The key chart

Introduction

I began this series of five posts by stating that:

“the true value in analysing developments in the financial sector lies less in considering investments in developed market banks – they have been lousy LT investments – but more in understanding the implications of the relationship between the banking sector and the wider economy for corporate strategy, investment decisions and asset allocation.”

Over the next three posts, I presented a consistent, “balance sheet framework” for understanding this relationship and applied it to the UK economy and the three core sectors within the private sector – Financial Institutions (FIs), Households (HHs) and Non-Financial Corporations (NFCs).

I chose the UK economy deliberately to reflect the relatively large size of the UK financial system, and the relatively volatile nature of its relationship with the economy. Of course, the framework is applicable to any economy and my conclusion here will make reference to similar analysis for the euro area, and Germany specifically. More analysis of sector balances in Europe will follow soon.

The UK faces large and persistent sector imbalances and is increasingly reliant on the “rest of the world” (ROW) as a net lender.

At the end of 3Q19, the UK private and public sectors were running net financial deficits of -3.4% and -2.0% GDP respectively. These were offset by the ROW’s net financial surplus of 5.4%.

The key (OBR) assumptions behind the policy of fiscal tightening were that a move towards a public sector surplus would be accompanied by a narrowing of the ROWs net financial surplus and a widening of the private sector net financial deficit including high levels of borrowing. The first assumption proved wrong and the second only partially correct.

The 2020 OBR forecasts published in March will shed light on the government’s current assumptions but in the meantime I see downside risks to consumption and UK GDP growth and to further fiscal consolidation.

UK spotlights 1-4 in review

“Lousy LT investments, but…”

In “Lousy LT investments, but…” I presented a mapping exercise for the UK economy and its financial system. The key message was that a distinguishing feature of the UK economy was the relatively large size (and hence potential impact) of the money sector and the volatile nature of its relationship with the wider economy.

“Everyone has one…”

In “Everyone has one…”, I focused on the core services provided by the UK financial system (payments, credit and savings), how these services produce a stock of contracts that can be represented by financial balance sheets that link different economic agents over time, and how these balance sheets form the foundation of a highly quantitative, objective and logical analytical framework. This post built up to the key identity pioneered by the late Wynne Godley that states that:

Domestic private balance + domestic government balance + foreign balance = zero.

“Poised to disappoint”

In “Poised to disappoint…”, I highlighted the dominant role that UK households play in economic activity (FCE/GDP) and bank lending (the desire to buy properties) and their important role as investors in financial and non-financial assets. The key message was that while the HH was typically a net saver, the sector has been funding recent consumption by dramatically reducing its savings rate and accumulation of net financial assets (but not by increasing debt ratios). With real growth in disposable income slowing and the savings rate close to historic lows, I suggested that risks to UK growth lay to the downside and at odds with (past) government forecasts.

“Alternative investments”

In “Alternative investments”, I described the key economic roles of the NFC sector and explained that its (typical) requirement to borrow in financial markets in order to invest in non-financial assets meant that NFCs represent an important alternative investment vehicle for other sectors – offering stakes in their earnings (dividends) or interest payments in their debt. I concluded by asking that if NFCs widened their deficits further in order to fund investment, which sector will be increasing its surplus as an offset?

Imbalances and dependencies

Roles and balance sheets revisited

To re-cap, FIs, HHs and NFCs – the three core “economic groups” comprising the UK private sector – have distinct economic roles. In fulfilling these roles, they produce a stock of contracts that can be represented by financial balance sheets. These balance sheets link each group together (directly and indirectly) and form a highly quantitative, objective and logical analytical framework. A fundamental principle of accounting is that for every financial asset there is an equal and offsetting financial liability. In other words, if we take all of the financial assets and financial liabilities it is a matter of logic that the sum of the financial assets must equal the sum of the financial liabilities.

An important implication of this analysis is that for the private sector to accumulate net financial wealth (financial assets minus financial liabilities) it must be in the form of claims on another sector. In the simplified case of a two sector economy, the net financial assets held by the private sector are exactly equal to the net financial liabilities of the government. In this case, it is impossible for the private and public sectors to run surpluses at the same time.

