B計劃難救美國
謝國忠/文 總第221期 出版日期：2008-09-29
謝國忠搜狐博客 http://xieguozhong.blog.sohu.com/
7000億美元援救計劃只能短期提振市場信心；排斥來自非西方國家的投資，是美國解決當前問題的主要障礙
美國政府緊急推出一套援救金融體系的措施。這些措施被稱做B計劃，其內容包括：（1）成立一個政府機構，接管金融機構7000億美元的不良資產——這個數字還不包括援救AIG、房地美和房利美（下稱“兩房”）支出的近3000億美元；（2）給金額高達3.4萬億美元的貨幣市場基金提供擔保；（3）暫時禁止對近800只金融股的賣空。
這些措施挽救了市場，但是，幸福的感覺不會持續太久。B計劃不會扭轉美國經濟頹勢。2009年，美國經濟增長將下滑大約2個百分點。長期而言，美國仍需理清如何支付危機導致的損失，減小實體經濟與金融業的杠杆率，並找到非債務刺激經濟增長模式。這次不僅是投資者的信心危機，而且美國經濟的基本面出了問題。
華爾街空前考驗
雷曼兄弟申請破產保護引發金融市場劇烈震蕩，美國政府不得不緊急出台B計劃。一年前，危機伊始，美國政府就曾試圖穩定金融體系。貝爾斯登倒閉時，美國政府勸說摩根大通購買它，並以美聯儲提供300億美元接管部分不良資產作為激勵。“兩房”財務出現危機，美國政府接管了它們。到了雷曼兄弟和美林，美國政府勸說它們開展自救。但是，為尋找最有利於自己的交易（通常是能讓老板升職的交易），這兩家投行花了很長時間。看出它們自救緩慢的原因，美國政府決定“殺雞給猴看”，讓雷曼兄弟倒閉。但它沒有讓AIG步雷曼兄弟後塵，接管了這家保險巨頭。因為AIG就是那只“猴子”。
但是，雷曼兄弟破產讓已經脆弱的金融市場更加恐慌。養老基金等機構投資者重新思考這個問題：它們該和誰做生意。華爾街坍塌的謠言四起，使機構投資者已經准備從華爾街撤出。一旦機構投資者撤出，華爾街的金融機構將會大批關門。這也是為什麼雷曼兄弟倒閉後，賣空者大量拋出高盛和摩根士丹利的股票。兩大投行股票頓時瘋狂下跌，感覺就像華爾街的末日來臨。如果政府那時不采取措施，美國金融體系可能真的崩潰。
有一點很諷刺。華爾街孕育了對衝基金（賣空方），這次卻差點被它害死。2001年科技泡沫破滅後，對衝基金開始活躍。它們的成長很快，現在已經管理2 萬億美元資產，而且大到可以與華爾街較量。這像是現代版《俄狄浦斯王》（Oedipus play）。對衝基金殺害了它們的雙親，占領了它們的王國。雖然政府的措施暫時拖住它們，但是，離悲劇結束尚早。
有的學究和政府官員們，對保爾森和伯南克處理危機的方式贊不絕口。我不太同意。因為他們沒有理解這場危機的根源。這場危機標志著“格林斯潘債務王國” 倒塌。華爾街貴族們通過將債務反復打包——它們被稱做衍生品，每年獲得數十億美元收入。但是，政府不可能維持住這個大泡沫。危機過後，金融體系應會煥然一新。政府應該查封所有破產的金融機構，清理股東和債權人，迅速降低杠杆率，吸引國外投資，重建規模更小但生機盎然的金融體系。相反，美國政府卻指望制造泡沫的人來解決問題。
大多數華爾街大腕們已經被開除了，但是拿著上百萬美元的解雇金。可能的話，他們終有一天會受到懲罰。幸存的人，仍然不相信他們的成功是一個幻影，還繼續維護著他們的王國。在泡沫中，只需要膽子大，就可以成功，而不需要聰明才智。但是，成功卻讓他們相信自己都是聰明人。這也是為什麼他們結局如此悲慘—— 連他們都不能理解自己創造的金融工具。所以，政府援救這些人的努力一直沒有收到效果。
美國政府采用拖延戰術，是考慮到正在進行的總統大選。美國政府援救市場的行為，暴露出過去它們在經濟政策上的決策失誤。這會降低共和黨候選人麥凱恩 11月當上總統的可能。現在的市場形勢，逼迫美國政府不得不采取行動。布什政府的援救行動，很可能讓麥凱恩錯失當選總統的機遇。
B計劃難擔重任
B計劃如何實現呢？我認為它只會暫時提振市場信心。投資者幻想政府接管不良資產，麻煩已經過去，“正常生活”將重新開始。這種天真的想法很快就會破滅。誰來為這些損失埋單？政府會追究股東和債權人的責任嗎？那些房屋貶值的納稅人能有錢來償付這些損失嗎？已經負債10萬億美元的政府，還能借更多的錢來支付這個大賬單嗎？
即便為不良資產的損失埋了單，美國經濟的杠杆率仍然很高。重組美國經濟需要大筆資金。2007年，美國的非金融部門債務占GDP的226％。十年前，這一數字還僅為183％。同期，金融部門債務從占GDP64％的水平上升到114％。因此，泡沫破滅後，真實經濟可能需要開展股權融資，所需資金約為 5.5萬億美元，相當於美國股市市值的三分之一。即便美國人可以勒緊腰帶，提高儲蓄率，來使股市繁榮，這個過程也太漫長，難讓市場情緒平穩。美國可能需要借助外國資本，約占所需資金的一半。
美國金融部門可能必須減少5萬億美元到8萬億美元債務，來降低杠杆率。美國的不良資產也差不多有幾萬億美元。其中，已經報告的損失超過了4000億美元。新的損失甚至遠超過這個水平。危機開始前，總體損失已經接近美國金融體系的資本，因此，美國可能必須讓債權人——以外國央行為主——成為它幾大金融機構的主要所有者。去年一輪集資浪潮，美國金融機構只將少數的股權賣給其他國家的主權財富基金。它們對這些金融機構沒有任何控制權，當然對遭受的損失很憤慨。未來的融資模式裡，美國的金融機構可能必須賣給外國人大量股權，使它們可以有更大的控制權。
解決美國危機，必須由那些外彙儲備高達10萬億美元的國家參與——美國經濟資本不充裕。一個折中解決方案，可能是用一種形式的債務替代現在的債務。B 計劃就是這種方式。當騙局無法繼續下去，印鈔票就成了惟一出路。這將最終導致美元體系崩潰以及美國出現惡性通貨膨脹。全世界應該防止出現這樣悲慘的結局。中國、日本、科威特、沙特阿拉伯、阿聯酋等有巨大外彙儲備的國家，應該同美國政府坐下來商討，找到美國資產重組的方案。這些國家應將它們的美元債權，例如美國國債，交換成股權類資產，例如股票。
全球協力是關鍵
有序解決美國危機對全世界都有好處。如果美國通過印鈔票來解決問題，持有美元資產的投資者就會受到損失，世界經濟也會陷入無法想像的衰退。過去十年，美國不斷提高的杠杆率促進了全球需求增長，從而推動了全球經濟增長。它導致美國出現巨大貿易赤字以及美國貿易伙伴的巨額外彙儲備。這些外彙儲備循環回到美國，購買美國的債券，推高了它的杠杆率，刺激了需求增長。因此，美國貿易伙伴的巨額外彙儲備和美國經濟過高的杠杆，是同一枚硬幣的兩面。很難想像問題的解決方案不會需要多邊同時參與。
美國需要改變對待外國投資的政策。排斥來自非西方國家的投資，是美國解決當前問題的主要障礙。
人們記得，中海油試圖收購優尼科（Unocal）曾遇到巨大阻礙，迪拜港口世界（Dubai Ports World）被迫撤出對美國的港口投資。如果美國可以成功地推進債務和股權轉換，股權所有者應該是亞洲國家以及石油出口商。美國人不太適應這些國家成為其公司所有者，但是，他們沒有別的選擇。在對待國外投資者方面，美國應該向英國學習。
雖然上述建議對全世界而言會帶來雙贏局面，但是，它施行的幾率很低。美國對自己的評價仍不太現實。美國是世界上最大的債務人，可它的行為卻像最大的債權人。美國人可能需要經歷更多的磨難，來改變態度。
美國不願接受來自非西方國家的投資，最後只能依靠印鈔票。美聯儲可以購買任何聯邦政府發行的“廢紙”，來彌補處理不良資產時的損失。這將導致較高的通脹率。當外國人拋售它們的美元資產，美元會崩盤。美國可能經歷惡性通貨膨脹和經濟混亂。
雖然金融危機離結束尚遠，但是，經濟危機已開始悄悄向我們靠近。過去十年，高杠杆支持美國消費刺激增長的模式。美國需求中重要的一塊，是由這個泡沫來支持的。當泡沫破滅，那部分需求也會消失。即將到來的衰退可能是50年來最嚴重的一次。2009年，美國經濟增長會下滑2個百分點。
很多人可能對我的觀點比較懷疑。一年前，當危機發生時，每個人都對最壞情況很擔憂。但是，美國經濟一直沒有明顯放緩。很多人認為，這是因為即便美元貶值30％，美國出口仍然表現良好。但是，出口不是美國最重要的部門。美國經濟沒有降低它的杠杆。美國的非金融部門的債務從一年前30.4萬億美元，上升到 2008年中32.4萬億美元，同期，金融部門的債務也從15萬億美元上升到16.5萬億美元。經濟和金融體系的穩定是建立在泡沫之上——不斷用新的債務來覆蓋不能償還的債務。
市場的壓力讓美國不得不作出調整。就像1998年亞洲國家遇到的情形，美國必須減少債務。這表明，不會再有貸款來支持美國現在的巨額消費；美國房地產價格會加速下降。這兩方面因素將引發經濟大規模收縮。這會表現在失業率上。2009年，美國失業率可能上升到8％以上，這將進一步放大經濟收縮。1997 年，亞洲金融市場崩潰，在隨後的1998年，它們的經濟也大幅減速。美國在重復這個故事。
明年經濟出現衰退，但復蘇還遙遙無期。1999年，當時全球經濟形勢很好，亞洲國家讓本幣貶值，拉動出口強勁增長，經濟迅速復蘇。但是，同樣的事不會在美國發生。歐洲和日本因為老齡化問題，需求疲軟。新興市場也沒有成長到足夠支持美國復蘇的程度。在未來若干年，美國經濟都會表現平平。
世界各國政府都在采取措施來維持金融市場的穩定。它們的效果不會持久。柏林牆倒掉之後，世界經歷了一次空前的繁榮。全球化通過在世界範圍的分工，刺激了產出增加。但是，房地產重要的一部分是負債泡沫。在泡沫時期，全球化的標志達沃斯論壇曾高度贊揚華爾街領導的金融資本主義。現在，這個模型不再可信。我們正邁入另一個世界。與過去相比，未來華爾街的工作不會像從前光鮮耀眼，不過比芸芸眾生還是要好一些。但是，轉型的過程是痛苦的。■
作者為《財經》雜志特約經濟學家、玫瑰石顧問公司董事
謝國忠搜狐博客 http://xieguozhong.blog.sohu.com/
Plan B is no silver bullet /谢国忠
I wrote this ten days ago. Seems the plan is still the same as before the McCain interruption. Its main impact in the short term is to bring confidence to the financial market and may support a bounce. But, the bounce won't last very long. The economic crisis is coming soon. The US economy may contract by 2-5% in 2009. As the economy contracts, highly leveraged businesses in the real economy will get into trouble. Their debts will be in trouble also. It may lead to a PE industry crisis. Cheers. Andy
