- Date published:
8:14 am, October 19th, 2015 - 102 comments
Categories: economy, Financial markets, International - Tags: financial crisis, GFC, GFC 3, Goldman Sachs, IMF
There has been plenty of chatter recently over a Goldman Sachs report. Here’s one example summary:
GOLDMAN SACHS: The GFC is back
Remember the 2008 financial crisis? Well, it’s back.
The financial disaster, which started seven years ago with the US real estate and investment banking collapse, has entered its third phase according to a team of Goldman Sachs analysts.
This wave is characterised by rock bottom commodities prices, stalling growth in China and other emerging markets economies and low global inflation … This triple-whammy has its roots in the response to the first two waves of crisis — the banking collapse and European sovereign debt crisis — and its all part of the so-called debt supercycle of the last few decades. … Here’s the breakdown from Goldman Sachs (emphasis ours):
But with bond yields in real terms close to zero, and policy rates at historical lows, this extraordinary combination of events has raised concerns about the sustainability of the financial returns on a forward-looking basis, particularly if deflationary forces continue to develop.
And here’s what that looks like:
Not sure if this is the same or related research, but anyway The IMF seems to have reached very similar conclusions:
IMF: Beware third storm brewing
At the International Monetary Fund’s annual meeting, experts agree developing economies must face harsh new realities, writes Szu Ping Chan in Lima. … Last week, the fund said global growth this year would be the slowest since the Great Recession.
A separate report by the fund warned that the world faced a “triad” of challenges that meant policy missteps could wipe a massive 3pc off global growth. Corporate borrowers in emerging markets could default en masse when the US raised interest rates, it said. A new credit crunch, a fresh financial crisis: these were the risks facing the global economy.
As China’s three-decade growth miracle comes to an end, the “Anglo-Saxon” crisis of 2008, which was followed by the eurozone’s meltdown in 2011, now threatens to metastasise in emerging markets. But while it’s clear that China’s double-digit growth rates have come to an end, how low can growth go?
[One] thing that everyone accepts is that lower growth is on the way. Jose Uribe, Colombia’s central bank governor, says it is time to face facts: “We cannot keep trying to grow at the rates of the past.”Mauricio Cardenas, the country’s finance minister, describes the situation facing Latin America and other emerging market economies as a simple one: accept reality or deny it. “We’re in a new world,” he says. “The new world is lower commodity prices which are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. At the same time there is going to be less global liquidity.
The dilemma now facing emerging markets has posed a bigger question: where is growth going to come from now that the emerging market engine is stalling?
Popular financial blog The Automatic Earth has an interesting collection of graphs, and a depressing analysis (which is apparently their style).
All in all there are a lot of canaries giving warning in the world’s economic coal mine just now. If and when it does all turn to custard again, NZ will not be as well placed as last time. The Clark / Cullen government left us with zero net government debt going in to the 2008 GFC – Bill English praised them for this. But then in his turn Key / English have run up record debt that is pushing $99 Billion. The next crisis will hit us much harder.
Yep, we are in big trouble and TPP is not going to help . Here is an interview with merican Congressman, senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Brad Sherman on his TPP views and ‘theoretical modelling’.
[Okay that took time. Not having a straight, hundreds of words long cut ‘n paste screed as a comment under a post. In future, take a relevant section and paste it. Then provide the link for the rest of it. Alternatively, as someone did yesterday with the exact same link, provide the direct video link.] – Bill
This is so not a surprise
It is the playing out of the end-game of the ponzi scheme that is the western money system
Basic maths folks, basic maths
Don’t keep your cash in a bank
Yep – and don’t treat those electronic numbers flying around your accounts as if they are actual “money.” Next GFC the banks are enabled to ‘haircut’ your savings accounts with the press of a button.
20 or 25% right?
There is no percentage specified, and it won’t be the bank that is doing it.
It will be handled by the Reserve Bank and the Statutory Manager who will be appointed.
There is a Q&A on the OBR on the RBNZ website.
You should note that it is not a way for the bank to get your money. This scheme is only implemented by putting the failing bank into statutory management and in effect liquidating it. You should therefore note that the shareholders in the bank will lose ALL their equity before any deposit would be permanently affected.
