Financial weapons of mass destruction strike again: naked

On October 23, 2008, in the middle of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Reuters ran an article entitled: “Greenspan says was ‘partially’ wrong on CDS regulation.”

“Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledged he was "partially" wrong in his belief that some trading instruments, specifically credit default swaps, did not need regulation.

Henry Waxman, the Democrat who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, cited a series of public statements by Greenspan saying the market could handle regulation of derivatives without government intervention.

"My question is simple: Were you wrong?" Waxman said.

Greenspan said he was "partially" wrong in the case of credit default swaps, complex trading instruments meant to act as insurance for bond buyers against default.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and the equity," Greenspan said.

When asked by Waxman if his ideology pushed him to make bad decisions, Greenspan said he found a "flaw" in his governing ideology that has led him to reexamine his thinking” (Dixon 2008).

CDS is an acronym for Credit Default Swap, a credit derivative that resembles insurance in that the buyer pays a premium to the seller in order to protect against the default of another entity. The purchaser of a CDS may have an insurable interest in the entity on which CDS’s are being written, by being a creditor or a bondholder, for example, which consequently means that a legitimate interest in protection against default exists, and the purchase of CDS’s can be seen as constituting a hedge, or a way of managing risk. In case the purchaser does not have an insurable interest, however, the purchase of a CDS is termed “naked” and constitutes nothing more than speculation that the entity on which the CDS is written will default. In case of default or a credit event the seller of the CDS has to pay the CDS holder the previously agreed upon sum, as stipulated in the contract. So while this may seem to be a fairly straight-forward insurance-type product, the fact that these instruments are traded OTC, or “over the counter,” however, means that no one really knows who has written how many CDS’s, on whom, for how much, to whom they have been sold, or whether there is any money to pay out in case of a default. This last point came into focus quite clearly when American International Group (AIG) had to be bailed out by the US taxpayer to the tune of over $180 billion in large part because they did not have any money to pay out on the Credit Default Swaps they had written (Sjostrom Jr. 2008).  

As reported by the BBC, back in 2003, when the notional amount of the entire derivatives market was only $85 trillion, Warren Buffet famously likened them to time bombs and “financial weapons of mass destruction,” some of which seemed to have been devised by “madmen,” and the whole derivatives industry was similar to “hell... easy to enter and almost impossible to exit” (BBC 2003). While Buffet did not specify CDS’s at the time, by September 2011, when, as reported by The Bank of International Settlements (BIS 2011), the entire derivatives market had swollen to over $700 trillion and the notional amount of Credit Default Swaps outstanding was still $32 trillion, down from $62 trillion in 2007, the Financial Times had no problem running an article titled:”CDS: modern day weapons of mass destruction.” The article by Chapman (2011) cited a paper by Calice, Chen and Williams (2011) which found that “for several countries including Greece, Portugal and Ireland the liquidity of the sovereign CDS market has a substantial infuence on sovereign debt spreads,” meaning that CDS’s could contribute to rising bond yields and thus push up borrowing costs and increase the risk of default by sovereign countries. Faced with contagion in the Eurozone and a possible cascade of defaults, the German government, on whose shoulders much of the cost of bailing out the periphery falls, demanded a ban on “naked short selling” and, especially, “naked” CDS’s as well (Baker and Peel 2011).

In an article calling for a ban on “naked” CDS’s Wolfgang Münchau (2010) noted that a “naked CDS...is a purely speculative gamble [without even] one social or economic benefit [which is something that] even hardened speculators agree on. [Moreover a] universally accepted aspect of insurance regulation is that you can only insure what you actually own [and not] even the most libertarian extremist would accept that you could take out insurance on your neighbour’s house or the life of your boss,” especially if you proceeded to light a match to the house or push the boss of a cliff, which, after keeping in mind the findings from above, is what the whole thing amounts to. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy are all facing ruinous borrowing costs in late 2011 and it is utterly uncertain whether the Eurozone will make it through 2012.