Plan B is no silver bullet
The US government has rushed out a barrage of measures, the so-called Plan B, to save its financial system. The measures include (1) establishing a government entity to take over $700 billion bad assets off the balance sheets of financial institutions (the figure excludes nearly $300 billion for bailing out AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), (2) guaranteeing $3.4 trillion deposits in money market funds, and (3) banning short selling of nearly 800 financial stocks temporarily. The measures have revived markets. But, the euphoria may be short-lived. Plan B won't stop a gut wrenching recession-2% or more contraction for the US economy in 2009. In the longer term, the US still has to figure out how to pay for the losses, decrease leverage in the real and financial economy, and find a non debt-driven growth model. This is not just a crisis of confidence. The fundamentals are deteriorating fast. Plan B can't halt that trend.
The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers triggered the financial tsunami that has forced the government's hand to rush out Plan B. It has struggled to hold the system together since the crisis began one year ago. It has dealt with the crisis piecemeal. When Bear Stearns collapsed, it persuaded JP Morgan to 'buy' it with $30 billion from the Fed as incentive. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed, it took them over. It tried for the longest time to persuade Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch to save themselves. The failing financial institutions took time to find the best deals for themselves, usually about keeping their bosses in elevated positions. Out of frustration over the slow pace of their self-rescue efforts, the government decided to 'kill a chicken and show it to the monkeys' and let Lehman fail. But, it didn't let AIG fail and took it over, i.e., putting government credit behind its bad assets, because AIG was viewed as a monkey.
