ORIGINAL SIN AND DARK MATTER (STILL) MATTER: ASSET COMPOSITION AND SOLVENCY Ricardo Hausmann Harvard University & Santa Fe Institute
Why do we care about deficits? Because deficits determine the evolution of net financial assets Surplus = ΔNet Financial Assets = ΔNFA Financial income is a function of financial assets and liabilities Fin.Income= i * NFA The higher the debt, the higher the primary surplus needed to be solvent Steady State Primary Surplus = (i - g) d Where g is the nominal growth rate and d is the debt to GDP ratio This is true both for fiscal dynamics as well as balance of payments dynamics
For example, let us look at Japan
Japan accumulated US$ 3 T in CAS and increased its Fin. Income in US$ B 140 0 1000 2000 3000 Cumulative Current Account, Billions 0 50 100 150 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
Japan accumulated ~50% of GDP in CAS and 2.5% in net financial income 0.2.4.6 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP 0.01.02.03 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
Japan: implied interest rate is reasonable Implied interest rate.04.05.06.07 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
But many countries do not look like Japan Let us look at the US
The US accumulated US$ 8 T in CAD, but its fin. income went up by US$ 130B -8000-6000 -4000-2000 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions 0 50 100 150 200 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
The cumulative CAD is 50% of GDP Financial income increased 1% of GDP -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP 0.005.01.015 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
The US pays a negative interest rate on its net financial position Implied interest rate -.02 -.01 0.01.02 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
One accounting approach Consider that all assets pay a benchmark rate Say 5% If you can invest and obtain a higher return, it is as if you own an asset that pays also pays 5% and that represents the difference If you pay more than 5%, it is as if you borrowed a larger debt that also pays 5% but that represents the same interest payment We call this asset dark matter Hausmann and Sturzenegger (2006) (2007)
US dark matter is 80 percent of GDP 0.2.4.6.8 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
Japan s dark matter is insignificant -.1 -.05 0.05.1 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
How can the US do this? Say the US borrowed US$ 8 trillion net but in fact it borrowed US$ 20 trillion gross Say it pays 3% on its gross debt US$ 600 billion It uses the extra US$ 12 trillion to invest abroad Say the return is 7% US$ 840 billion Net financial income would go up by US$ 240 billion
Why don t we all do this? We can all ask Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan to manage our money But US investments abroad are mostly FDI They include productive knowledge The apparent financial return incorporates payment for the use of productive knowledge When China buys US treasuries, it does not add any knowledge to the investment Differential returns are an equilibrium phenomenon If some countries get excess returns, others pay excess returns (they must add to zero worldwide)
-20-10 0 10 20 Investment Income Net, Billions USD China s CAD at US$ 2T Interest income at US$20B 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Cumulative Current Account, Billions
China s CAD at 30% of GDP Interest income at 0% of GDP -.015 -.01 -.005 0.005 Investment Income Net, % of GDP -.1 0.1.2.3 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
China s implied interest rate is negligible -1 -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0 Implied interest rate 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
China imports dark matter to the tune of 30% of GDP -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0.1 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
Interpretation China is running current account surpluses But it has large FDI inflows With their embedded knowledge and it is buying a lot of international securities With their normal returns
Chile
Chile accumulated a CAD of US$15B, but pays a similar amount dividends -40-30 -20-10 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions -20-15 -10-5 0 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
Chile s CAD is small but it pays 8% in debt service (160% of GDP at 5%) -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP -.12 -.1 -.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
Chile s implied interest rate is almost 80% of the cumulative CAD Implied interest rate 0.2.4.6.8 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
Chile s dark matter amounts to 150% of GDP -2.5-2 -1.5-1 -.5 0 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
Interpretation Chile has received significant FDI in mining and elsewhere Good times have dramatically increased the returns on those investments But the assets that Chile has invested abroad pay much less The difference is equivalent to a very large external debt
Colombia
Colombia s cum. CAD at US$60B Interest payments at US$12B -80-60 -40-20 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions -15-10 -5 0 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
Colombia s CAD is at 20% of GDP Interest payments at 3.5% of GDP (not 1 percent at 5%) -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP -.06 -.05 -.04 -.03 -.02 -.01 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
Colombia s implied interest rates at ~20 percent Implied interest rate 0.05.1.15.2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
Peru
Peru accumulated CAD of US$40B Interest payments at US$10B -40-30 -20-10 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions -10-8 -6-4 -2 0 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
Peru s CAD at ~30 percent of GDP Interest payments at 6% -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP -.12 -.1 -.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
Peru s implied interest rate at 20% 0.05.1.15.2 Implied interest rate 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
Peru s dark matter is at ~100% of GDP -1.5-1 -.5 0.5 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
Mexico
Mexico s CAD at US$ 270B Interest payments at US$ 18B -300-200 -100 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions -20-15 -10-5 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
Mexico s CAD at 25% of GDP Interest payments at less than 2% -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP -.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
Mexico s implied interest rate is reasonable Implied interest rate -.1 -.05 0.05 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
Mexico does not have much dark matter debt -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0.2 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
Brazil
Brazil s CAD at ~US$ 280B Interest payments at ~US$40B -300-200 -100 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions -40-30 -20-10 Investment Income Net, Billions USD 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD
Brazil s CAD is at ~10% of GDP Interest payments at 2% of GDP -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP -.06 -.05 -.04 -.03 -.02 -.01 Investment Income Net, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP
Brazil s implied interest at ~15% -.05 0.05.1.15.2 Implied interest rate 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year
Brazil s dark matter at ~20% of GDP -.6 -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP 1980 1990 2000 2010 year
IMPLIED INTEREST RATES - 2010
Implied interest rate 2010 (Investment income > 0) Implied interest rate -.2 0.2.4.6 CHN JOR MUS LBN KOR FRA DNK CHE JPN DEU FIN SWE HKG NLD NOR BEL USA GBR 3.5 4 4.5 5 GDP per capita, logs
Implied interest rate (Investment income < 0) Implied interest rate -.2 0.2.4.6.8 SLV CHL CZE PER COL URY ARGBRA TUN PAN BLR POL HUN HRV ESTSVK MKD ALB ZAF JAM BGR BIH CRI LTU ROMMEXTUR LVA SRB VEN RUS AZE NAM IRL ISR SVN EMU PRT GRC ESPITA AUT 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 GDP per capita, logs
RATINGS AND INVESTMENT INCOME
Ratings: Investment Income matters, cumulative CA does not Debt Rating VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) real GDP per capita, log 11.93*** 13.62*** 12.11*** 13.63*** (2.236) (2.618) (2.255) (2.614) Total debt to GDP -3.23*** -3.08*** -3.15*** -3.07*** (0.756) (0.733) (0.709) (0.717) Net Investment Income to GDP 10.75*** 10.64*** (2.936) (3.059) Cumulative CA to GDP 0.43 0.07 (0.439) (0.451) Constant -26.46*** -32.50*** -27.09*** -32.52*** (7.755) (9.210) (7.826) (9.199) Observations 1,451 1,404 1,451 1,404 Adjusted R-squared 0.343 0.367 0.345 0.367 Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Conclusions Assets and liabilities have radically different returns This means that the evolution of the current account is a poor guide to solvency The net financial income is a more relevant indicator of solvency And markets seem to notice A similar analysis could be done for public debt
ORIGINAL SIN
Definition Eichengreen and Hausmann (1999) defined original sin as "a situation in which the domestic currency is not used to borrow abroad" Countries that suffer from original sin need to borrow funds dominated in terms of a major foreign currency If the borrowing country's domestic currency depreciates, the loan will become more difficult to repay
Measurement Eichengreen, Hausmann, and Panizza (2001) used BIS data on the currency composition of international securities to build two indexes of original sin OSIN1 = 1 OSIN3 = Securities issued by country i in currency Securities issued by country i max(1 Securities issued in currency i Securities issued by country i,0) i Most research has focused on OSIN3
Causes The case of the missing apple Original sin (at least its international component) does not appear to be correlated with any of the obvious suspects No correlation with inflation, fiscal deficit, quality of policies, and institutional quality Policies and predictability do matter for the domestic component of original sin Only country size seems to matter Eichengreen, Hausmann, and Panizza (2005b) The Mystery of Original Sin
Consequences The pain of original sin Original sin leads to fear of floating, high GDP volatility, low credit ratings, sudden stops, and limited ability to conduct an independent monetary policy Eichengreen, Hausmann, and Panizza (2005a) The Pain of Original Sin Hausmann, Panizza, and Stein (2001) Why Do Countries Float the Way They Float?
Not Everybody Agrees Original sin is the outcome of bad policies Goldstein and Turner (2004) Burger and Warnock (2006) Reinhart, Rogoff, and Savastano (2003) Maybe original sin was a problem in the past but it s no longer a problem now The principal emerging markets sales desk pitch of recent years has been the expiation of the "original sin" of governments' borrowing in foreign currencies. (John Dizard, Financial Times, October 21 2008).
But original sin has not gone down much 1.00 1,100,000 1,000,000 0.80 900,000 800,000 0.60 0.40 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 Million USD 0.20 300,000 200,000 100,000 0.00 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 International bonds issued by developing countries (right scale) International bonds issued in the currency of developing countries (right scale) International bonds issued by developing countries in their own currency (right scale) OSIN1 (left scale) OSIN3 (left scale) Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
But original sin has not gone down much 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009) OSIN3 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ALL DEVELOPING LAC EME ASIA
But original sin has not gone down 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009) Nr. of countries 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 OSIN3<0.75 OSIN1<0.85
And yet, things seem to have improved Monetary policy in EM during the Asian/Russian crises (1996-98) e( RAT3 X ) -10-5 0 5 10 THA MYS IDN COL VEN HUN HKG BRATHA SGP DOM PHL PERCZE MEX ZAF CZE URYCHL PAK POL ARG PER UKR ARG ZAF PAK CHL ARG SGP POL HUN PAK COL URY CHL ZAF DOM SGP HKG PHLMEX HKG PER HUN BRA CZE VEN COL -10-5 0 5 10 e( DGDP X ) Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009) coef = -.35318082, (robust) se =.10534057, t = -3.35 IDN MYS THA
And yet, things seem to have improved Monetary policy in EM around the subprime crisis (2008-09) e( RAT3 X ) -4-2 0 2 4 PAK RUS ZAF COL DOM POL CHN URY MEX THA SGP IND BRA HUN BGR CZE IDN HKG ARG MYS PHL UKR VEN IDN CZE VEN UKR PHL MYS ARG HKG BGR HUN BRA IND URY CHN SGP THA MEX POL DOM COL ZAF TUR PER CHL CHL PER TUR RUS PAK -5 0 5 e( DGDP X ) coef =.15196862, (robust) se =.1111714, t = 1.37 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
What has gone down is net external borrowing by developing countries Consider the following measure of aggregate mismatches: foreign currency debt international reserves MISM = GDP GDP foreign currency debt (1 OSIN) GDP So, a country can reduce its aggregate mismatch by Borrowing less (in gross terms) Accumulating reserves Reducing original sin +
Developing countries no longer have a net external debt 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% -10.00% -20.00% -30.00% -40.00% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 EXD/GDP INT RES/GDP OS3C MIS3 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
Lower mismatches and not lower original sin are the explanation for better polices Dependent variable: Policy interest rate (1) (2) (3) L.IR 0.528*** 0.659*** 0.533*** (0.0521) (0.0866) (0.0541) INF 0.398*** 0.280** 0.406*** (0.0688) (0.109) (0.0657) GROWTH -0.281*** 0.157** -0.0457 (0.0769) (0.0706) (0.11) MISM3 2.679 (1.956) MIS3*GR -0.722 (0.466) Constant 2.832*** 0.303 1.639** (0.834) (0.588) (0.78) Observations 270 52 270 R-squared 0.642 0.307 0.649 N. of countries 23 26 23 Period 1993-08 2008-09 1993-08 GROWTH+ 0.28*MIS3*GR -0.248*** p-value 0.00 GROWTH+ 0.09*MIS3*GR -0.111 p-value 0.147 Fixed effects regressions Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
Conclusions There is limited traction for the redemption story, but countries seem to be doing what we suggested they could do: If a country suffers from original sin.., when it accumulates a net debt, as developing countries are expected to do, it will have an aggregate currency mismatch on its balance sheet. such a country can take steps to eliminate that mismatch or prevent it from arising in the first place it can decide not to borrow. A financially autarchic country will have no currency mismatch because it has no external debt, even though it still suffers from original sin Alternatively, the government can accumulate foreign reserves to match its foreign obligations. In this case the country eliminates its currency mismatch by eliminating its net debt. Eichengreen, Hausmann, Panizza (2005a)
RATINGS, INVESTMENT INCOME AND ORIGINAL SIN
Ratings, Investment Income and OSIN Debt Rating VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) real GDP per capita, log 11.99*** 12.12*** 14.25*** 14.25*** (1.621) (1.616) (2.086) (2.097) Total debt to GDP -5.14*** -5.11*** -4.70*** -4.70*** (0.924) (0.957) (0.939) (0.979) Original Sin (3) -2.18*** -2.19*** -2.29*** -2.29*** (0.572) (0.575) (0.580) (0.576) Central Bank Reserves to GDP -0.36-0.53-0.53 (1.645) (1.773) (1.772) Net Investment Income to GDP 10.53*** 10.57*** (3.401) (3.207) Cumulative CA to GDP -0.02 (0.512) Constant -25.52*** -25.96*** -33.65*** -33.63*** (5.688) (5.609) (7.404) (7.461) Observations 897 897 874 874 Adjusted R-squared 0.514 0.514 0.526 0.525 Year Fe Yes Yes Yes Yes Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Conclusions Countries are borrowing less They are holding large FOREX reserves which lower their net financial income These may be optimal policies in the presence of original sin But they are second best policies The country will not benefit from financial globalization Reserves are expensive While reserves give more policy space, they don t improve perceptions of solvency