Credit Default Swaps are consequently living up to the moniker given derivatives by Warren Buffett: “financial weapons of mass destruction.” Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers refused to consider regulation of CDS’s back in 1997 when Brooksley Born testified before Congress that trading in unregulated derivatives would "threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it" (van den Heuvel 2008). They refused, due to the belief noted above that the self-interest of rational economic agents and organizations would be sufficient to prevent the taking on of too much risk and “was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and the equity.” After admitting that this belief was wrong and that he had found a flaw in his worldview, his ideology, the disciple of Ayn Rand also admitted that: “This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades. The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year” (Andrews 2008). We are still dealing with the fallout and should prepare for worse, as reported by zerohedge, who address the meaning and significance of the derivatives market number reported by the BIS being

the biggest ever reported in the financial world: the number in question is $707,568,901,000,000 and represents the latest total amount of all notional Over The Counter (read unregulated) outstanding derivatives...Indicatively, global GDP is about $63 trillion if one can trust any numbers released by modern governments...

for the six month period ended June 30, 2011, the total number of outstanding derivatives surged past the previous all time high of $673 trillion from June 2008, and is now firmly in 7-handle territory: the synthetic credit bubble has now been blown to a new all time high. Another way of looking at the data is that one of the key contributors to global growth and prosperity in the past 10 years was an increase in total derivatives from just under $100 trillion to $708 trillion in exactly one decade. And soon we have to pay the mean reversion price. 

What is probably just as disturbing is that in the first 6 months of 2011, the total outstanding notional of all derivatives rose from $601 trillion at December 31, 2010 to $708 trillion at June 30, 2011. A $107 trillion increase in notional in half a year. 

There is much more than can be said on this topic, and has to be said, because an increase of that magnitude is simply impossible to perceive without alarm bells going off everywhere, especially when one considers the pervasive deleveraging occurring at every sector but the government. All else equal, this move may well explain the massive surge in bank profitability in the first half of the year. It also means that with banks suffering massive losses, and rumors of bank runs and collateral calls, not to mention the aftermath of the MF Global insolvency, the world financial syndicate will have no choice but to increase gross notional even more, even as the market value continues to get ever lower, thus sparking the risk of the mother of all margin calls: a veritable credit fission reaction.

But no matter what: the important thing to remember is that "they are all hedged" - or so they say, a claim we made a completely mockery of a few weeks back. So ex-sarcasm, the now parabolic increase in derivatives means that when the bilateral netting chain is once again broken, and it will be (because AIG was not a one off event), there will simply be trillions more in derivatives that no longer generate a booked cash flow stream for the remaining counterparty, until at the very end, the whole inverted credit0money pyramid collapses in on itself. 

Because once the whole bilateral netting chain is broken, net becomes gross. And gross market value becomes total notional outstanding. And, to quote Hudson, it's game over. 

Expect to see gross market value declines persisting even as the now parabolic increase in total notional persists. At this rate we would not be surprised to see one quadrillion in OTC derivatives by the middle of next year.

And, once again for those confused, the fact that notional had to increase so epically as market value tumbled most likely means that the global derivative pyramid scheme (no pun intended) is almost over.

   

Cognitive Biases Used in Propaganda Framing Deficit Debate and Wall Street Handout

Everyone likes to think that they are smarter than the average person. After all, how many of us would be ready to admit that they were in some way, shape or form inferior. Even those friends of ours from high school, and most of us who did not attend private boarding schools know these people, who accorded themselves “street smarts” while telling others that they were merely “book smart,” claim to be better at some things than the average. We all want to feel that we are good at something and even if this is not necessarily the case, we hold on to the illusion that we are somehow more skilled than the average Joe or Jane. Let us call this concept overconfidence.

In the academic literature it is called the overconfidence bias. Cognitive and behavioral psychology as well as behavioral finance and behavioral economics study the concept at length and in depth. Classic examples include asking everyone in a class to rate their driving ability as average, below average or above average. In study after study between 80 and 90 percent of respondents rate their driving ability as above average, which cannot be the case, since only slightly less than half can be above average. Other studies have repeatedly shown that when asked to rate our confidence interval in our statements, we are much more likely to state a much higher confidence level than our accuracy. Most of us like to think that we are smarter than the average, and do not wish to accept that, truthfully, we are probably by definition just about average in many of those attributes that are indeed normally distributed. Some of us might be better at some things than others, obviously, but we are not as superior as we would like to think. Nonetheless, this feeling of being superior, this confidence in our abilities, this sense that we will do better than most everyone else can lead us to take risks we normally would eschew, were it not for the nagging near-certainty that we are better, smarter and more insightful than the others, and that this time, for us, contrary to all evidence and history, things truly will be different, be it in business, investment, games or any other of the myriad activities we engage in where we are in it to win it. Think of housing and stock market bubbles, when real estate speculators and traders or money managers no doubt thought that they would be able to time the market and get rich quickly because of their superior skills and knowledge.  

