Gorky fruit of "cheap" money

Due to negative rates for reserves stored in them, central banks are trying to force commercial banks to redirect this money to lending to the economy . But so far it doesn’t work out very well ... but the rapid expansion in the debt markets of the share of bonds with negative interest rates (there are already 16% of all) and can turn out at some point at some point with a new global financial crisis .

By mid -August, it became known that the second bank in Germany intends to charge a fee for storing private deposits in it - instead of paying traditional interest on them. It was about the department of the Austrian bank Raiffeisen in the resort town of Gmund-Am-Teghanze in the south of Bavaria with a population of less than 6 thousand people. The bank notified its depositors in advance that starting on September 1, it will levy 0.4% from those contributions in it that exceed 100 thousand euros.

“We simply transfer to them the expenses that the European Central Bank now has on us,” the British business newspaper Financial Times quotes one of the leaders of this bank. Minus 0.4% per annum is exactly the rate at which the Central Bank of the Eurozone countries now charges a fee from commercial banks for storing their “optional” reserves, that is, relatively free funds, in their accounts.

For the first time, the European Central Bank (ECB) introduced a negative rate on these reserves two years ago-in June 2014, setting it at the level of minus 0.1% per annum. Three months later, it was reduced already to minus 0.2% per annum. And already in November of the same year, a small cooperative Skatbank in the city of Altenburg in the eastern part of Germany was the first of all banks of the Eurozone countries to introduce a negative rate for private depositors - 0.25% per annum for large deposits exceeding 500 thousand euros. And the main reason for this step was also called the policy of the European Central Bank.

This is always the same story ... Therefore, many economists recommend a practice for developing countries that exists in China and Chile, namely, limiting the flows of speculative capital

- But is it possible to generally consider the introduction by central banks of a number of Western countries of negative rates on accounts in them, opened by commercial banks, some desperate attempt to encourage the company and the population more? After all, the results of such attempts in the same Europe are so far more than modest ... Our interlocutor is a researcher at the Guver Center for Stanford University in the United States Professor of Economics Mikhail Bernsstam :

- This is more than desperate attempts. This is self -flagellation. Central banks thereby recognize that all previous measures of their monetary policy no longer work. And from the part of commercial banks that introduce negative interest rates, this is confirmation that they do not credit the economy, instead taking money from depositors. Indeed, in principle, commercial banks should pay them a small percentage, taking a higher one from those whom they credit and live on this difference.

This is the essence of the policy of “quantitative mitigation”: at its first stage, banking systems saved from collapse, and at the second, budget deficits financed through banks. And in the end - were at a dead end

- But in fact, both central banks and commercial, introducing negative interest rates, act according to one scheme: they take money from their depositors for the storage of money in them. Another thing, depositors are different. But why, in both cases, negative interest rates differ, if you like, efficiently?

- There are “good” negative interest rates, and there are “bad” rates. The first is, paradoxically, the negative rates of central banks. During a recent great recession after the 2008 financial crisis, central banks first began to pay interest for optional reserves of commercial banks stored in them. That is, without any risk for themselves, commercial banks began to earn on this. Instead of lending to the economy, they “stored” their funds on their own accounts in central banks, receiving interest for this. And in order to force them to lend to the economy, the central banks first stopped paying them these interest, and now they also establish negative interest rates. To force commercial banks to “take out” this money and invest it in the economy. So far, only the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the central banks of Denmark or Switzerland are doing this. In the United States, this is not done yet. So these are “good” negative interest rates. This is a forced step, a step of despair. But he is done to return to some normal situation.

- You can add another one to the central banks listed by the Sweden Bank. Well, and “bad” negative interest rates, continuing your logic, which are?

- But when commercial banks - instead of lending to the economy - introduce negative interest rates and live at the expense of depositors, and not at the expense of loans, these are “bad” negative interest rates.

But the risk, of course, exists-the risk that due to high interest rates, a recession may again occur. And central banks are afraid to take such measures

- The decision of the second bank in Germany is now introducing negative rates for private depositors, of course, shows the severity of the problem, but still, as it can be theoretically, it is unlikely to become a widespread phenomenon in the eurozone (or in the European Union as a whole). Say, the largest banks of the same Germany - such as Deutsche Bank or Commerzbank - have already introduced negative rates for the accounts of large industrial or financial companies, but are not decided, at least so far, to introduce them for their private customers. Or do you somehow understand the “mass” of such a phenomenon?

