Sat, Feb 06, 2016 - Page 9 News List

How much debt is too much?

Growing government and household debt since 2000 has caused a significant amount of concern

By Robert Skidelsky

Illustration: June Hsu

Is there a “safe” debt to income ratio for households or debt to GDP ratio for governments? In both cases, the answer is yes. And in both cases, it is impossible to say exactly what that ratio is.

Nonetheless, this has become the most urgent macroeconomic question of the moment, owing not just to spiraling household and government debt since 2000, but also — and more important — to the excess concern that government debt is now eliciting.

According to a report last year by the McKinsey Global Institute, household debt in many advanced countries doubled to more than 200 percent of income between 2000 and 2007.

Since then, households in the countries hardest hit in the 2008-2009 economic crisis have deleveraged somewhat, but the household debt ratio in most advanced countries has continued to grow.

The big upsurge in government debt followed the 2008-2009 collapse. For example, British government debt rose from just greater than 40 percent of GDP in 2007 to 92 percent today.

Persistent efforts by heavily indebted governments to eliminate their deficits have caused debt ratios to rise by shrinking GDP, as in Greece, or by delaying recovery, as in the UK.

Before modern finance made it easy to live on borrowed money, getting into debt was considered immoral.

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be,” Shakespeare’s Polonius admonishes his son Laertes.

The expectation of uninterrupted economic growth brought a new perspective. Mortgage debt, unknown a century ago, now accounts for 74 percent of household debt in developed countries (43 percent in developing ones).

Banks have been lending and households borrowing as if tomorrow was sure to be better than today.

Likewise, governments used to be expected to balance their budgets, except during wartime.

However, they, too, came to expect continually rising revenue at unchanged, or even falling, tax rates. So it seemed prudent to borrow against the future.

Today, with many households and governments facing severe financing problems, that no longer appears to be true. However, the only certainty is that the “safe” debt ratio depends on the context.

Consider Denmark and the US. In 2007, Denmark’s household debt to income ratio reached 269 percent, while the US peak was 125 percent.

However, household default rates have been negligible in Denmark, unlike in the US, where, in the depths of the recession, almost one-quarter of mortgages were “under water” and some homeowners chose strategic default — fueling further downward pressure on housing prices and harming other indebted households. This can be attributed to the distribution of borrowers.

In Denmark, high-income households borrowed the most, relative to their income, and standards for mortgage lending remained high (mortgages were capped at 80 percent of the value of the property).

In the US, households with the lowest income (the bottom quintile) had a higher debt to income ratio than the top 10 percent, and mortgages were dispensed like gumballs.

In the US, as well as in Spain and Ireland, banks and households became what Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf called “highly leveraged speculators in a fixed asset.”

As for government debt, Japan’s debt to GDP ratio is 230 percent, compared with Greece’s 177 percent.

However, the consequences have been much more dire in Greece than in Japan. The distribution of creditors is crucial. Most of Japan’s bondholders are nationals (if not the central bank) and have an interest in political stability. Most Greek bondholders are foreign banks.

This story has been viewed 3625 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top