Of course, in reality these domestic sectors are also linked economically to foreign FIs, NFCs, HHs and governments, collectively termed the “rest of the world” (ROW). Hence, the private sector can accumulate net financial assets equal to public sector liabilities, the ROW’s net liabilities or a combination of the two.

The private, public and ROW sectors can be treated as having income and savings flows over a given period. If a sector spends less than it earns it creates a budget surplus. Conversely, if it spends more that it earns it creates a budget deficit. A surplus represents a flow of savings that leads to an accumulation of financial assets while a deficit reduces net wealth. If a sector is running a deficit it must either reduce it stock of financial assets or it must issue more IOUs to offset the deficit. If the sector runs out of accumulated financial assets, it has no choice other than to increase its indebtedness over the period it is running the deficit. In contrast a sector that runs a budget deficit will be accumulating net financial assets. This surplus will take the form of financial claims on at least one other sector.

Implications for growth and policy

Applying this framework to the UK economy, I see large and persistent sector imbalances. Prior to the global financial crisis (GFC), the UK government ran an average net financial deficit of 2.5% GDP between September 1989 and September 2008. Of course, in the aftermath of the GFC, the private sector moved sharply into net financial surplus as one would expect. More surprisingly, given movements in real effective exchange rates, the ROW net financial surplus also remained high. The offset over this period was the widening of the government deficit to 10.4% which was an appropriate and necessary response to prevent a much deeper recession. Since December 2009, the average government net financial deficit has been 5.5% (ie more than double the pre-crisis average). This has been offset by private sector and RoW surpluses of 1.3% and 4.2% respectively.

I also see an increasing reliance on the RoW as a net lender to the UK economy. The key (OBR) assumptions behind the policy of fiscal tightening after the GFC were that the move towards a public sector financial surplus would be accompanied by a reduction in the ROWs net financial surpluses and a widening of the private sector’s net financial deficit driven by higher borrowing. The first assumption proved wrong and the second assumption on partly correct.

As at the end of 3Q19, the ROWs net financial surplus was 5.4% of GDP. This was offset by a narrow government deficit of 2.0% GDP and a wider private sector deficit of 3.4% GDP. Both the private and public sectors in the UK are running net financial deficits at the same time, something that can only happen is the ROW is running a compensating net financial surplus.

NFCs (and FIs) have increased their debt ratios slightly since 2015, but the HH sector debt ratio has remained stable. As discussed in “Poised to disappoint”, the HH sector has been funding consumption by slowing its rate of savings (sharply) and accumulation of net financial assets.

From this, I see risks to consumption and UK GDP and to further fiscal consolidation. High absolute levels of HH debt (% GDP) are constraining HH borrowing. Trends in disposable income and savings are, therefore, likely to be key factors driving HH consumption and growth in the UK. With real growth in disposable income disappointing and savings rates close to historic lows, the risks to UK growth from this analysis appear tilted to the downside.

Previous assumptions behind the policy of fiscal consolidation have already been revised to reflect the persistence of large RoW net financial surpluses. However, even the 2015 OBR forecasts that still assumed a narrowing of this surplus, required ambitious assumptions regarding the propensity of the private sector to increase their borrowing and financial deficits.

With larger than forecast ROW net financial surpluses, further fiscal consolidation requires even more private sector borrowing which I see as unlikely. The 2020 OBR forecasts published in March will shed light on the government’s forecasts but in the meantime, I see further risks to their previous assumptions.

What next? Europe…

In future posts, I will be analysing euro area economies through the same balance sheet framework. Dependency on the ROW is also relevant, but for very different reasons. In direct contrast to the UK trends described above, the German private and public sectors are both running net financial surpluses. These are offset by ROW net financial deficits.

The UK is dependent on ROW remaining net lenders, Germany is dependent on the ROW remaining net borrowers.

Please note that the summary comments above are extracts from more detailed analysis that is available separately