- This is an absolutely mass phenomenon. For many years, banks have come up with a lot of receptions in order to take money from depositors. For each check they take money. They take money for the fact that the depositors transfer their money to other accounts, there are a lot of techniques of all kinds of techniques ... And they send to the depositors the instructions for dozens of pages, which describes everything for which they take money from them. And it turned out that in fact, the investors already paid some regular contributions. Now, such banks simply set monthly payments. And, in fact, they turned into some “warehouse” premises that take money for a place. With the same success, they can take money for the fact that people keep money or jewelry in their safes ...

It was necessary to return to the normal situation back in 2009-2011. But just at this time, the debt crisis in the eurozone broke out. And - everything dragged on!

- But, a professor, purely theoretically, nothing prevents banks from combining both practices - and continue to charge a fee for individual small operations, and introduce negative interest rates on private deposits, that is, in fact, take a fee for the storage of money in them ...

-They will do anything, because they need to somehow live! The problem is this. During the financial crisis, in order to save the national banking systems, the central banks of the Western countries bought “bad” assets from commercial banks - mortgage bonds, all kinds of corporate bonds, that is, everything that did not give profit and “failed”. In return, they gave them “good” assets - money! And since we are talking about amounts to trillions of dollars - both in the USA and in Europe or Japan, so that this money does not lead to a surge of inflation, central banks and introduce an additional payment for the storage of optional reserves of commercial banks in them. That is, it was not a measure of the actual monetary policy. It was a measure to save the entire financial system.

- Actually, according to these deposits in the central banks, negative interest rates have now been introduced. Although not everywhere in the West ...

- Say, now the US Federal Reserve (Fed) pays 0.5% per annum for the fact that banks “warewell” in it their free funds. They have already accumulated on the bills in the Fed for 2.5 trillion dollars! This money could go to the economy, but they do not go! That is, their volume has already exceeded the 2 trillion dollars that amount to all bank loans to American enterprises and companies. And the banks, earning a small but guaranteed percentage in the Fed, actually ceased to fulfill their main function - mediation between households (accumulations) and enterprises (loans). This practice has led to the fact that there is no trust in the financial system. Everyone is afraid that as soon as the Central Bank increases its interest rates, a recession may begin in the economy again. Financial institutions do not trust each other and are afraid that the interbank loan, as during the financial crisis, can lead to the collapse of some banks ...

This is more than desperate attempts ... This is self -flagellation. Central banks thereby recognize that all previous measures of their monetary policy no longer work

- It is enough to recall that it was the collapse of the interbank lending market - both in the USA and in Europe - and, in fact, became perhaps the most striking manifestation of the then global financial crisis in 2008 ... And how great are the scope of the problems of interbank lending today in the USA, for example, since we started talking about this?

- The “normal” market of the interbank loan used to be approximately $ 0.5 trillion in the United States. Now it decreased to $ 70 billion, that is, it practically does not exist. Banks do not trust each other. And in such a situation, banks will take money for anything. But someday it will end, because depositors will simply begin to withdraw their savings.

-By the way, one of the leaders of the same branch of Raiffeisen Bank in the town of Gmund-Am-Tergnze, which was the second bank in Germany with negative rates for private deposits, said: after the bank announced their owners of the upcoming innovation at the end of June, about half of these customers had already transferred their accumulations that it will affect, or into some other assets, or some other assets, Or simply - on their own accounts in other banks of the country ... A third of all banks of the eurozone (two thousand out of six thousand) or a quarter of all banks in the countries of the European Union, of which about 8 thousand are concentrated in Germany ... about 8 thousand.

That is, without any risk for themselves, commercial banks began to earn on this. Instead of lending to the economy, they “stored” their funds on their own accounts in central banks, receiving interest for this

But we recall that in recent years, that is, after the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the central banks and the USA, and Europe, and Japan actively pursued a “quantitative mitigation” policy, that is, large-scale financial stimulation of national economies. Moreover, today it has been completed only in the USA, while in Europe and Japan this policy is actively continuing . But it was in Europe and in Japan that central banks had to introduce negative rates, but not in the USA. How to explain such a discrepancy?

- The difference is small ... She is in the rate of economic growth. The United States, albeit at a short pace, but still got out of the great recession. On average, from 2007 to 2016, that is, for nine years, the US economic growth was 1.2% per year. Whereas in the European Union - 0.9%, and in the eurozone - even 0.6%. The US Federal Reserve, like all other central banks, seeks to quickly return to “normal” interest rates, to the normal growth of the economy. And having seen at least a small economic growth, the Fed, on the one hand, began to reduce positive interest rates at the optional reserves of commercial banks stored in it, and on the other hand, she slightly increased interest rates on its loans to the banking system. While the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, relatively speaking, are still “staying” approximately where the Fed was 3-4 years ago. That is, they still expect to resume the growth of their economies.