The purpose of freezing some of the deposit balances in the bank is to enable the bank to reopen the next day, rather than having peoples’ deposits there totally frozen for a long period.
I thought a percentage was specified in OBR, that was where I recalled reading it?
This article explores the notion quite well, with a table showing who gets affected and how
You just cant say as safe as money in the bank. If interest rates true ly. Reflected risk they would be sky high. New. Zealand the. risk. Is house hold debt. The last few years were breathing room for government. And in our case natz have squandered. The time china and Dr Cullen bought us the national government will have no life saver this time
We should never have been saying that at all.
Yep and thus the economy wouldn’t be able to function with them…
oh wait… that’s right, it doesn’t.
low interest rates have fueled the speculative bubble economy ,savers are being sacrificed to keep the ponzi scam going .the fake economy needs low interest rates the real economy is dead
Well, those interest rates are supposed to indicate the risk inherent in loaning out money so I really don’t see what the problem is. When you loan out money you’re taking the risk that you’re not going to get it back.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t appear to apply to the banks shareholders, boards of directors or managers.
? Sure that applies to you and me and to savings societies
Central banks don’t need the money back
And retail banks create the money they lend with keystrokes; what do they care if they don’t get the “money” back?
I was responding to your:
When you put a deposit in the bank you’re loaning the bank that money. Sure, they don’t actually loan it out and use it instead to calculate how much money that they can create but some of those loans don’t come back and so they end up with less money than anticipated and so they want to get it from somewhere else and that seems to be the depositors. But still, a deposit in a bank is a loan and the interest is supposed to indicate risk.
I suppose it also helps perpetuate the delusion that banks are just intermediaries.
I have commented a little bit up from here on the OBR.
Before any “haircut” takes permanent effect the shareholders will have lost all their equity and the bank will, in effect, have been liquidated.
A bank can’t just take money from your account as you appear to be implying.
Prefential shares will see that the top don’t miss out
Deposit holders are offered the equivalent of ordinary shares in a failed entity
So yes, deposit funds can be taken
de minimis is the key fro depositers, yes? and that is determined by RB ans Minister of Finance, yes?
So a bank under management can’t guarantee its larger depositers their funds over a certain amount, meanwhile everyone’s accounts are frozen. That’s my reading of the OBR, a license to take money. I would imagine there being a lot of anxious investors when the bank opens up again.
These are Australian shareholders. How is the NZ government going to force losses on Australian shareholders and the Australian parent company?
Technically its very easy for a bank to take money from your account, or from tens of thousands of accounts simultaneously; in fact they do so every day.
Yep, the latest ‘dead cat bounce’ that started in August is on it’s way back down.
Max Keiser always delivers.
This was always on the cards given the response to 2008, when the major central banks went into overdrive “quantitatively easing” the money supply. You can’t solve a debt problem with more debt.
Yes you can , and they did
It isn’t solved silly
What an ignorant comment.
Jones … before repeating a mindless mantra it might be worth engaging brain a little.
There is a major difference between the productive sectors of the economy like business and households having an excessive debt problem – and Central Banks printing money (QE) and giving it to the banks.
The problem with this is that while it bailed out the bank shareholders – it did little change the debt position of the rest of the economy. In that sense the little mantra ‘you cannot solve debt with more debt’ is true; as long as the real economy was debt saturated it was unlikely to take on more. Hence the very sluggish economic recoveries around the globe.
Indeed if the CB’s had just given the money to businesses and household instead (like Bernanke had promised with his ‘money dropped from helicopters’ line) the debt problem would have vanished.
How the GFC was dealt with was the context of my comment – which is why the “mindless mantra” stands true. I rarely have time to go in to detail, which is why my comments tend to be short.
I agree with you that QEP (QE for the People) would’ve been a much better approach than QE for the Banks as it the money would be more likely to be spent into the economy but it would depend on how it was structured. In the form of a debt jubilee as espoused by Steve Keen…? Yes.
And yes Keen is right on this. He is one of the few economists to consistently emphasis the role of private sector debt in the macro economy – by complete contrast to most of the neo-libs who quite wrongly pretend it doesn’t matter.
