As this year progressed it was increasingly characterised by the ‘risk on, risk off’ approach taken by big investors, creating massive volatility in markets. As the year ends, it would appear that most of the investors have settled into a ‘risk off’ stance.
In fact it isn’t just big investors that have adopted a defensive posture but banks and individuals; the banks driven as much by necessity as caution and individuals by the still-recent memory of what happened to them in 2009.
It is a major issue for central banks, which have pumped record levels of liquidity into the system in the hope that it would be circulated and create some activity and growth. Instead, they have seen most of it parked in US Treasuries – banks are effectively paying the US government to keep their liquidity safe. There have been near-record inflows into US money market funds in recent months.
In Europe, the European Central Bank this week lent its banks €489 billion of three-year money only to see almost all of it returned as ECB deposits. Like the US banks, the Europeans are paying their central bank to protect their cash.
The general mood of deep risk-aversion is also reflected in a blow-out of interbank spreads to levels approaching those seen in 2009 as banks have again become wary of lending to each other, despite the record levels of cash being hoarded by banks around the world.
The degree of anxiety within the banking system is increasing. The US Federal Reserve’s quarterly survey of senior bank credit officers, released yesterday, found that the banks are reducing their exposures to, or tightening their credit terms for, hedge funds, real estate investment trusts, companies and other financial institutions. They are also tightening the terms of their securities lending.
The Fed described the survey results as “an apparent continuation and intensification of developments already in evidence in the last survey in September.”
That increasing conservatism will be of concern to the US economic regulators, given that the US manufacturing and housing sectors are just starting to show some signs of life. A significant tightening of credit could abort a fragile US recovery.
While one of the drivers for the increasing caution amongst banks is nervousness about the wobbling eurozone and the increasing pressure Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is exerting on its banks, the tougher prudential regime that will progressively be imposed on banks globally over the rest of this decade is also a factor.
To meet the new requirements, banks will have to either raise trillions of dollars of new capital or shrink their balance sheets by trillions of dollars, or execute a combination of both. In the current environment, reducing new lending is a more palatable option than raising new capital, particularly when term funding markets are virtually closed.
In this market, the major banks have already throttled back on lending, albeit in an environment of weak demand for credit anyway (Private credit lifts in November, December 30). They are trying to hold lending growth to levels that can be funded by growth in their deposit bases in the knowledge that their key vulnerability is their continuing need to raise term funding offshore.
There is something of the order of $50 billion of Australian corporate debt maturing in 2012, with a relatively high proportion of it owed by the A-REIT sector. With bond markets malfunctioning and banks wary about their property exposures there could be a glitch or two in prospect there.
More generally, until some of the liquidity within the banking system starts circulating economic growth in the developed world will be anaemic, at best, and there is a risk that the intensifying levels of risk aversion will be self-fuelling and self-fulfilling. Credit crises create their own victims.
An obvious pre-condition for some level of confidence to re-emerge and the dial to be turned towards the ’risk on’ setting is for the eurozone to demonstrate that it has the capacity to manage its affairs without an implosion within the economy of one of its larger members.
So far it hasn’t shown any ability to devise a credible strategy, which doesn’t auger well for prospects for the global economy or, indeed, global financial stability, in 2012.
Excellent article.
What does one do when capital gets cold feet? Especially now when we are required to build a new sort of low carbon economy.
Even that most venerable of sacred cows – the real estate market – has let us down – proved unreliable… developed a downside risk. No more guaranteed 20% risk free every year. Tax free.
But of course there is another guaranteed bet at least here too…. digging holes and flogging stuff we find. It’s what we do best. Still living on the proceeds of stolen property. Theft by finding.
Me… my tip is to go long on razor wire for 2012. Shares if you like, or just hoard the stuff in the shed. Every way you look at it there won’t be enough to go round soon. Razor wire futures. They’d be my tip. Contracts for no difference whatsoever.
This past year again shows the abject failure of government superannuation policy. The woeful Aussie share market tanked 15%. Its one of the worst performing markets in the world. Self funded retirees and those approaching retirement face vast loses. And what does Superannuation Minister Backstab Bill Shorten do: Nothing. Boosted by a massive pay rise and a cabinet promotion from knifing KRudd he, and the hopeless Gillard government could care less. Government policy seems designed not to help retirees but to insure fat fees continue to flow to the financial sector, which pockets management (sic) fees and puts retirees money on the daily tanking share market. There are alternatives. Remember the proposal to allow super funds to invest in infrastructure through bonds? That was a Rudd proposal so Backstab Bill apparently isn’t interested. Why not allow investment in bank deposits, but then that would upset the stockbrokers wouldn’t it?Why not lotteries? At least there is an outside chance of a gain, unlike the daily plunge on the Aussie share market.
Well B.B if you had a Industry Fund like mine ( Australian Super )was STA , you wouldn’t be whinging. My super now allows you to buy shares on the asx 300 , Term deposits (5.90% for 180 days ) and put money in all sorts of areas and secure.Mine’s back to where it was after GFC in 2007 and i have not added anything to it. If it wasn’t for Keating , you wouldn’t have anything ? I don’t think you can blame Labor for the WORLD -WIDE Troubles that effect the share prices ,but the NOalition keeps talking down our country , when the world has been looking up at us in envy. The world’s greatest treasurer Wayne Swan has steered us though the GFC 1 by listening to advice given to him. You nearly used all the Liberal talking points , but you missed out the on the Alan Jones rant of ” Juliar ” Didn’t hear you whine when shares were going up year after year ????
Just another whinning CONservative whinging about the “Free Market “
Nice one, Bob, good article, too, Stephen. For further enlightenment, read all of Micheal Lewis’s books. His material is frighteningly honest…
Bob, if we didn’t have superannuation where do you think the $1.28 Trillion in current Superannuation funds would have gone? I’ll bet much of it would have gone straight into bidding up house prices even further. As for those approaching retirement facing “vast losses” that depends on their investment options; many of those invested in Balanced or conservative investment options within Industry Funds will be far better off than if they’d been directly exposed to the market. They will almost certainly be better off in retirement than if they’d not had 9% compulsory super in the first place.
A bigger issue is that there don’t seem to be many new growth industries in Australia or other Western economies in which to invest (a point reflected in Stephen’s original article), especially those that create significant employment. At one stage we had the beginnings of an emerging clean technology industry here but the absence of a coherent cross-party industry policy combined with mindless hostility from some political quarters looks set to ensure other countries will reap most of the benefits.