There are “good” negative interest rates, and there are “bad”

“ But now they can be introduced in the United States.” At least last year, the Fed The Chairman of the Fed did not exclude such a development of events ...

- Moreover, they must be introduced! This measure will finally force banks to get out of the state of “storage” of free funds and begin lending to the economy. Yes, this is very difficult to do. However, this is a measure in the right direction.

- Financial analysts, speaking of threats that carry negative interest rates in Western countries, mean primarily debt markets, that is, bond markets - both sovereign, produced by governments of different countries and corporate, which are issued by companies and enterprises. And, say, in early June, the American financier Bill Gross, who is often called the “king of the bond market”, referring to the now sharply fallen profitability in the debt market (according to him - to a minimum for 500 years!), Wrote on his Twitter: “This is a supernova, which will explode once.” How to explain the very essence of such a threat?

- Such a threat really exists, because investors have accumulated a tremendous number of bonds. Moreover, since due to low interest rates in the economy and profitability for bonds are very low, investors gradually come to more “long” bonds. It is good in itself, but it’s risky. Say, in the United States, the average term of corporate bonds today is 16 years so that they can be at least a little to earn. But this is also associated with a very big risk. After all, sooner or later, and rather early, interest rates and the Fed, and other Western central banks will begin to increase. Either due to inflation, or they themselves will begin to increase them in order to bring them into a “normal” state. And when the interest rates of central banks increase, this “diverges” throughout the financial system: interest is growing in all financial instruments, including the profitability of bonds increases. And when the profitability of bonds is growing, their cost, on the contrary, falls.

- with all the ensuing consequences for those investors who have previously acquired these bonds ...

- Yes, in this case, all the bonds that investors gained will become cheaper. And investors will suffer considerable losses. The global bond market is now approximately 82 trillion dollars, it is more than the entire world economy. Most of them are naturally released in Western countries. The point is that both large banks and all kinds of investment funds will suffer very large losses. And in such a situation, a new financial crisis may arise, similar to that that erupted in 2008-2009. This danger exists, and it was created by the fact that the central banks have been maintaining the “abnormal” situation of low interest rates for too long.

And it turned out that in fact, the investors already paid some regular contributions. Now, such banks simply set monthly payments. And, in fact, they turned into some “warehouse” premises that take money for a place

- By the way, the scale of the potential threat can be judged by such estimates. If there are $ 82 trillion bonds in the world, as you just noticed, then the share of those that trade with negative yield, according to some calculations, has already reached almost 13.5 trillion dollars, that is, 16% of all. Moreover, in one week in August, their volume increased by 300 billion dollars at once. It is primarily about the government bonds of the countries of Europe and Japan, as well as about some corporate bonds that are considered the most reliable. In general, as the International rating agency of Standard & Poor ' S notes , almost 500 million people in the world live in the conditions of negative interest rates of their central banks, which somehow affect a quarter of the world economy. And experts of the International Monetary Fund recently warned that the preservation of these rates in Europe could undermine the restoration of normal lending to the economy by banks. That is, it turns out that a certain pre-crisis situation is still preserved? ..

- This is a crisis or pre -crisis situation in what sense. The monetary policy of the Western governments fell into the trap. It was necessary to take extraordinary measures during the financial crisis. They obviously were not ready for him. But it was necessary to return to a normal situation, say, back in 2009-2011. And just at this time, the debt crisis in the eurozone broke out. And - everything dragged on! As a result, the financial system, including banking, remains in a deep crisis.

- It turns out that it is unlikely that you can get out of the traditional methods of the monetary policy of central banks? .. So, there are non -traditional and - more risky ...

- The long -term scheme of “quantitative mitigation” actually worked idle. The money of central banks first poured into the economy, and then returned to them. Теперь отрицательными процентными ставками центральные банки пытаются “вытолкнуть” эти деньги назад в экономику. Возникает некий денежный капкан – продолжать эту политику нельзя! Можно, как предлагают некоторые экономисты, и я с ними согласен, резко повысить процентные ставки, не опасаясь новой рецессии, так как это приведет экономику в нормальное состояние. Банки вновь начнут ее кредитовать, потому что вернутся “нормальные” проценты. Но риск, безусловно, существует – риск того, что из-за высоких процентных ставок может вновь возникнуть рецессия. И центральные банки опасаются принимать такие меры.