Oh great and here we are with our country in credit up to our eyeballs thanks to a National government that prefers to borrow, instead of raising taxes on the rich and another financial crisis is on the way.
We only rode out the last financial crisis thanks to Labour having paid of our debt and that gave National a good credit rating to borrow against.
Are we the next country that is going to be forced into austerity measures?
As National is under funding everything already, will they then use it as an excuse to fully sell off all our assets?
Key knows how it works, and that is how he has worked it.
Just like a drug dealer, a money dealer gets people hooked on money and then when they cannot repay, the heavies move in.
Ramp up the debt and wait for default. Just like a drug dealer.
Yep. As detailed in “confessions of an economic hitman.”
That’s exactly what’s happening and why this government needs to be held to account. Treachery and treason seem to be valid starting points for the discussion as to what we should throw them in jail for.
Very bracing and helpful Anthony, thankyou.
Thoroughly recommend all the articles listed in the links, fellow readers.
Our own Treasury are predicting a real slowdown for the New Zealand economy, as well. So 6% unemployment in the country’s biggest boom since the 1950s is the best you are going to get. Cheers Government.
Wasn’t the countries biggest boom since the 1950s between 2002 and 2007 with unemployment getting down below 4% and came to an end when the ponzi financial system collapsed in 2008?
And, yeah, I figure we’ll be hitting ~10 unemployment before the next general election. Our economy isn’t diverse enough and National has been gutting it and starving it.
“The Clark / Cullen government left us with zero net government debt going in to the 2008 GFC”
No they didn’t.
2008, net debt was 5.6% of GDP, gross debt was 17.2%.
And just look at private sector debt levels during the Clark/Cullen years. Climbed every year.
Those figures do not include the Cullen / Super fund – a major asset. Labour left with zero net government debt – plenty of references to this in all sorts of publications.
True, but official government reporting of net debt always excludes the Cullen Fund.
So if you call something “net debt”, and the government calls something else “net debt”, you’re giving both things the same name, even though the numbers are different.
So really this post should say “net debt when including the Superannuation Fund”. Then it is transparent to everyone exactly what it is you’re talking about and no pedants like me can ping you 😛
Nothing wrong with a bit of constructive pedantry I say!
In a true global financial melt down the value of your financial assets portfolio will crash – but your debt levels will persist. Which means that your favourable asset/debt ratio can collapse very quickly indeed.
“In a true global financial melt down the value of your financial assets portfolio will crash – but your debt levels will persist. Which means that your favourable asset/debt ratio can collapse very quickly indeed.”
Yes, that’s true. But the government, being Sovereign, doesn’t have to pay its debts.
Actually, nobody has to pay their debts but it’s expected that countries always will. That’s why corporations like lending to governments and get really antsi when they mention defaulting and get even more so when they start mentioning creating the entire money supply for a country. They like their government guaranteed income from doing nothing.
it wont be a major effort if there is another big crash though?
More on what Labour left national.
Poor National, Labour intimidated them into giving unaffordable, fiscally detrimental tax cuts.
They really need to stand up to Labour’s bullying and reverse them, so that people don’t start to get the suspicion the tax cuts are a result of destructive ideological incompetence and being owned by their donors.
Oh, and I don’t mean to be a Princess Party pooper, but don’t you feel a vague sense of shame and disgust linking to Farrar’s effluent?
Good one – shafted that one.
perhaps he is just smelling his own farts?
More on DPF:
I think Nicole Foss, writer of the Automatic Earth is living in Wellington currently. if that’s the case her expertise seems to be going greatly underutilised by us. im sure she would be open to give public talks as she’s done a lot all over the world in the past.
All Michael Cullen and Helen Clark did was swap lower government debt for increased private sector debt.
Cullen kept money flowing into the NZ economy via the raising of private debt, then taxed that debt based money into the government coffers to lower public debt levels.
And high private sector debt levels is what caused GFC 1 – not high public debt levels.
Which was first class Keynsian economics CV.
What Cullen could not do (especially in an environment utterly dominated by neo-lib thinking at the time) was to make the structural changes that would eliminate the need to NZ (Inc) to be constantly borrowing.