But, the Lehman bankruptcy deeply scarred the financial market already in a fragile mental state. Institutional investors like pension funds or mutual funds became deeply concerned who they should be doing businesses with. They were ready to move their funds out of any Wall Street firm that was rumored to be failing. The withdrawal of their funds would bleed the highly levered Wall Street firms to death. This is why short sellers attacked Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley soon after the Lehman failure. The sinking share prices of the two giants sent everyone scurrying for cover. It felt like the end of the Wall Street. Indeed, if the government had not taken actions, the US's financial system would have collapsed.
Ironically, the Wall Street gave birth to the short sellers, or hedge funds, after the tech burst in 2000 to juice up their businesses. These hedge funds have grown enormously and now manage about $2 trillion. They have become big enough to take on the Wall Street. Like a modern day Oedipus play, they have come to slay their parents and take their kingdom. While the government measures have held them off for now. This drama is far from over. The Wall Street firms are staffed with corporate warriors who succeed by sucking up to their bosses, while hedge funds have attracted the brightest and the most ruthless. The battle is unevenly matched. Without government help, the Wall Street is doomed. Like Teutonic Warriors perched on hills overlooking Rome, they can't wait to sack the opulent and corrupt establishment.
Pundits and government officials have heaped praises on Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke for their handling of the crisis. I disagree. They have failed to understand the nature of the crisis. This is the collapsing of Greenspan's debt empire. The financial system is a house of cards on an unprecedented scale. The establishment cannot be saved. The aristocrats on Wall Street have been making billions every year by mixing debts with debts. They call them derivatives. The government cannot prop them up. There was nothing but air inside. The financial system that comes out of the crisis has to be very different. They should have seized all the failing financial institutions (i.e., most non banks and hundreds of banks), wiped out equity holders and debt holders, send debt peddlers to jail, bring down the leverage quickly, and attract foreign capital to recapitalize a much smaller but viable financial system. Instead, they hoped the people who made the bubble to solve the problems for them.
Let me launch a broadside on the Wall Street big wigs. Most of them have already been fired but walked away with millions as golden handshakes. Hopefully, justice will eventually catch up with them, and those who have destroyed so much would end up in maximum prison. The survivors still don't believe that their successes were a bubble phenomenon and psychologically biased towards preserving their empires. In a bubble, people who succeed are daring but not necessarily smart. But, successes make them believe otherwise. That is what brings them to a tragic ending. They are not capable of understanding the mess they have created. This is why the government's attempt for these people to rescue themselves would never work.
The delaying tactic by the government was due to the political considerations on the ongoing presidential election. A government bailout would expose the economic mismanagement of the past, which would diminish the chances of the Republican Candidate, John McCain, in November. Now the market has forced the government's hand. The rescue probably has killed McCain's chance to be the next president.
How would Plan B play out? I think it merely brings temporary relief. As investors imagine that the government takes over bad assets, they think they can forget about it and everyone can resume 'normal' life. This naïve view won't last. Who would pay for the losses? Wouldn't the government go after shareholders and creditors? Could taxpayers who are losing their homes have the money to cover the losses? Could the government whose debts stand at $10 trillion borrow more to pay the bill?
After covering the losses embedded in the bad assets, the US economy is still over levered. It takes an enormous amount of money to recapitalize the US economy. The US's non-financial sector debt rose to 226% of GDP in 2007 from183% ten years before, and the financial sector debt surged to 114% of GDP from 64% during the same period. The real economy may need 40% of GDP in extra equity or $5.5 trillion, equivalent to one third of the US's stock market capitalization. Even if Americans tighten belts and raise savings to boost their equity capital, the process would be too long for financial markets to feel comfortable today. The US may need foreign capital at least for half of the needed amount.
The US's financial sector may have to decrease leverage by $5-8 trillion. A significant portion of that are bad assets. The total reported losses have already amounted over $400 billion. New losses would far exceed that amount. As the total losses could be similar to the total amount of capital in the US's financial system before the crisis began, the US may have to let foreigners be majority owners of its big financial institutions. In the fund raising of the past year, the US's financial institutions sold minority stakes to sovereign wealth funds around the world. Without any control over these institutions, they of course are resentful of the terrible losses that they have suffered. In future fund raisings, the US's financial institutions may have to sell controlling stakes to foreigners.
The solution to America's crisis must involve the countries that own $10 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. The US economy is undercapitalized. An internal solution is usually one form of debt replaced with another. The current proposals fall into this category. When the shell game runs out of options, printing money is the only way out. That will eventually lead to dollar collapsing and hyperinflation in the US economy. The world should come together to prevent such a tragic ending. Countries with big foreign exchange reserves like China, Japan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc., should sit down with the US government to find a way to recapitalize its economy. They should swap their dollar assets in debt instruments like treasuries for equity assets like stocks.
