“FIRE, FIRE II”

The challenge for EA policy makers

The key chart

Change in the stock of COCO-based lending Jan 2009 – June 2021 in EUR bn (Source: ECB; CMMP)

The key message

Policy makers face significant challenges in addressing the implications of rising FIRE-based lending in the euro area.

My previous post highlighted the on-going substitution of productive COCO-based lending for less productive FIRE-based lending in the euro area (EA), noted the lack of COCO-based lending at the aggregate level since January 2009, and examined the implications for leverage, growth, financial stability and income inequality.

This post looks behind the aggregate headlines and focuses on three key differences at the country and regional level:

  • First, the share of FIRE-based lending among the EA’s six largest economies/banking markets at the end of 1H21 ranges widely from 65% in the Netherlands to 43% in Italy
  • Second, while the share of FIRE-based lending has increased in each economy, the drivers have been very different
  • Third, the lack of growth in COCO-based lending masks divergent trends between periphery economies (falling stock in Spain and Italy) and core economies (rising stock elsewhere)

Behind each of these differences lie significant variations in the level, structure and growth of debt across the euro area e.g. the Netherlands versus France, Belgium, Spain versus Germany and Italy.

In addressing the negative implications of rising FIRE-based lending in the EA, policy makers must address significant variations that exist at the regional and country level. A “one-size-fits-all” response will not suffice.

FIRE, FIRE II – three key differences, six key charts

Balance of lending – FIRE vs COCO

FIRE-based versus COCO-based lending as at end 1H21 (Source: ECB; CMMP)

The balance between FIRE-based and COCO-based lending varies widely across the EA. Among the six largest banking sectors that account for c.90% of total credit, FIRE-based lending ranges from 65% of total private sector credit in the Netherlands to 43% in Italy (see chart above). Across the 19 EA economies, the low end of this range extends down to 39% in Greece and 41% in Slovakia while Ireland (61%) joins the Netherland and Belgium with a relatively high share of FIRE-based lending.

In the Netherlands and Belgium, the two economies with the highest share of FIRE-based lending, the NFC debt ratios of 152% and 166% GDP respectively are well above the BIS threshold of 90%. In both cases, the NFC sectors have been deleveraging with debt ratios falling from peaks of 180% GDP in the Netherlands (1Q15) and 171% GDP in Belgium (2Q16). The HH sector dynamics are very different however, re-enforcing the message that the EA money sectors are far from a homogenous group (see below). In the Netherlands, the HH sector has also been deleveraging since 3Q10 when the debt ratio hit 121% GDP. At the end of 1H21, the ratio had fallen to 105% GDP. In contrast, HH leverage is increasing in Belgium with the debt ratio hitting a new high (albeit a relatively low one) of 66% GDP in 2Q21.

Drivers of change in lending balance

Change in share of FIRE-based lending and share of total lending as at end 1H21 (Source: ECB; CMMP)

While the share of FIRE-based lending has increased in each economy since January 2009 (see chart above), the drivers have been very different (see chart below). Spain saw the largest change in percentage points (11ppt) as the fall in the outstanding stock of COCO-based loans (-€488bn) was greater than the fall in the stock of FIRE-based loans (-€125bn). Italy saw the second largest change (10ppt) driven by a fall in the stock of COCO-based loans (-€153bn) and a rise in the stock of FIRE-based loans (€125bn). In contrast, France’s 6ppt increase from 46% to 52% loans reflected the largest absolute increases in both FIRE-based (€715bn) and COCO-based lending (€715bn).

Changes in COCO- and FIRE-based loans since January 2009 by country (Source: ECB; CMMP)

Core versus periphery

Core vs Periphery – change in COCO-based lending since January 2009 (Source: ECB; CMMP)

The lack of growth in COCO-based lending at the aggregate level masks divergent trends at the regional level between periphery economies (falling stock) and core economies (rising stock). The stock of COCO-based loans fell -€79bn in aggregate between January 2009 and June 2021 (NFC-€130bn, consumer credit +€51bn). In the core economies of Germany and France, the stock of COCO-based loans rose by €674bn (€241bn in Germany, €433bn in France). In the periphery economies of Spain and Italy, however, the stock fell by -€641bn (-€488bn in Spain, -€153bn in Italy).

Core vs Periphery – change in FIRE-based lending since January 2009 (Source: ECB; CMMP)

Similarly, the stock of FIRE-based lending rose €1,349bn between January 2009 and June 2021. In Germany and France the stock of FIRE-based loans increased €1,224bn (€509bn in Germany, €715bn in France). In Spain and Italy there was no growth as the -€125bn decline in Spanish FIRE-based loans counterbalanced the €125bn increase in Italian FIRE-based loans.

Background debt dynamics

NFC debt ratios (x-axis) versus HH debt ratios (y-axis) and BIS threshold levels (Source: BIS; CMMP)

Behind each of these differences lies significant variations in the level, structure and growth of debt across the euro area that complicate required policy response further. The chart above plots the EA and the six largest markets in terms of NFC and HH debt ratios versus the maximum threshold limits identified by the BIS as the level above which debt becomes detrimental to future growth.

At the aggregate level, the EA is characterised by excess NFC debt ratios (115% GDP versus 90% GDP threshold level). The HH debt ratio of 63% GDP remains below the 85% GDP HH threshold level. The Netherlands is unique here in the sense that both NFC and HH debt ratios are above the respective thresholds. France, Belgium and Spain all have excess NFC debt ratios but very different NFC debt dynamics (rising rapidly in France and Belgium while falling in Spain). In contrast, Germany and Italy have neither excess HH nor excess NFC debt ratios.

Conclusion

The on-going substitution of productive COCO-based lending for less productive FIRE-based lending has negative implications for leverage, growth, financial stability and income inequality in the EA. A policy response is required. Aggregate trends mask significant differences at the country and regional level, however, which complicate policy choices. A “one-size-fits-all” response will not suffice.

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

“Herd immunity?”

Resilience and risks in global housing

The key chart

Trends in global house prices since the GFC (Source: BIS; CMMP)

The key message

Anyone looking for evidence of COVID-19 “herd immunity” need look no further than global housing markets!

House prices rose 4% globally in 2020 in real terms, the fastest rate of growth since the GFC. Prices rose 7% in advanced economies, compared with a more modest 2% in emerging economies. House price resilience during the pandemic reflects many factors: a recovery in HH incomes thanks to continued policy support; lower borrowing costs; reduced supply as construction activity slowed; temporary tax breaks; and perceptions that housing was/is a relatively safe investment.

The combination of rising prices and an uncertain macro backdrop has kept measures of overvaluation elevated. In the euro area, for example, above average increases in house prices occurred in Luxembourg, Slovakia, Estonia, Portugal, Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and France. With the exception of Estonia, estimates suggested overvaluation in each of these countries before the start of 2020, notably in Luxembourg, Denmark and Austria. Similarly, the Bank of England indicated unease about the UK housing market recently (1 June 2021) after the Nationwide Building Society said that prices were growing at their fastest pace since 2014.

Current EA housing and lending dynamics reflect Minsky’s hypothesis that, over the course of a long financial cycle, there will be a shift towards riskier and more speculative sectors. The flow of funds towards property and financial asset markets (FIRE-based lending) is increasing at the expense of more productive flows to the real economy (COCO-based lending). FIRE-based lending in the EA hit a new high of €5,905bn in April 2021 and accounts for 52% of total lending with negative implications for leverage, growth, stability and income inequality.

Resilience and risks in global housing

Anyone looking for evidence of COVID-19 “herd immunity” need look no further than global housing markets! House prices rose 4% globally in 2020 (in real terms) according to latest BIS data release, the fastest rate of growth since the GFC. Prices are now 21% higher than their average after the GFC (see chart below).

Real price change in 2020 plotted against real price change since the GFC (Source: BIS; CMMP)

Prices rose 7% in “advanced economies” (especially New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Germany, US) compared with a more modest 2% in “emerging economies.” The resilience of housing markets reflects many factors: a recovery in HH incomes thanks to continued policy support; lower borrowing costs; reduce supply as construction activity slowed; temporary tax breaks; and the perceptions that housing was/is a relatively safe investment.

EA trends – 2020 price change ploted against valuation at end-2019 (Source: ECB; CMMP)

The key risk here is that the combination of rising prices and an uncertain macro backdrop have kept measures of overvaluation elevated.

In their latest Financial Stability Review, for example, the ECB notes that “house price growth during the pandemic has generally been higher for those countries that were already experiencing pronounced overvaluation prior to the pandemic (see chart above).”

The largest/above average increases in house prices during 2020 in the EA occurred in Luxembourg (17%), Slovakia (16%), Estonia (9%), Portugal (9%), Denmark (9%), Austria (7%), the Netherlands (7%) and France (6%). With the exception of Estonia, ECB estimates suggest that house prices were overvalued in each of these countries before the start of 2020, notably in Luxembourg (39% overvalued, not shown in graph above), Denmark (16% overvalued) and Austria (15% overvalued).

On the 7 June 2021, the BIS will release 4Q20 credit and affordability data which will provide further insights into the risks associated with housing trends in the EA and the rest-of-the-world.

The rise in FIRE-based lending in the euro area (Source: ECB; CMMP)

In recent posts, I have noted an adaptation of Hyman Minsky’s hypothesis that states that over the course of a long financial cycle, there will be a shift towards riskier and more speculative sectors.

Minsky’s theory can be applied to the house price trends described above and to HH lending trends described in previous posts. Minsky’s “shift” is reflected in the decline in bank credit to the real sector (COCO-based credit) and an increase in funds flowing towards property and financial asset markets (FIRE-based credit).

FIRE-based lending in the EA hit a new high of €5,905bn in April 2021 and accounts for 52% of total lending with negative implications for leverage, growth, stability and income inequality.

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