“FIRE, FIRE!”

The key chart

The key message

Bank lending to the private sector falls into two distinct types: (1) lending to support productive enterprise (“COCO-based”); and (2) lending to finance the sale and purchase of exiting assets (“FIRE-based”). While the stock of total loans to the euro area (EA) private sector hit a new high at the end of 1H21, the stock of productive COCO-based lending remains below its January 2009 peak. In other words, the (aggregate) growth in lending since January 2009 has come exclusively from FIRE-based lending. This accounts for 52% of all outstanding loans now versus 45% in January 2009.

This shift matters because while COCO-based lending supports both production AND income formation, FIRE-based lending supports capital gains through higher asset prices but does not lead directly to income generation. Neither QE nor COVID-19 caused this shift but both added momentum to it. This trend provides support for Minsky’s hypothesis that, over the course of a long financial cycle, there will be a shift towards riskier and more speculative sectors. The implications extend well beyond the over-valuation of residential property prices. Current dynamics, fuelled in part by current policy, have wider, negative implications for leverage, growth, financial stability and income inequality. Time for another policy reboot?

FIRE, FIRE – what has happened?

Bank lending to the private sector falls into two distinct types: (1) lending the support productive enterprise; and (2) lending to finance the sale and purchase of exiting assets (see chart above). The former includes lending to corporates (NFCs) and household (HH) consumer credit. Such loans are referred to collectively as “COCO-based” loans (COrporate and COnsumer). The latter includes loans to non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) and HH mortgage or real estate. These loans are referred to collective as “FIRE-based” loans (FInancials and Real Estate).

While the stock of total loans to the euro area (EA) private sector hit a new high at the end of 1H21, the stock of COCO-based lending remains below its January 2009. Total PSC rose €1,200bn over the period to €12,071bn (see chart above). Total COCO-based loans fell -€79bn (NFC -€130bn, consumer credit €51bn). Total FIRE-based loans, in contrast, rose €1,349bn (mortgages €1,356bn, financial institutions -€55bn; insurance companies and pension funds €48bn).

In other words, (aggregate) growth in lending since January 2009 has come exclusively from FIRE-based lending. In June 2021, FIRE-based lending hit a new high of €5,937bn. This is 29% higher than the January 2009 level. Its market share has increased from 45% to 52% over the period.

FIRE, FIRE – why this matters

This matters because COCO-based lending supports both production and income formation. Loans to NFCs are used to finance production, which leads to sales revenues, wages paid, profits realised and economic expansions. So while an increase in NFC debt will increase debt in the economy, it also increases the income required to finance it. Consumer debt also supports productive enterprise since it drives demand for goods and services, helping NFCs to generate sales, profits and wages, It differs from NFC debt to the extent that HHs take on an additional liability since the debt does not generate income.

In contrast, FIRE-based lending supports capital gains through higher asset process but does not lead directly to income generation. Loans to NBFIs are used primarily to finance transactions in financial assets rather than to produce, sell or buy actual output. Such credit may lead to an increase in the price of financial assets but does not lead (directly) to income generation. Mortgage or real estate lending is used to finance transactions in pre-existing assets. It typically generates asset gains as opposed to income (at least directly).

Wider implications

Much recent attention has focused on the impact of the COVID-19 and unorthodox monetary policy on residential property prices (see “Herd immunity”). This analysis shows that the shift towards FIRE-based lending pre-dates both, however, and has much wider and negative implications for leverage, growth, financial stability and income inequality in the EA:

• Leverage: while COCO-based lending increases absolute debt levels, it also increases incomes (albeit with a lag). Hence, overall debt levels need not rise as a consequence. In contrast, FIRE-based lending increases debt and may increase asset prices but does not increase the purchasing power of the economy as a while. Hence, it is likely to result in higher levels of leverage.
• Growth: COCO-based lending supports growth both by increasing the value-add from final goods and services (“output”) and an increase in profits and wages (“income”). FIRE-based lending typically only affects GDP growth indirectly.
• Financial stability: the returns from FIRE-based lending (investment returns, property prices etc) are typically more volatile than returns from COCO-bases lending and may affect the solvency of lenders and borrowers. In the May 2021, Financial Stability Review, the ECB noted that, “a combination of buoyant house price growth and the uncertain macro backdrop kept measures of overvaluation elevated.” Moreover, house price growth during the pandemic has generally been higher for those countries that were already experiencing pronounced overvaluation prior to the pandemic.”
• Inequality: the returns from FIRE-based lending are typically concentrated in higher-income segments of the populations, with any subsequent wealth effects increasing income inequality.

Conclusion

Neither QE nor COVID-19 caused the shift away from productive COCO-based lending towards FIRE-based lending. Both did, however, add momentum to a pre-existing trend which has seen no growth in the stock of productive lending over the past 12 years.

This trend provides support for Minsky’s hypothesis that, over the course of a long financial cycle, there will be a shift towards riskier and more speculative sectors. The implications extend well beyond the over-valuation of residential property prices. Current private sector dynamics, fuelled in part by current policy, have negative implications for leverage, growth, financial stability and income inequality. Time for another policy reboot?

Please note that the summary comments and charts above are abstracts from more detailed analysis that is available separately.