Standardized testing reinforces this bias by inflating the egos of those whose scores are in the upper percentiles. These are the people who get accepted to the best universities, who go on to graduate school because they had GMAT or GRE tutoring classes, and some of these people think that they are the true producers and “value creators” of society, deserving six or seven or eight figure remuneration because of their superior natural or god-given abilities. Everyone else who is not as successful is either morally deficient or intellectually limited and their plight or poverty is therefore deserved and just.

The fundamental attribution error states that the successes of one’s group, class, clan, or tribe, generally called the in-group, are due to internal factors, such as talents, morality, hard work and intelligence, while failures are due to external, uncontrollable causes; with the mirror image being perceived as the reasons for the failures of the out-group, the others: inferior intelligence, lack of talents, or simply laziness, and with the out-group’s successes being consequently simply a matter of luck and often undeserved. So the fundamental attribution error is to attribute success to internal and failure to external factors for oneself or one’s in-group, and the opposite for those in the out-group.

Nowhere is this phenomena more prevalent and on display than in the United States of America, where the current culture war is further being waged on behalf of the top 1%, or was it 0.1%, or 0.01%, who not only receive most of the income but also own most of the wealth in the country. The current battle about “unsustainable” government spending, government needing to live within its means, and ever-present deficit reduction hysteria, is nothing more than an ideological battle being waged by those with means who believe that they should not have to pay any money for those without means, whom they consider shiftless bums and welfare queens who refuse to work and expect “handouts” from the government. Whatever the percentage of poor who do abuse the system, however large, small or inconsequential it might actually be, this discussion is not about them, it is only being framed in this manner. Framing effects arise when different responses are elicited based on whether the information is presented in a positive or a negative frame. Is the man or woman in dire straits because they were laid off due to downsizing, outsourcing, or company or business failure; or is the person unemployed because they are lazy and want free money from the government. By framing the narrative to portray the less well-off, the unemployed, and the poor in general in the latter manner, stereotypes are being created and reinforced. This is a further cognitive bias at work, the representativeness heuristic, which asks to what extent does A represent B, so to what extend do the poor and unemployed represent my stereotypical image of them. The representativeness bias is thought to be an innate and omnipresent trait, presumably brought about as a function of evolution. The manner in which it is being abused, though, is that through propaganda -- there is no other way to put it -- the unemployed are portrayed as lazy, shiftless, and not wanting to work, but expecting handouts and being able to sit at home drinking or drugging on the taxpayer’s dime. If you work and pay taxes, you are being led to believe that your money is not being spent on military armaments so that the US military can continue blowing up brown people somewhere to make the area safe for liberal capitalism and Halliburton and Bechtel; or that your money is going to bail-out Wall Street; rather, the public is told that taxpayers’ money is going to pay for the immoral and lazy who do not want to work. It is forgotten that the financial system brought about a collapse of the economy bringing along the unemployment that comes with recession and depression. But by reiterating this narrative that the poor and unproductive are unjustly taking money from the rich and productive, powerful interests serving right wing wealth -- see Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes along with the Koch brothers, for example -- are framing the discussion to serve their interests, which are to roll back any and all social programs since the New Deal and the Great Society, to take us back to a time when capital was king and the government did not dare tax the hard earned millions or billions of robber barons, when workers knew their place, and corporations would be unhindered in their pursuit of the bottom line, the environment, and the public be damned. Some might say we are already there.

Besides always having been a right wing ideological dream, one could call it Milton Friedman’s “wet dream”, to demolish the social welfare state, to “drown it in a bathtub” as per Grover Norquist`s wishes, currently the unemployed, unions public or private, those on welfare, and all those whose lifetime of work and paying into a system of social security in the expectation of receiving benefits when they retire have seen any government program suddenly become “unsustainable entitlements.” In unison the scream is: “We must cut all social programs or we will go bankrupt,” some louder than others, but all of them singing the same song: the Tea Party, the Republicans, some Democrats, and the President himself, at first unbelievably and unfortunately, but currently obviously and to be expected now that it has become perfectly clear that Obama stands to the right of most civilized conservatives on many issues.