Thank you! Ricardo_hausmann@harvard.edu
Colombia 1980 1990 2000 2010 year -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0.2 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP
-20 0 20 40 60 80 Investment Income Net, Billions USD Germany 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD 0 500 1000 1500 Cumulative Current Account, Billions
-.01 0.01.02 Investment Income Net, % of GDP Germany 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP 0.1.2.3.4 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP
Germany 1980 1990 2000 2010 year -.2 -.1 0.1.2 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP
Germany 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year -.2 -.1 0.1.2 Implied interest rate
-10 0 10 20 30 40 Investment Income Net, Billions USD France 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD -50 0 50 100 150 200 Cumulative Current Account, Billions
-.005 0.005.01.015 Investment Income Net, % of GDP France 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP -.05 0.05.1.15 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP
France 1980 1990 2000 2010 year -.1 0.1.2.3 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP
France 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year -.2 0.2.4.6 Implied interest rate
Cumulative current account and investment income LATIN AMERICA
-10-8 -6-4 -2 Investment Income Net, Billions USD Argentina 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, Billions Investment Income Net, Billions USD -100-80 -60-40 -20 0 Cumulative Current Account, Billions
-.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 Investment Income Net, % of GDP Argentina 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP Investment Income Net, % of GDP -1 -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0 Cumulative Current Account, % of GDP
Argentina 1980 1990 2000 2010 year -1.5-1 -.5 0 Cumulative Dark Matter, % of GDP
Argentina 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year -.05 0.05.1.15 Implied interest rate
DARK MATTER
Cumulative dark matter 2010 LBN Accumulated Dark Matter, % of GDP -3-2 -1 0 1 MUS BIH GBR USA JOR JAM ALB SRB LVA CHE BGR ROM CRI PRT GRCESP FRA DNK SLVTKM TUR BLR MEX LTU ITAEMU MKD SGP ZAF JPN DEU BEL CHN ECU DZA BRA KOR SVN AUT FIN SWE DOM ARG HUN HRV ISR URYPOL SVK TUN COL EST NLD VEN THA PAN HKG PER MYS RUS CZE NOR NAM BWA CHL AGO GAB AZE KAZ TTO IRL 3.5 4 4.5 5 GDP per capita, logs Investment Income> 0 Investment Income< 0
What has gone down is net external borrowing by developing countries 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% -20.00% -40.00% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 EXD/GDP INT RES/GDP OS3C MIS3 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
But, maybe redemption was achieved by borrowing domestically 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 Domestic bonds International bonds Million USD 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Countries included in the sample: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Taiwan (China), China, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela. Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
Possible, but unlikely Developing countries bonds held by US investors 1,800,000 40% 1,600,000 35% 1,400,000 30% 1,200,000 25% 1,000,000 20% 800,000 600,000 15% 400,000 10% 200,000 5% 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0% USD EUR YEN GBP OTHER Share Oth. Currencies (right axes) Share not in USD (right axis)
Possible, but unlikely Original sin indexes based on US Treasury data Mean Median St Dev Min Max N.Obs US SIN1 =1-(OTH+OWN)/TOT 2003 0.94 1 0.16 0 1 69 2004 0.90 1 0.23 0 1 70 2005 0.89 1 0.22 0 1 70 2006 0.83 0.97 0.24 0 1 70 2007 0.81 0.95 0.24 0 1 72 US SIN2 =1-OWN/TOT 2006 0.90 1 0.22 0 1 70 2007 0.90 1 0.21 0.10 1 72 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
Possible, but unlikely US-SIN2: countries with value of the index lower than 0.9 (2007 survey) KOR URY EGY ZAF BRA TWN MYS COL IDN ZMB HUN POL CZE 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Source: Hausmann and Panizza (2009)
Measurement Caveats: These indexes only include international securities They don t include syndicated bank loans and official (multilateral and bilateral) loans They don t capture the activity of foreign investors in the domestic bond market They don t measure the domestic component of original sin