"I am trying to understand what is going on and I found your post really interesting. But I still have a question: we are not making bets with Martians, so surely the money is staying in the system? If I make a bet with a sucker who says: Sorry, I don't have the means to pay you, it will not make me bankrupt, just a bit peeved."
It's an excellent question, and one I've been trying to figure out. I don't have an authoritative answer to jaycee's question, but I humbly offer an educated guess....
Winners and Losers, The Money's still there
For most trades, there's a winner for every loser, so the money is still in the system somewhere. If I buy Citibank at $45, the seller gets $45. When Citibank drops to $6, the $45 I gave the seller still exists. Ditto for a house - if I buy a house for $200k and it drops to $100k, the money still exists in the seller's bank account. Unless the money never existed - with fractional reserve banking, banks can lend more money than they have - basically "printing" vapor dollars. If the bank lends me money to buy a house or a stock, and I don't pay them back, the bank has to eat the loss. They lose real dollars.
The net losses are primarily in defaults. Suppose I'm a hedge fund trader, leveraged at 10-to-1, when I make a bad bet. I either have to eat the losses out of other gains/equity, or I'll default on the margin loan. The brokerage has to eat the defaults, and they can only eat so much. Banks are losing in mortgage defaults, and we're seeing increasing bankruptcy filings. Those are net dollars lost. As much as possible, the banks and brokerages dump the losses on shareholders.
Paper Losses Become Real Losses
Houses, stocks, and even business inventories are showing paper losses. To the extent that people have to pull cash, they are converting paper losses into real losses. That's why there's so much griping about 401k withdrawal requirements this year. Businesses have to sell inventories, even at a loss (due to tax rules, cash flow, inventory staleness/freshness, and cost of commercial real estate for storing inventory). Those losses take money out of the system permanently.
The risk is that leverage let us inflate asset values quite rapidly - doubling home values, for instance. As credit dries up and net losses on defaults accumulate, it creates a leveraged pop - that's why the government has pumped some $7 Trillion in liquidity into a $13 Trillion economy this year, and yet we're still in a recession.
Not Lost, Just Wandered Off
There's also the issue of money still in the system, but removed from investment assets. This is a little out there, but it does impact valuations. The money available to invest is not static. Every day, each consumer/investor decides whether to save/invest current income, or whether to withdraw/spend invested income.
Generally, a consumer invests the dollars that he or she perceives are "excess", above their basic needs. An investment dollar typically flows from investment to investment to investment; a consumption dollar flows from consumer to producer to employee/consumer to producer many times before possibly making its way back to investment markets. We are seeing net outflows from asset investments (stocks, bonds, real estate). Some of that outflow is from consumers just trying to pay the bills - some, for instance, flows to oil-producing nations, and much of that outflow won't come back. It's still in the system, but it's in the global system, essentially unavailable for domestic use. Other asset withdrawals are going to domestic producers, but as people lose their jobs, face income stagnation and cost inflation, fewer dollars are perceived as "excess" dollars to be saved/invested. Although that money is still in the system, it's a long way away from the investment assets whose valuations were based on how many dollars were invested.
Then there's the issue of the "velocity" of money. Middle class money is the best for stimulating economies, because middle class earners typically spend, spend, and spend some more, often spending a disproportionate amount on services. Services are almost entirely wages, which provides a second producer/consumer with money to spend - largely, on services, which provides a 3rd producer/consumer with money to spend. And so on. The exact same dollar changes hands many, many times - and each time, it counts as taxable income, it counts as GDP, it counts as someone employed, and it counts as another employee/consumer feeling a little more confident about the economy. I think of middle class money as slutty money - it gets around - well, that's velocity - the more a dollar gets around, the greater "velocity" it has. Poor folk don't have much money and rich folk keep a larger portion of their money than middle class folks do (that's why they're rich, and why an awful lot of rich folk got rich saving and investing off mere middle class income).
So if we go back to that Citibank transaction - if I buy a share for $45, the seller has the $45; it's still in the system. But I started with $45 of spendable money, $45 worth of earnings, $45 worth of wealth effect, $45 worth of net worth. If the share price drops to $7, well, there goes my spendable asset, my net worth, my wealth effect. There's a very, very good chance that my "velocity" of spending will decrease by the $38 the share dropped in value. If I was investing for a down payment on a house, that's $38 less house I can buy. If I was investing for a wedding, there goes the open bar. If I was investing for peace of mind and the satisfaction of securing my future - zoiks. Chances are, I'll pull $90 of spending velocity out of my budget to make up for the loss, and it still may not replace the lost peace of mind.
That's my best guess - we aren't suffering a mere shifting of assets, but a genuine implosion in some assets. Other assets are lost on the wrong side of the tracks, while others are dragging themselves sickly across the floor crying piteously, "help me, I'm hung over."
No comments:
Post a Comment