Back to equilibrium?

A very reassuring sign from Barclays and the FSA (via Robert Peston) today - the FSA's evaluation that Barclays will not need to raise new capital or buy the Treasury's asset insurance (though it can voluntarily do so if it wishes).

Of course this is good news for Barclays itself and a good sign for the financial system. But it also heralds a more subtle improvement in the economic firmament: the possibility of a return to an equilibrium market in finance.

Over the last 18 months, contagion has ruled the markets. Any financial institution in danger created a concern for the viability of all others. When Lehman failed, lots of other banks (and insurers such as AIG) all suffered because they were trading with it. When there was even a sniff that Citigroup, or HBOS, or other banks might go under, everyone else suffered too.

This is not how normal markets work. If Alitalia were to collapse, Air France, British Airways and Ryanair would all benefit. If one of your local pubs closes down, the other will get a lot more business. This is a sign of a healthy economy - it has the resilience to cope with failure - and indeed a bankrupt company gives its people and resources the chance to renew themselves and find more productive uses (though with a little short-term pain).

The fact that Barclays is now likely to be able to lend profitably and may have decoupled itself from the problems of other banks is an excellent sign. If the banking market is now back in a competitive equilibrium there are a whole stream of positive consequences:
  1. Bank equity will have a meaningful and relatively stable value again
  2. Banks will therefore be able to raise private capital more easily
  3. Banks' non-equity assets will be able to find a market price
  4. The many government owned or insured financial assets acquired over the last year will achieve clearer values, helping to clarify the fiscal position of governments
  5. It will be possible to more clearly measure and predict asset prices and returns using well-understood economic theory
  6. Monetary policy may start to work more conventionally
In other words, most of the dreadful phenomena that have made the last 18 months so unpredictable and uncontrollable will move into reverse.

And the sun's coming out. What else could we need this weekend?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is bad news for the Treasury good for the private sector?

An intriguing post from Robert Peston raising the spectre of the Treasury failing to sell all the bonds it wanted to sell yesterday. Is this, as he implies, plain bad news for the government because their funding is getting more expensive? Or is it good news for private lenders - implying that investors are fed up with their "flight to quality" and are now considering private sector investments instead? The answer is dependent on two further questions: is investors' money switching to foreign investments, UK private lending or UK equities? are investors actually running out of money to invest - the infamous savings trap, where people in aggregate try to increase their savings but fail to do so, because the attempt to save reduces total income in the economy and available savings are reduced too? Hopefully we can find out. How could we figure it out? by looking at total UK savings this month - this is not an exact science but we should hopefully be able to see if the tren
Read more

What is the difference between cognitive economics and behavioural finance?

This question was posed in an interesting LinkedIn discussion group (Behavioural Finance: Theory and Practice) by Kerry Pechter. I dashed off a quick answer which ended up being 500 words long. So I thought it might be useful to post on here. Can anyone tell me the difference between cognitive economics and behavioral finance? Cognitive economics is not yet a widely used phrase, though Marco Novarese and I have been using it as a name for a more microfounded version of what's typically called behavioural economics. So I'll answer the question based on how I use the term. The first difference is between "economics" and "finance". Economics is a broader field, including the trading of any kind of goods or services, whereas finance specifically focuses on investment and the value of financial instruments. Indeed I consider economics very broadly to be the study of how resources are allocated (by individuals, and across society). The more fundamental
Read more

Dead rats and dopamine - a new publication

My new paper, coauthored with Yohan John , Dakota McCoy and Oliver Braganza , is out in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. " Dead rats, dopamine, performance metrics and peacock tails " is about the universal emergence of proxy failure. When you measure and incentivise performance by a single metric (a proxy), the proxy will always become a worse measure of performance than it was before you added the incentive. This effect is also known as Goodhart's Law  in economics, and by other names in other fields - but the same underlying process drives the effect across multiple domains. Our paper studies it in management, economics, biology, neuroscience and other areas. Recent concerns about AI alignment are closely related to this phenomenon. The paperclip problem is a good example - if a sufficiently clever AI is given a single goal, to produce as many paperclips as possible, it may eventually destroy all of humanity and take over the whole universe in its efforts to maximise o
Read more