The most insidious lie, however, is not only that the US is going broke because of social welfare programs, but that the US government can go bankrupt at all, after the surreal demonstration of money creation to hand over to an insolvent financial system and their investors and creditors. If one looks at the fact that a sovereign government which is in charge of its own currency can never go bankrupt, something that has long been explained and propounded by Professor L. Randall Wray, Marshall Auerback, Professor Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, and many others who understand modern monetary theory; and stunningly admitted by none other than “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke himself, who did indeed drop staggering amounts of money into the laps of the financial sector; and if one finds out from the report of the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP report here) presented to Congress by Neil Barofsky, who was in charge of SIGTARP, that up to $23.7 TRILLION were created in guarantees, equity injections, and toxic asset purchases, along with an extensive alphabet soup of programs ostensibly created to bring the US economy back from the brink of Depression and financial Armageddon, then any talk of budget constraint and the US running out of money is ridiculous and disingenuous.

The TARP; regulatory forbearance, which simply means that we will forget a while about bankruptcy rules which state that when you go bankrupt you are out of business, management gets fired and your assets get liquidated to pay your creditors; along with changes in mark-to-market accounting rules which allowed many to get obscenely rich during the bubble years but are now allowing insolvent institutions to hold worthless assets on their balance sheet at inflated prices, further kicking the can down the road in an exercise of extend and pretend; and letting the banking system finance itself at interest rates at 0.25%, money which is then promptly lent back to the government at several percentage points higher, might just strike informed observers as being simply gifts not only to the executives of too-big-to-fail banks for doing such a fantastic job of running their companies into the ground and helping the US economy come to the verge of Depression, but also a bailout of these companies’ bondholders and shareholders, since risk in finance was just a joke, and does not really exist due to the “Bernanke and Uncle Sam put”. “Profits are privatized and losses are socialized,” and everyone should read Yves Smith for her unmatched analysis of the events of the past years.

Once one realizes that for the US government money can simply be created and does not need to be borrowed, and that of the trillions that were created much was simply given away to the US banking and finance sectors and their bondholders, shareholders and creditors, which incidentally also bailed out a lot of foreign banks, then one might realize two things: that free market capitalism no longer exists, if it ever did anyway, when the government selectively chooses whom to rescue and how much money to give away, and that it is not the unemployed, sick and poor who have brought the country to the brink of ruin, but rather an extractive and predatory financial system that has co-opted the government to cater to its needs and not to those of the people. There is a reason it is called “Government Sachs”.

Because people are easily manipulated and susceptible to cognitive and behavioral biases, and because they have a short attention span and are more concerned with celebrity gossip than their own lives, not realizing that they are giving away their life energy to illusions created to keep them docile and distracted, highway robberies and sleight-of-hand such as TARP et. al. can brazenly be pulled and the biggest robbery in history does not concern citizens whose governments now have any protesters beaten bloody by riot police with batons and teargas. It is “bread and circuses” as it has been for most of human history. But when either the “bread” or the “circus” are missing, then people are forced to think about their own existence and maybe, just maybe, see through the corporatist fascist propaganda and wake up enough to become informed, indignant, independent and irrepressible.  

Buy this book! Econned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism

Make sure you get the upcoming book from my friend Yves Smith of www.nakedcapitalism.com fame.

Countdown 3/2/10: Excerpt from Econned
Folks, the time has come when I must start shamelessly promoting my book, Econned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism, which is being released March 2, 2010.

I thought the extract below would give readers an idea of what the book is about, with one caveat. Econned goes into some detail about crisis mechanisms (as in why it got as bad as it did) and has unearthed a heretofore unexamined hedge fund trading strategy that turned the subprime mania into the detonator of the global debt bomb (and yes, we have the goods).

Enjoy!

In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. In it, he argued that the uncoordinated actions of large numbers of individuals, each acting out of self-interest, sometimes produced, as if by “an invisible hand,” results that were beneficial to broader society. Smith also pointed out that self-interested actions frequently led to injustice or even ruin. He fiercely criticized both how employers colluded with each other to keep wages low, as well as the “savage injustice” that European mercantilist interests had “commit[ted] with impunity” in colonies in Asia and the Americas.

Smith’s ideas were cherry-picked and turned into a simplistic ideology that now dominates university economics departments. This theory proclaims that the “invisible hand” ensures that economic self-interest will always lead to the best outcomes imaginable. It follows that any restrictions on the profit-seeking activities of individuals and corporations interfere with this invisible hand, and therefore are “inefficient” and nonsensical.