With some 10 -15 % of our GDP being sucked out of our economy every year by overseas capitalists of course we have to borrow to fund the difference. Whether it is the public or private sector that does it – is ultimately just a matter of deck chair rearranging.
With the neo-lib plan of gradual dissipation of public services by government, it suits them to make a big fuss about reducing government debt and ignoring high private debt level and the need to fund it from overseas borrowing which is a stress on the country’s financial stability.
Which is also why the neo-lib economists so obdurately pretend that high levels of private debt do not matter.
Given that the entire neo-lib consensus was only ever a mad delusion whose underlying purpose was to ensure a tiny handful of mega-wealthy could continue to get richer – there can be no surprise that this indeed has been the exact outcome.
In that sense neo-liberalism has been a wild success – as a political theory – not an economic one.
I doubt it. If it was truly “first class Keynsian economics” Cullen would have channelled that debt to fund productive enterprises and capex investment, not the Auckland property asset price bubble.
What would be ‘Keynesian’ about that?
Keynesian econ is generally considered to refer to govt fiscal policy: The govt doesn’t take responsibility for private sector debt, or what it gets spent on. Instead, the govt *reacts* to what the private sector is doing by running counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
I don’t believe in Government being hands off the financial sector. In fact, the financial sector needs tough regulation and direction. I also believe in Government actively directing and developing the economy.
Good for you. But that doesn’t mean:
“first class Keynsian economics” … would have channelled that debt to fund productive enterprises and capex investment
You disagree with Keynes, that’s obvioulsy fine, but I thought you were claiming Keynes would have done stuff, and was wondering what you meant
The First Labour Government paid a lot of attention to Keynes approaches. The result: Government investment in rail, road, housing, forests, mines and other industry.
A Keynesian prescription isn’t necessarily one where Government spending is focussed on paying people to dig holes and fill them up again. Spending should be focussed on where it can most help the nation on the economic upturn.
And they did that by creating NZs money directly rather than borrowing it.
lab1 followed keynesian (actually slightly before the great work was published) responses to a depression.
PB is arguing that lab5 followed a broadly keynesian response to an overheating economy: paying down government debt so it’s in a position to stimulate the economy during the following downturn.
“PB is arguing that lab5 followed a broadly keynesian response to an overheating economy: paying down government debt so it’s in a position to stimulate the economy during the following downturn.”
This is not a Keynesian position. The General Theory recognises that a government can not run out of money anyway. The reason a government might want to run surpluses is response to an overheating economy in Keynes is just so that it doesn’t create inflationary pressures by running the economy beyond its capacity to produce. Also the downturn is not a necessary following result of the economy running at full capacity (this sounds like Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which is basically BS).
fair call, it’s been a while since I slept through economic theory 🙂
Keynes was absolutely for regulation of the financial sector of the economy. Given the massive de-regulation of the same in recent history he would in no way have disagreed with additional financial regulation.
There is obviously a lot more to the general theory than just stating that the government both can and should make up for a deficiency in private sector spending by its own spending.
In addition, who says that the Cullen period was even one of high employment (a marker for governments to run surpluses), unemployment was much lower still as a percentage over the periods when Keynesian policies were actually followed.
Neo liberalism has been a wild success.
And that is probably more due to manipulating our minds with a propaganda assault worthy of Bernays.
Edward Louis James Bernays (/bərˈneɪz/; German: [bɛɐ̯ˈnaɪs]; November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as “the father of public relations”. He combined the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud.
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.
Always worth a revisit.
If only for repeated reinforcement of the lesson:
Everyone who thinks they can read the matrix has their comeuppance, it seems…
“All Michael Cullen and Helen Clark did was swap lower government debt for increased private sector debt.”
Correction: “they swapped it into student debt.”
At the start of their nine years in office, public debt was $9 billion and zero student debt. When they left, student debt was $9 billion and public debt was zero.
Neo-liberalism falls over without the expansion of credit. Wage growth was pretty slow from the 1990’s to today and prices for things like power, rent and housing kept going up. The only way for people to be able to afford things was stick it all on tick.
I see people here are still clinging to Keynes as a life raft in a global capitalist crisis. This is like clinging to the clapped out boats that refugees are forced to use.