The world has a vested interest in ensuring an orderly resolution to the US's crisis. If the US prints money to solve its problems, it will lead to the destruction of everyone's wealth in dollar assets and a global depression of unimaginable proportion. Rising leverage in the US has driven the demand growth in the global economy in the past decade. It has led to large US trade deficits and surging foreign exchange reserves among its trading partners. The foreign exchange reserves have been recycled back into the US's debt instruments, reinforcing its leverage-driven demand growth. Hence, the high foreign exchange reserves of its trading partners and the excessive leverage of the US economy are two sides of the same coin. It is hard to imagine that the solution wouldn't require both sides to participate.
The US needs to change its policy towards foreign investments. Its xenophobia over investments from non-western countries is a major barrier to the solution. Remember CNOOC's attempted takeover of Unocal and the forced sale of the US ports by Dubai Ports World. If the US can successfully make a debt-equity swap for its economy, the equity providers have to be Asian countries or oil exporters who Americans are not used to as owners. But, there are no other solutions. The US needs to become more like the UK in treating foreign ownership.
While the above proposal is a win-win for the world, the odds for its implementation are quite low. The United States still has an unrealistic view of itself. Its domestic politics is insular and xenophobic. Even tough the US is the largest debtor in the world it behaves like the largest creditor. Americans may need much more hardship to change their attitude.
The US's unwillingness to accept capital from non-western countries may push it down the path of printing money. The Fed can purchase whatever papers the Federal government issues to cover the losses in the bad asset disposal. It will lead to high inflation. When foreigners dump their dollar assets, the dollar would crash, the US may experience hyperinflation and economic chaos.
To protect themselves against such a scenario, foreign governments should switch their treasury holdings into stocks that preserve value better during inflation. Despite their sharp decline in recent months, the US's stocks are fairly valued, not dirt cheap. They may well decline in the coming months in a recessionary environment. But, they are better value than treasuries now. Central banks should put wealth preservation ahead of all other considerations.
Ironically, if foreigners switch from treasuries into stocks, it will ease the equity capital shortage in the US economy and discourage money printing by the Fed by pushing up treasury yields. Maybe, foreigners can save America even if it doesn't want to.
While the financial crisis is still far from over, the economic crisis is already around the corner. Rising leverage has supported the US's consumption led growth for the past decade. A significant portion of the US's aggregate demand is kept afloat by the bubble. As the bubble bursts, that part of the demand would vanish. The coming recession could be the most severe in fifty years. The US's economy could contract by 2% or more in 2009.
Many would be skeptical of this view. When the crisis happened one year ago, everyone worried about the worst. But, the US economy has not contracted. Many attribute it to the US's good export performance on 30% dollar devaluation. But, that is not the most important factor. The US economy has not decreased its leverage. The US's non-financial sector debt rose to $32.4 trillion by mid-2008 from 30.4 one year ago, and the financial sector debt to $16.5 trillion from 15.0 during the same period. The calm in the economy and financial system was sustained by increasing debts to cover up the bad debt problem.
The market has forced the issue now. Like Asian economies in 1998, the US has to deleverage . It means no loans for sustaining a big chunk of the existing consumption. It means acceleration in property price decline. These two factors would cause significant economic contraction. The knock-on effect will work through rising employment. The unemployment could rise above 8% in 2009, which would amplify the economic contraction. Asian financial markets collapsed in 1997, and their economies followed in 1998. The US is repeating the experience.
Beyond the economic collapse next year, the recovery beyond would be quite anemic. Asian economies recovered quickly in 1999 from export boom as they devalued their currencies and the global economy was good. The same would not happen to the US. Europe and Japan have weak domestic demand due to their aging problem. Emerging markets are not big enough to support the US recovery. The odds are that the US would stay flattish for years to come.
Governments around the world are implementing measures to boost financial markets. Their effects won't last for long. The world has experienced enormous prosperity since the fall of the Berlin Wall that discredited one form of economic management. The globalization since has boosted productivity by increasing division of labor across the world. But, a significant part of the prosperity was due to the debt bubble. Indeed, during the bubble, the Davos crowd-the globalization establishment heaped praises on financial capitalism led by Wall Street. That model is now discredited. We are moving towards a different world. It may not be as glitzy as the past one but could be better for average working men and woman. The transition, however, would be painful.
沒有留言:
張貼留言