Well, actually, as CNBC's Diana Olick pointed out
in April, many consumers are stopping their mortgage payments, and then
blowing the money they would usually pay towards their mortgage on
I opened up a big can of debate
Monday, when I repeated some chatter around that consumer spending
might be juiced by all those folks not paying their mortgages.
They have a little extra cash, so they're spending it at the mall.
Some of you thought the premise had some validity, others, as is often the case, told me I was an idiot.
He didn't deny the possibility, and added:
"In some sense there might be a silver lining in that."
Then I decided to ask Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, who will often shoot down my more ridiculous theories.
I asked him if this was a crazy idea:
not crazy. With some 6 million homeowners not making mortgage payments
(some loans are in trial mod programs and paying something but still
in delinquency or default status) , this is probably freeing up roughly
$8 billion in cash each month.
Assuming this cash is spent (not too
bad an assumption), it amounts to nearly one percent of consumer
spending. The saving rate is also much lower as a result. The impact on
spending growth is less significant as that is a function of the
change in the number of homeowners not making payments.
I'm not sure I would say this is juicing up spending, but resulting in more spending than would be the case otherwise.
of these stressed homeowners (due to unemployment) are reducing their
spending, just not as much as they would have if they were still making
their mortgage payment.
Okay, so 6 million
American homeowners are not being super frugal about either paying their
mortgages or saving the money for another investment.
But surely the hundreds of millions of other Americans are reducing debt and deleveraging, right?
In fact, as the Wall Street Journal notes
today, the overwhelming majority of debt reduction by consumers is not
due to voluntary debt reduction, but due to defaulting on their debts
and having them involuntarily written down by the banks:
sharp decline in U.S. household debt over the past couple years has
conjured up images of people across the country tightening their belts
in order to pay down their mortgages and credit-card balances. A closer
look, though, suggests a different picture: Some are defaulting, while
the rest aren’t making much of a dent in their debts at all.
consider household debt. Over the two years ending June 2010, the
total value of home-mortgage debt and consumer credit outstanding has
fallen by about $610 billion, to $12.6 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.
That’s an annualized decline of about 2.3%, which is pretty impressive
given the fact that such debts grew at an annualized rate in excess of
10% over the previous decade.
There are two ways, though, that
the debts can decline: People can pay off existing loans, or they can
renege on the loans, forcing the lender to charge them off. As it
happens, the latter accounted for almost all the decline. Over the two
years ending June 2010, banks and other lenders charged off a total of
about $588 billion in mortgage and consumer loans, according to data
from the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
consumers managed to shave off only $22 billion in debt through the
kind of belt-tightening we typically envision. In other words, in the
absence of defaults, they would have achieved an annualized decline of
The Journal graphically shows that virtually all debt reduction is due to loan charge offs:
Karl Denninger notes:
From a peak in 2005 of $13.1 trillion in equity in residential real estate, that value has now diminished by approximately half to $6.67 trillion!
Yet outstanding household debt has in fact increased from $11.7 trillion to $13.5 trillion today.
Folks, those who claim that we have "de-levered" are lying.
only has the consumer not de-levered but business is actually gearing
up - putting the lie to any claim that they have "record cash." Well,
yes, but they also have record debt, and instead of decreasing leverage levels they're adding to them.
short don't believe the BS about "de-leveraging has occurred and we're
in good shape." We most certainly have not de-levered, we most
certainly are not in good shape, and the Federal borrowing is what, for
the time being, has prevented reality from sticking it's head under the
corner of the tent.
Indeed, as I've pointed out
repeatedly, the government has done everything it can to prevent
deleveraging by the financial companies, and to re-lever up the economy
to dizzying levels.
As Jim Quinn wrote last month:
can’t open a newspaper or watch a business news network without seeing
or hearing that consumers and businesses have been de-leveraging. The
storyline as portrayed by the mainstream media is that consumers and
corporations have seen the light and are paying off debts and living
within their means. Austerity has broken out across the land.
is a chart that shows total credit market debt as a % of GDP. This
chart captures all of the debt in the United States carried by
households, corporations, and the government. The data can be found
credit market debt peaked at $52.9 trillion in the 1st quarter of
2009. It is currently at $52.1 trillion. The GREAT DE-LEVERAGING of the
United States has chopped our total debt by 1.5%. Move along. No more
to see here. Time to go to the mall. Can anyone in their right mind
look at this chart and think this financial crisis is over?
the Great Depression of the 1930′s Total Credit Market Debt as a % of
GDP peaked at 260% of GDP. As of today, it stands at 360% of GDP. The
Federal Government is adding $4 billion per day to the National Debt.
GDP is stagnant and will likely not grow for the next year. The
storyline about corporate America being flush with cash is another lie.
Corporations have ADDED $482 billion of debt since 2007. Corporate
America has the largest amount of debt on their books in history at $7.2
Indeed, as this chart courtesy of Zero Hedge confirms, traditional banking liabilities are higher than ever:
But Tyler Durden argues:
latest plunge in the shadow banking system is merely the most recent
confirmation that the deleveraging in America is only just beginning.
So what does it all mean?
The government, big financial companies and the American consumer are all guilty of fighting deleveraging instead of voluntarily paying down their debt.
a junkie looking for "one last score", the entire country has sold out
our future to try to keep the artificial high going a little longer.
As I pointed out in July 2009:
Every independent economist has said that too much leverage was one of the main causes of the current economic crisis.
However ... the Federal Reserve and Treasury have, in fact, been encouraging massive leveraging.
pushing voodoo theories justifying the tremendous increase in leverage
were promoted and lionized, while those questioning such nonsense were
In other words, economists and financial advisors - in
academia, government and elsewhere - have been subservient to the
financial elites, and have trumpeted the safeness and soundness of
cdos, credit default swaps, and all of the rest of the shadow economy
which allowed leverage to get so out of hand that it brought the world
economy to its knees.
This is no different from the promotion of
sports doctors to become team doctor when they are willing to inject
various painkillers and feel-good drugs into an injured football star
so he can finish the game. If he is willing to justify the treatment as
being safe, he is promoted. If not, he's out.
acted like team docs for the financial giants. When the football team
doctor who gives the injured patient steroids and stimulants and tells
him to get back in the game, it might be good for the team in the
short-run, but the patient may end up severely injured for decades.
economists have prescribed more leverage and told the banks to go
trade like crazy to get the economy going again, it might be good for
the banks in the short-run. But the consumer may end up being hurt for
And as I wrote in August 2009:
In an essay entitled "The risk of a double-dip recession is rising", Nouriel Roubini affirms two important points:
is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has
not begun yet because the losses of financial institutions have been
socialised and put on government balance sheets. This limits the ability
of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest...
releveraging of the public sector through its build-up of large fiscal
deficits risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending.
In other words, Roubini is confirming what Anna Schwartz and many others have said: that the
problem is insolvency, more than liquidity, that the government is
fighting the last war and doing it all wrong, and that we should let the
insolvent banks fail.
Roubini is also confirming that
incurring huge deficits in order to have the federal government itself
act as a super-bank is causing a reduction in - and "crowding out" a
recovery in - private sector spending. [Roubini also said
last year: "Deleveraging requires the writing down of debt as
reflationary policies are not a free lunch and won't solve the debt
As I have repeatedly pointed out, a
recovery cannot occur until we move through the painful deleveraging
process. But instead of allowing this to occur, the government is
trying to increase leverage as a way to try to re-start the economy and save the insolvent banks. See this, this and this.
governments themselves at risk . . . but that is another story.