According to this line of thinking, individuals have perfect knowledge both of what they want and of everything happening in the world at large, and so they pass their lives making intelligent decisions. Prices may change in ways that appear random, but this randomness follows predictable, unchanging rules and is never violently chaotic. It is therefore possible for corporations to use clever techniques and systems to reduce or even eliminate the risks associated with their business. The result is a stable, productive economy that represents the apex of civilization.

This heartwarming picture airbrushes out nearly all of the real business world. Yet uncritical allegiance to these precepts over the last thirty years has produced a world in which corporations, especially in finance, are far less restricted in their pursuit of profit. We show in this book how this lawless environment has led the financial services industry to pursue its own unenlightened
self-interest. The industry has become systematically predatory. Employees of industry firms have not confined their predation to outsiders; their efforts to loot their own firms nearly destroyed the industry and the entire global economy. Similarly destructive behavior by other players, often viewed through a distorted lens that saw all unconstrained commercial behavior as virtuous, added more
fuel to the conflagration.

Some economists have opposed this prevailing ideology; indeed, comparatively new lines of inquiry focus explicitly on how economic actors can fool themselves or others into making poor, even destructive, choices.

But when the economics profession has used the megaphone of its authority to dominate discussions with policymakers and the public, it has spoken with one voice, and the message has been the one described here. We therefore confine our criticism to these particularly influential ideas.

Theories that fly in the face of reality often need to excise inconvenient phenomena, and mainstream economics is no exception. Idealizing the rational aspects of business decisions means refusing to notice behavior that is predatory, destructive, criminal, or simply stupid. Believing that risk is manageable through mechanical systems has required not just unrealistic assumptions but also willful
blindness to clear signs of danger.

We offer here another point of view. This book lays bare both the actions leading to the credit crisis and the economic constructs that defended, facilitated, and even exacerbated this behavior. Our case makes clear that if our economic system is to harness the self-interest of individuals to achieve the general
good, it must be supervised within a democratic society and responsive to criticism by outside voices of those who are unafraid to think independently.

Hyman Minsky´s Financial Instability Hypothesis

There is nothing like a crisis of momentous proportions to focus the mind. The intellectual edifice that was neo-classical economics came crumbling down last fall, something admitted by none other than the guru of efficient self-regulating markets himself, Alan Greenspan.



Now a well worn phrase has been that "no one could have seen this coming." Well, that is just not true; many did. And what set them apart from the cheering herd and its Panglossian view that all is for the best in this best of all worlds is that they did not drink from the neo-classical ideological kool-aid.

Hyman Minsky is about the last person asset managers would want to be mentioning in their letters to their clients (I cannot recall where I originally read this, or I would attribute credit). Minsky is perhaps best known for his Financial Instability Hypothesis which is being wonderfully articulated by Steve Keen at his debt deflation blog , along with the good folks over at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability and many others.

Why the resurgence in interest in Minsky? Well, he explained and expanded ideas set forth by Keynes, who did not believe that markets were efficient and self-regulating. The price of an asset was not always the correct price.

From Keynes´s article in 1937:

Actually, however, we have, as a rule, only the vaguest idea of any but the most direct consequences of our acts. Sometimes we are not much concerned with their remoter consequences, even tho time and chance may make much of them. But sometimes we are intensely concerned with them, more so, occasionally, than with the immediate consequences.

Now of all human activities which are affected by this remoter preoccupation, it happens that one of the most important is economic in character, namely. Wealth. The whole object of the accumulation of Wealth is to produce results, or potential results, at a comparatively distant, and sometimes at an indefinitely distant, date. Thus the fact that our knowledge of the future is fluctuating, vague and uncertain, renders Wealth a peculiarly unsuitable subject for the methods of the classical economic theory. This theory might work very well in a world in which economic goods were necessarily consumed within a short interval of their being produced. But it requires, I suggest, considerable amendment if it is to be applied to a world in which the accumulation of wealth for an indefinitely postponed future is an important factor; and the greater the proportionate part played by such wealth-accumulation the more essential does such amendment become.

By "uncertain" knowledge, let me explain, I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable. The game of roulette is not subject, in this sense, to uncertainty; nor is the prospect of a Victory bond being drawn. Or, again, the expectation of life is only slightly uncertain. Even the weather is only moderately uncertain. The sense in which I am using the term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, or the price of copper and the rate of interest twenty years hence, or the obsolescence of a new invention, or the position of private wealthowners in the social system in 1970. About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know. Nevertheless, the necessity for action and for decision compels us as
practical men to do our best to overlook this awkward fact and to behave exactly as we should if we had behind us a good Benthamite calculation of a series of prospective advantages and disadvantages, each multiplied by its appropriate probability, waiting to he summed.