No matter how much money they are handed, capitalists will not invest in production unless they can be sure of a good profit.
They won’t because so far they have not been able to force workers to accept slave wages to return to profit.
Nor can they plunder nature for ‘freebies’ to boost profits as the collapse of fracking shows.
Capitalism is facing its ‘terminal’ crisis this time, not only because workers worldwide have nothing to lose in fighting back, but also because nature is winning and closing down civilisation.
Yep. What we are seeing with US corporates is that they are borrowing massively at very low interest rates – then using the cash to buy back shares from their investors (the 1%).
In other words, saddling the corporation with massive debt while channeling the resulting funds to shareholders pockets.
No productive capacity built up, no jobs created.
Yep, doesn’t matter how you arrange things capitalism will always collapse.
October 19, 1987 – Black Monday
Goldmans warning of problems they’re directly responsible for creating and will profit heavily from once again
“At the end of the day, I’m comfortable with that,” says the smiling assassin.
One day we might consider approaching problems and solutions by placing humans just above economics in the priority list. Who knows what great solutions we could come up with?
Tracey, I think the 99% of humans are taking back control now. Rebellion is everywhere.
Not in nZ, not with Key popular with half kiwis
P.S. The race is on between the TPPA and the crashing economy. If the crash becomes obvious, US representatives will NOT be able to pass TPPA because the public will be infuriated at everyone in office. Hillary Clinton saw the handwriting on the wall and promptly reversed her position.
Apparently we can;t afford free education for Kiwis and apparently we can’t afford to reduce surgery waiting lists to less than 3 months. We also can’t afford to lift 300,000 kids out of poverty or provide half a million Aucklanders with affordable housing.
My question is the same as yours – how can we afford not to?
Tracey, The popularity of ALL incumbents will melt away when the economy crashes. Helen Clark had a fighting chance in the late summer of 2008. But the election was held when the 2008 was in its steepest decline. She would have been beaten by Mickey Mouse. (Some say she was!)
And if the global economy can’t be restarted? Then whoever is put into the hot seat will be looked on with even more derision. A subliminal part of Keys success is the economy appearing strong and the middle class being kept happy.
Then forget the global economy and focus on ours. We have the resources and capability to keep ourselves going. Can’t say that for quite a few countries.
any incoming government is going in inherited a mess and a very angry electorate
the great light of the key brighter future never arrived and all we will have of 9 years of that fucker will some Nazi flag and bog shit natz cronies to exact revenge on
I think I posted on here at the start of the year that this was coming and to spend your time paying off debt.
I hope you have…
you also posted that the TPP would never happen and have since changed that to 50/50 chance so…
and yeah people can just magic away their debt cos you recommend they do. They could rob banks?
Tracey, I think you’ve got it backwards. People don’t rob banks. Banks rob people. /sarc/
Infused seems to think that people can reduce debt just by someone suggesting it
You muddle my words. I said congress passing it was 50/50.
It’s not difficult to reduce debt. Stop spending more than you have. People getting sucked in to these 60 month interest free deals etc.
is that different to it will never happen?
Cos Congress passing it will make it happen?
well this govt you support has spent 100 billion that they dont ‘have’!
The global credit crisis is not over and that was the inevitable end result of the quantitative easing response to the global credit crisis. Quantitative easing just rearranges the deck chairs. The problem was too much debt. The deck chairs did not need rearranging. The correct response to too much debt is to impose a progressive tax on wealthy rentiers.
I just received an LJ hooker mailout entitled “The Aucklanders have arrived”.
Palmerston North is saved.
No financial upset here.
There goes the neighbourhood 🙂
Its all about population growth patterns and available resources to those populations on a generational basis in global time
Been this way in modern history for about 500 yrs
All this time we have had the scab financial industry controlling govts because they have been the controller of the liquid and now digital currency so that globally the finance merchants keep holding the commodity producers and all the other industries that sustain a country by the uno what because they decide the viability of those producers. eg: Key on NZ railway workshops.
