The next financial crisis?


How worried should we be by the massive financial power of huge managers of assets such as BlackRock and Pimco - with their trillions of dollars of our money under their management?

The central bankers' central bank, the Bank of International Settlements, resonantly describes them in its latest annual report as "like an elephant in a paddling pool" - in the sense that they are enormous compared with many of the economies in which they put their (our) cash, such that when they decide to invest or disinvest, they "can amplify dislocations".

Or to put it in plainer English, the decisions of just a few of them can cause boom or bust for entire economies.

The BIS points out that just a 5% reallocation of the $70 trillion dollars in assets under the sway of the larger asset management businesses from rich advanced economies to emerging markets would result in a flow of $3.5 trillion - which is equivalent to 13% of the value of all emerging market shares and bonds.

So just imagine what that would do to bond and share prices of a smaller economy, if the asset managers decided to pile in or stampede out in a herd - which, errr, you may know is how they typically tend to behave.

In those smaller economies, as and when the asset managers charge for the exit, businesses and governments can find themselves starved of vital funds.

And since the domestic currencies of these relevant economies would tend to collapse in those circumstances, the corporate borrowers would struggle to repay and refinance bond debts as they fell due.

We would be in the territory of serious financial and economic crisis.

Changing role

How big a risk is there of such a crisis right now?

Well since the beginning of 2008, residents in emerging markets have borrowed over $2 trillion abroad - and the amount borrowed would be more than a third higher when the debt issued by offshore vehicles of these residents is included (a Korean business might borrow through an overseas affiliate, for example, and be liable for its debts).

Now far and away the lion's share of this debt has been provided by fund managers and investors, who have bought bonds, rather than by banks lending directly.

The point is that as banks have become less willing and able to lend - both domestically in the West and everywhere across borders - asset managers have to an extent taken up the slack.

Here is the thing. There is still a colossal mind-blowing amount of cash or liquidity in the world.

In fact this cash has been amplified by all that market-distorting, money creation by central banks such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve (you remember Mr Quantitative-Easing and his marginally less profligate cousin Mr Credit-Easing).

But the big holders of all this cash typically lost confidence in banks, during the financial crisis of 2007-08.

So (as UK small businesses and households know only too well) the role of banks in credit creation has been reduced over the past few years - partly because they have become more cautious and partly because they have struggled to take in funds.

Instead giant fund managers have steadily become more important channels for financing businesses and entire economies - particularly in the developing world.

Shanghai China is one of the places identified by the BIS as being most vulnerable to a banking crisis

When interest rates collapsed in most of the low-growth rich West, asset managers looked for better opportunities to earn returns in - for example - the higher-yielding debts of emerging markets.

One consequence is that the average nominal long-term bond yield for emerging markets - the interest rate on this debt - has fallen from 8% in 2005 to around 5%. And adjusting for inflation, this gives a real interest rate of just 1%.

That interest rate looks low, probably too low, in view of the underlying risks of investing in these economies.

Squeezing a blancmange

What gives further pause for thought is that the BIS identifies Brazil, China and Asia in general as among the places most vulnerable to a banking crisis, based on three indicators: the rate at which credit is being created at the moment compared to historical norms, property price trends, and the ratio of debt service payments to income.

In a way, this is another version of the story I have been sharing with you for almost a year, which is the vulnerability of the world's second biggest economy, China, to a financial shock.

And the other bigger point is this one.

It is all very well for governments and regulators to have concentrated their efforts on sanitising and strengthening the banking system since the great debacle of six years ago.

But global financial integration means that attempts to rein in one part of the credit-creation industry is like squeezing an enormous blancmange - it causes a great bulge elsewhere, in this case in asset management (and what is often described as shadow banking).

Banks do not have the unique privilege and power to foment devastating cycles of boom and bust in markets and economies.

The next crisis, which may be nearer than we think, may well be triggered by over-mighty asset managers.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

UK living too high on the hog (again)

How worried should we be by the UK's record current account deficit, our inability to pay our way in the world?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 14.

    We are already in the next crisis Robert; a money obsessed world and with powerful financial institutions bailed out by governments, rigged housing markets and a very weak willed and inefficient group of politicians worlwide who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

  • rate this

    Comment number 21.

    The next financial crisis?

    we havent got out of the last one yet, in fact we havent even started to get out of the last one yet, all we have done is pump money we havent got into financial institutions that are bust,manipulated the economic markers and called it a recovery.

    Nothing at all has been fixed......

  • rate this

    Comment number 22.

    The trouble is that we give too much credit (excuse the pun) to these money-shufflers.

    If proper careers (i.e., engineering, manufacturing, scientific research) were rewarded as well as some of these spreadsheet-manipulating none-jobs then there'd be no crisis.

    Moving money from one account to another never has and never will add any value whatsoever to society.

  • rate this

    Comment number 23.

    It is not the 'brightest' or the 'best' that step into the finance industries, it is the selfish and the greedy. The best and brightest is the great façade the selfish and greedy paint to pacify public perception. The greedy are happy with the status quo the best and brightest are not.
    The selfish and greedy wield the money and therefore the power the best and brightest can do little about.

  • rate this

    Comment number 44.

    Never trust a banker or financier.

    They are happy to gamble recklessly, and then ask the taxpayer to bail them out when things go wrong.


Comments 5 of 244



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.