How do we manage in such circumstances to behave in a manner which saves our faces as rational, economic men? We have devised for the purpose a variety of techniques, of which much the most important are the three following:

(1) We assume that the present is a much more serviceable guide to the future than a candid examination of past experience would show it to have been hitherto. In other words we largely ignore the prospect of future changes about the actual character of which we know nothing.
(2) We assume that the existing state of opinion as expressed in prices and the character of existing output is based on a correct summing up of future prospects, so that we can accept it as such unless and until something new and relevant comes into the picture.
(3) Knowing that our own individual judgment is worthless, we endeavor to fall back on the judgment of the rest of the world which is perhaps better informed. That is, we endeavor to conform with the behavior of the majority or the average. The psychology of a society of individuals each of whom is endeavoring to copy the others leads to what we may strictly term a conventional judgment.

Now a practical theory of the future based on these three principles has certain marked characteristics. In particular, being based on so flimsy a foundation, it is subject to sudden and violent changes. The practice of calmness and immobility, of certainty and security, suddenly breaks down. New fears and hopes will, without warning, take charge of human conduct. The forces of disillusion may suddenly impose a new conventional basis of valuation. All these pretty, polite techniques, made for a well-panelled Board Room and a nicely regulated market, are liable to collapse. At all times the vague panic fears and equally vague and unreasoned hopes are not really lulled, and lie but a little way below the surface.

Perhaps the reader feels that this general, philosophical disquisition on the behavior of mankind is somewhat remote from the economic theory under discussion. But I think not. Tho this is how we behave in the market place, the theory we devise in the study of how we behave in the market place should not itself submit to market-place idols. I accuse the classical economic theory of being itself one of these pretty, polite techniques which tries to deal with the present by abstracting from the fact that we know very little about the
future.

I daresay that a classical economist would readily admit this. But, even so, I think he has overlooked the precise nature of the difference which his abstraction makes between theory and practice, and the character of the fallacies into which he is likely to be led.

Keynes, John Maynard (1937). `The General Theory of Employment`, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51. cited in Shaw, G.K. (198. The Keynesian Heritage: Volume I. pp.11-13

Minsky identified three types of finance: hedge, speculative and Ponzi. Once the Ponzi stage is reached, debt is taken on in the belief that asset prices will continue to rise which will enable the debt to be serviced. Needless to say, once asset prices start to fall many will default. This is what we are seeing now. From Wray and Tymoigne :

Minsky created a famous taxonomy of financing profiles undertaken by investing firms: hedge (prospective income flows are expected to cover interest and principle with a safe margin); speculative (near-term income flows will cover only interest, although it is expected that finance costs will fall, that income flows will rise, or that assets can be sold at a higher price later—in which case revenues will be sufficient to cover principle); and Ponzi (near-term receipts are insufficient to cover interest payments so that debt increases because the Ponzi unit borrows to cover interest payments). Over the course of an expansion, financial stances evolve from largely hedge to include ever rising proportions of speculative and even Ponzi positions. Some Ponzi positions are undertaken voluntarily (due, for example, to expectations that debt can be refinanced at much more favorable terms or that large capital gains can be realized from asset price appreciation), some are fraudulent (a “pyramid” scheme is an example, in which a crook dupes everlarger numbers of suckers to provide the funds to pay the earliest participants), and some result from disappointment (revenues are lower than expected or finance costs rise unexpectedly). Attempts to raise leverage and to move to more speculative positions can be frustrated at least temporarily: if results turn out to be more favorable than expected, an investor attempting to engage in speculative finance could remain hedge because incomes realized are greater than were anticipated. This is because as aggregate investment rises, it has a multiplier impact on effective demand that can raise sales beyond what had been expected. Later, Minsky explicitly incorporated the Kaleckian result that in the truncated model, aggregate profits equal investment plus the government’s deficit.7 Thus, in an investment boom, profits would be increasing along with investment, helping to validate expectations and encouraging even more investment. This added strength to his proposition that the fundamental instability in the capitalist economy is upward—toward a speculative frenzy (as investment generates profits), which breeds more investment.

Here is an in depth look at the work and ideas of Hyman Mynsky.



Macroeconomics Meets Hyman P. Minsky the Financial Theory of Investment

CalPERS and its discontents