And because of that they, the monetarists have so many fingers in all the pies they have all the inside knowledge to either avoid disasters or manipulate them to the areas most powerful
Why is Hong Kong or Beijing not being touted as our no 1 financial indicator ?Many answers to that one, Bank of America for starters
“Dirty Deeds and they are DONE DIRT cheap ” TPPA 13 yrs of psychological conditioning so we accept the west will get parity with asian dominance even if it cost us or sovereignty and we are back 200 yrs to where it began in this country
Yep the whole exercise can be analysed from the standpoint of a rationing programme; the rest of us working damn hard for very little to make sure that the privileged 0.001% sitting in New York and London get their fair dues.
Are my measly savings “safe” in Kiwibank?
The government is the shareholder I believe – is that less of a worry , OR more of a worry than an Aussie bank?
one would think the safest haven of all,given the govt had to guarantee the private banks.
If there is another GFC, Key, the national party & their supporters will no doubt blame Labour for it. I can just see Key saying “Its Labours fault” over & over again to brain wash NZ citizens.
Hard to imagine how the reaction to the coming crisis repeat will not result in mass banker incarcerations and heavy regulation
If the heist can be repeated using a bail-in not a bail-out, and there be no repercussions , it would be a strong signal to go and prepare for what will be coming
The system must be purged of debt and corruption on unprecedented scale, and to not have this outcome would indicate that all bets are off
If indeed they’re not, already
The fact there are so many canaries means it might not happen.
Black Swan type events tend to catch the market by surprise, and so the various players have little time to react. Since all the major players see the warning signs this time, they likely will also be preparing responses that reduce the severity of any downturn.
Time will tell on this I guess.
Well, there are some mixed signals, according to the BBC World business day program a while ago, where they interviewed some experts on markets in China. Some say China is already in negative “growth”, others say it is just above that, still growing, albeit very slowly. Do NOT trust the official growth statistics from the Mainland Chinese government, they are over-rated or glossed over.
A major adjustment is occurring in Mainland China, which is overdue, and with Europe facing a new major crisis, with unabated refugee influx, and with capacity even in Germany now reaching total limits, for accommodating refugees, we see first pictures on Al Jazeera of thousands of refugees stuck in Serbia, Croatia and Macedonia, in mud, rain and freezing cold, with NO shelter.
That comes on top of the economic slowing there, which will get worse as major economies like Germany had benefited a lot from increased exports to China, other Asian Tiger nations, and growing new economies like Brazil. All those markets are in serious trouble now.
We are entering a vicious cycle, and also the US will slow again soon, and as this post suggests, there may be some major fallout of the GFC coming to hit the whole world economy, which some had predicted would be inevitable.
Prepare for harsher times, dear folks. Some of us are used to these already, many may join us, and those even worse off already now. The Auckland housing market may also crash a bit soon, wow then Key and Nats will lose their favours within the property owning and asset obsessed middle class. Maybe 2020 we will get a “left of centre” government now.
“GOLDMAN SACHS: The GFC is back”
So going by past behaviour of merchant bankers and rating agencies, who did pay GS for preparing this report? Or are GS the culprit themselves? It seems like a smart, calculated effort perhaps, to prepare the markets for a slump, so that some cashed up speculators can wait for this to happen, and then buy up heaps of devalued financial instruments, including stock exchange shares, in time for major gains to come in future years. A smart, calculated effort to re-arrange portfolios, and for who owns what, perhaps a shift from ditching old stocks in commodities and other investments doomed to lose value anyway, for new ones, offering good gains for the future. The losers will be the many small investment holders, and only some larger ones, while the clever ones already know the outcome.
Has anyone given that potential scenario any thought?
The great depression, today’s global credit crisis, all the credit scares that occurred up to at least two or three hundred years ago and the credit crises that brought an end to both the Japanese economic miracle and the Chinese economic explosion were all caused by a build -up of excess rent burden on the economy. They could all have been prevented by imposing the correct amount of progressive tax on wealthy rentiers.
There is no mysterious economic malfunction that says that economies must continue to expand or crash. Economies will only behave that way if governments allow the rent burden in the economy to continue to grow in real terms. Governments can use money collected from wealthy rentiers to reduce the debt of debtors. It’s not rocket science. By using money from wealthy rentiers to bail out debtors total debt will be reduced, not just transferred somewhere else.