– ​Наступившую теперь “эпоху” отрицательных процентных ставок в

И Европейский центральный банк, и Банк Японии, условно говоря, “остаются” примерно там, где ФРС была 3–4 года назад. То есть по-прежнему ожидают возобновления роста своих экономик

​ западных экономиках можно считать неким логическим продолжением другой “эпохи” – “дешевых” денег, инициированной их центральными банками для стимулирования экономического роста и выразившейся, собственно, в политике “количественного смягчения” ?

– Политика “количественного смягчения” была и политикой “перекачивания” денег следующим образом. Государства выпускали все новые гособлигации, чтобы покрывать резко выросший в условиях рецессии дефицит бюджетов. Эти облигации скупали коммерческие банки и тут же перепродавали их центральным банкам. Центральные банки, со своей стороны, печатали для этого новые деньги, которые в итоге возвращались им же на “хранение” в виде необязательных резервов коммерческих банков. То есть фактически происходило финансирование бюджетных дефицитов. В этом-то и сущность политики “количественного смягчения”: на первом ее этапе спасали от краха банковские системы, а на втором – через банки финансировали дефициты бюджетов. И итоге – оказались в тупике.

– ​Если иметь в виду развивающиеся экономики мира, включая Россию, по каким каналам оказывают на них влияние отрицательные ставки на Западе? Как, в частности, они будут влиять на валюты развивающихся стран? Как и раньше – через перетоки капитала?

– Да, будут спекулятивные потоки капитала. В погоне за высокой доходностью какая-то часть инвестиций пойдет на рынки развивающихся стран. Что, естественно, приведет к укреплению местных валют. Но это – лишь временное явление. Как только вернутся “нормальные” процентные ставки в западных странах, сразу и более безопасными, и более доходными станут вложения в западные экономики. Повысится доходность и американских, и европейских гособлигаций. И спекулятивный капитал вновь резко уйдет из развивающихся стран, что немедленно отразится на их валютах.

Более того, их надо ввести! Это мера, наконец, заставит банки выйти из состояния “складирования” свободных средств и начать кредитование экономики. Да, это сделать очень сложно. Тем не менее – это мера в правильном направлении

​– ​Именно это в больших масштабах и происходило в последний раз в 2012–2013 годах . Тогда капиталы международных инвесторов мощным потоком уходили из США, где процентные ставки стремились к нулю, в те страны, где ставки были выше, особенно в страны развивающиеся. А потом так же стремительно стали эти страны покидать , стоило ФРС США заявить в мае 2013 года о планах начать вскоре поэтапное сворачивание американской программы “количественного смягчения”. Всего за полгода курсы валют многих крупных развивающихся стран – включая Бразилию, Индию , Турцию, Индонезию или Южную Африку – снизились к доллару на 15–25% . На этом фоне р оссийский рубль, поддерживаемый дорогой еще нефтью, подешевел тогда вдвое меньше – лишь на 12%... Но в целом история может повториться?

– Это всегда одна и та же история… Поэтому, собственно, многие экономисты и рекомендуют для развивающихся стран практику, существующую и в Китае, и в Чили, и в целом ряде других стран, а именно – ограничение потоков спекулятивного капитала. То есть привлечение прямых иностранных инвестиций вместо "горячих" денег, вместо спекулятивного капитала. Это, в общем-то, практика “страховая”.

– ​Во многих публикациях в западной деловой прессе нередко делаются предположения о том, что, мол, нынешние отрицательные процентные ставки, при всех связанных с ними рисках, – это, тем не менее, довольно надолго. В какой мере вы разделяете подобные оценки?

– Все это зависит исключительно от небольшой группы людей, от руководства центральных банков. Скажем, руководство ФРС США по этому вопросу раскололось. Одни считают, что надо продолжать практику низких процентных ставок в экономике. А для необязательных резервов коммерческих банков они могут и перейти в отрицательные. Другие считают, что время пришло и надо повышать процентные ставки в экономике. Возможно – уже в сентябре этого года. Так что все будет зависеть от руководства центральных банков. Но рано или поздно центральные банки должны будут вернуться к нормальной практике.

– ​Но их что-то должно к этому побудить… Подвигнуть на это, если хотите…

– Они либо сами это сделают упреждающим путем, либо возникнет все же некая инфляция. Если коммерческие банки начнут, наконец, переводить свои средства из необязательных резервов в кредиты экономике. Это – здоровый процесс, но он, естественно, ускорит инфляцию. И тогда центральные банки повысят процентные ставки. Но когда именно это случится – они и сами не знают. Так что в целом нынешняя ситуация может как затянуться, так и, наоборот, завершиться уже вскоре.