The mood at Davos last year was pessimistic. This year, it was realistic. It will have to wait until next year to become optimistic.
This year’s annual gathering of the great and the good at the World Economic Forum’s annual event in Davos was themed “Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild.” There certainly was much rethinking and redesigning; now this needs to be followed through in the rebuilding. Sustainable recoveries certainly need sound foundations. This is particularly so with respect to the financial sector.
The realism seen at Davos was reflected in most views expressed about the world economy. In particular there was caution about the near term and about challenges facing the advanced economies. There was also realism about addressing some of the current issues, particularly those related to the banking and financial sector.
Debate about the banking sector formed only part of Davos 2010, but it was a significant part, and was enough to steal most of the headlines. The announcement of the Volcker Plan by US President Barack Obama on the eve of this year’s Davos meant the banks were even more of a hot topic than they were already likely to be.
The Volcker Plan effectively invokes the spirit of the Glass-Steagall Act that previously existed to separate commercial and investment banking. Although not aimed at reintroducing that Act, the aim is to avoid a situation where taxpayers take the downside risk, whilst financial firms get the upside.
The present debate on banks appears to be following two strands. One is led by the “technocrats,” or regulators, with much input from the bankers themselves. The second is driven by politicians in response to the public mood.
There was some attempt at Davos to reconcile differences. One common theme in both debates is the desire to address systemic risk and thus improve the workings of the financial system. Although there are many areas of overlap, the focus of both debates continues to be different, and this was evident to some extent in Davos.
The public debate has been heavily driven in recent months by a focus on compensation and the structure of banks, particularly the issue of size and “too big to fail.” Both issues are important, there is no doubt about that.
Yet the technocratic debate focuses on factors that are probably of more importance in the long run: capital and liquidity. Banks need to be well capitalized and liquid. Those that did well in the crisis were.
There is a need for risk-adjusted capital ratios that apply over the course of an economic cycle, aimed at ensuring conservatism on behalf of banks as well as a buffer to cope with shocks. Trouble is, a lot is being asked of capital. More and better quality capital may thus be seen as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to improve the future foundations of banking.
Liquidity, too, is seen as a key issue, and rightly so. But even here there are still issues, including what can be defined as liquid assets and how to reconcile the management of liquidity centrally and locally within institutions.
The announcement of the Volcker Plan also seemed to go against the desire for a common G20 approach. While there is no doubt that countries need to be able to refine proposals to suit local circumstances — economic and political — some common international ground rules are needed, and indeed are being sought.
This is vital in the area of cross-border resolution frameworks, regulation and — an area stressed many times in Davos — international accounting standards. The financial crisis highlighted a systemic failure in the system. This needs fixing. Yet it is often overlooked that much within the financial system did not break, even in the City of London where damage was high.
Furthermore, there are probably many lessons from countries whose financial sectors appeared more intact, with Australia, Canada and even Israel and Turkey cited in this respect at Davos. One common theme — apart from conservatism — was effective supervision. Also, other economies, including China, India and Hong Kong, benefited from effective policy measures such as reserve requirements or, in the case of Hong Kong, loan-to-value ratios on mortgage lending.
This is an important lesson. If the aim is both economic and financial stability — which it should be — then two policy objectives require two types of policy tools.
Monetary and fiscal policy should be directed to the economic stability of ensuring growth and avoiding deflation in the West or inflation in the East. In turn, macro-prudential measures should be aimed at preventing asset bubbles.
For emerging economies, managing capital inflows or asset bubbles in this recovery will be a big challenge. While the challenges facing emerging economies did not figure as a big concern at Davos, for some, myself included, many emerging markets do face a big challenge this coming year, particularly in terms of how they handle such capital inflows.
At Davos, it was clear that progress was being made in terms of the financial sector. The biggest problem, though, is that debate is often bogged down by complex issues and the desire for global agreement. So a sense of urgency appears missing. This has given politicians the green light to push ahead with populist measures.
Gerard Lyons is chief economist at Standard Chartered Bank.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS