused the central bankers of the 1920s to mismanage interest rates, triggering a global economic meltdown that ultimately set the stage for World War II. But the unprecedented period of coordinated loose monetary policy since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008 could be just as problematic. Indeed, the discernible effect on financial markets has already been huge.
The first-order impact is clear. Institutional investors have found it difficult to achieve positive real yields in any of the traditional safe-haven investments. Life insurers, for example, have struggled to meet their guaranteed rates of return. According to a recent report by Swiss Re, had government bonds been trading closer to their “fair value,” insurers in America and Europe would have earned some $40-$80 billion from 2008 to 2013 (assuming a typical 50-60% allocation to fixed income). For public pension funds, an additional 1% yield during this period would have increased annual income by $40-50 billion.
Investors have responded to near-zero interest rates with unprecedented adjustments in the way they allocate assets. In most cases, they have taken on more risk. For starters, they have moved into riskier credit instruments, resulting in a compression of corporate-bond spreads. Once returns on commercial paper had been driven to all-time lows, investors continued to push into equities. Approximately 63% of global institutional investors increased allocations in developed-market equities in the six months prior to April 2015, according to data from a recent State Street survey – even though some 60% of them expect a market correction of 10-20%.
Even the world’s most conservative investors have taken on unprecedented risk. Japan’s public pension funds, which include the world’s largest, have dumped local bonds at record rates. In addition to boosting investments in foreign stocks and bonds, they have now raised their holdings of domestic stocks for the fifth consecutive quarter. These allocation decisions are understandable, given the paltry yields available in fixed-income investments, but the resulting second-order impact could ultimately prove devastating.
The author reviews several trends which have not gone in the desired direction. Infact, we could be staring at another crisis:
The new Lords of Finance have arguably been successful in many of their objectives since the financial crisis erupted seven years ago. For this, they deserve credit. But, when an emergency strikes, large-scale policy responses always produce unintended consequences typically sowing the seeds for the next full-blown crisis. Given recent market turmoil, the question now is whether the next crisis has already begun.
The lessons from Lords of Finance were wrongly interpreted. It was not just about lack of central bank intervention but leave policy to just a handful of people. The hubris and overconfidence of these appointed individuals eventually played a major role in both the crises. Infact the period of 1945-70 when central banks were shunned to a really low key role was also a great period for financial stability. Of course it was also a period when there were many restrictions on capital flows and overall regulation was much tighter.