Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Velocity of Australian Credit

Joined
26 October 2008
Posts
2,931
Reactions
7
We all know this chart:

T230214.png

But recently I was doing some research on the inflation/deflation debate. Many of you are probably familiar with Mish (Mike Shedlock for those playing at home) and his view that the US is firmly entrenched in deflation.

One of the cornerstones of his argument is that the inflationist argument only pays attention to aggregate credit. But "money" when thought of as a "financial commodity" has another component. If you imagine Australia or America to be a corporation and dollars our listed stock, the above chart is essentially "shares outstanding" not the inverse of share price.

So what does Mish propose as a better metric, superior to the above chart? He watched the "velocity of credit", a fancy way of saying % change relative to last reporting period (did lending go up or down and by how much). In the US this is actually published by one of the Fed branches on a semi frequent basis. Here is an example from the US:
Total+Bank+Credit.png

After seeing that chart, I was very curious to see what velocity for Australia was. I ran it on a monthly basis with no smoothing to get a higher resolution and the picture comes across loud and clear:

During recessions, the velocity of credit decreases rapidly. Things tend to get very bad if the velocity turns negative. We can also note that during normal economic periods the movement of credit appears to oscillate in a healthy cyclical fashion. The differing magnitude of the two clearly visible cycles in the chart are probably attributable to a greater standing by Australia in financial markets globally (thus, tighter cycle).

The chart presented goes until the last reported period Dec 2010 and you can see a couple of dips there that seem to line up quite nicely with hindsight our own countries recessions. I wish the data presented by RBA went back further. Curious minds can find it all on their website.
T230213.png

I decided to post the chart here for the benefit of anyone similarly curious on such matters. I am also playing around with an idea of multiplying the first chart by AUDUSD (EDIT: or perhaps AUDGOLD), to see what it spits out so expressions of interest in the idea appreciated.
 
We all know this chart:

View attachment 41575

But recently I was doing some research on the inflation/deflation debate. Many of you are probably familiar with Mish (Mike Shedlock for those playing at home) and his view that the US is firmly entrenched in deflation.

One of the cornerstones of his argument is that the inflationist argument only pays attention to aggregate credit. But "money" when thought of as a "financial commodity" has another component. If you imagine Australia or America to be a corporation and dollars our listed stock, the above chart is essentially "shares outstanding" not the inverse of share price.

So what does Mish propose as a better metric, superior to the above chart? He watched the "velocity of credit", a fancy way of saying % change relative to last reporting period (did lending go up or down and by how much). In the US this is actually published by one of the Fed branches on a semi frequent basis. Here is an example from the US:
Total+Bank+Credit.png

After seeing that chart, I was very curious to see what velocity for Australia was. I ran it on a monthly basis with no smoothing to get a higher resolution and the picture comes across loud and clear:

During recessions, the velocity of credit decreases rapidly. Things tend to get very bad if the velocity turns negative. We can also note that during normal economic periods the movement of credit appears to oscillate in a healthy cyclical fashion. The differing magnitude of the two clearly visible cycles in the chart are probably attributable to a greater standing by Australia in financial markets globally (thus, tighter cycle).

The chart presented goes until the last reported period Dec 2010 and you can see a couple of dips there that seem to line up quite nicely with hindsight our own countries recessions. I wish the data presented by RBA went back further. Curious minds can find it all on their website.
View attachment 41576

I decided to post the chart here for the benefit of anyone similarly curious on such matters. I am also playing around with an idea of multiplying the first chart by AUDUSD (EDIT: or perhaps AUDGOLD), to see what it spits out so expressions of interest in the idea appreciated.

Great concept. The economist, Steve Keen tracks GDP + change in debt (velocity) as a better income measurement of the country. Income (GDP) plus what you can borrow is your real income. If you borrow less then, in effect, your income has gone down. Which is what your graph highlights.

Another interesting chart is if you add in Government borrowing into the change in private credit (RBA D4). Government credit spending is holding up spending and flattens out the effect of a contraction in private borrowing.
 

Attachments

  • credit.gif
    credit.gif
    16.8 KB · Views: 0
Great concept. The economist, Steve Keen tracks GDP + change in debt (velocity) as a better income measurement of the country. Income (GDP) plus what you can borrow is your real income. If you borrow less then, in effect, your income has gone down. Which is what your graph highlights.

Another interesting chart is if you add in Government borrowing into the change in private credit (RBA D4). Government credit spending is holding up spending and flattens out the effect of a contraction in private borrowing.

Awesome!

My only question though, is our GDP a reliable number? Don't they include all sorts of silly things in it?
 
Awesome!

My only question though, is our GDP a reliable number? Don't they include all sorts of silly things in it?

I am reasonably comfortable that GDP (National Income) is a fairly accurate number. The different sources tend to agree. Australian Bureau of Statistics (series 5606030), RBA G10, RBA G11 expenditure components, RBA G12 income components all agree reasonably what national income is. Also, Federal taxation is roughly (and consistently) around 24% of GDP. So, agreeing with Steve Keen, national income is GDP plus the change in debt. He calls this the credit impulse and correlates in the US and Australia with booms and recessions.
Your graph points out that without a surge in credit, at best our market is going sideways.
 
I am reasonably comfortable that GDP (National Income) is a fairly accurate number. The different sources tend to agree. Australian Bureau of Statistics (series 5606030), RBA G10, RBA G11 expenditure components, RBA G12 income components all agree reasonably what national income is. Also, Federal taxation is roughly (and consistently) around 24% of GDP. So, agreeing with Steve Keen, national income is GDP plus the change in debt. He calls this the credit impulse and correlates in the US and Australia with booms and recessions.
Your graph points out that without a surge in credit, at best our market is going sideways.

Yep aware of credit impulse however didn't make the mental connection between the two concepts until you brought it up.

Not questioning the accuracy of the number. I am sure it perfectly tracks whatever originating data they feed into it. Questioning its reliability. Is it actually representative?

You say GDP is income, I would narrow that definition and say GDP should be national income as a result of productive activity.

Are all the numbers that get plugged in to spit out our GDP actually the result of productive activity?
 
Great concept. The economist, Steve Keen tracks GDP + change in debt (velocity) as a better income measurement of the country. Income (GDP) plus what you can borrow is your real income. If you borrow less then, in effect, your income has gone down.
Unemployment rates have been trending down since 1994 according to a chart from the RBA and wage rates in Australia have generally been kept in line with the cost of living using the CPI. So I don't think borrowing strength in respect to Australia is not there. If there are more people employed and their wages are adjusted annually (which in my career has been the case anyway) then if people are borrowing less it is due to some other factor. Maybe tightening of credit criteria by financial institutions. Maybe people have less of an appetite for debt nowadays.
 
Yep aware of credit impulse however didn't make the mental connection between the two concepts until you brought it up.

Not questioning the accuracy of the number. I am sure it perfectly tracks whatever originating data they feed into it. Questioning its reliability. Is it actually representative?

You say GDP is income, I would narrow that definition and say GDP should be national income as a result of productive activity.

Are all the numbers that get plugged in to spit out our GDP actually the result of productive activity?

If you look at RBA G11 - that is GDP as measured by Income Components, includes compensation of employees, Corporate Surplus and General Government. There is about $100B of social security in Household income of $1,300 B in GDP, so it is not all productive, but the rest seems to be coming from all the tax returns lodged, so that looks productive.
 
Unemployment rates have been trending down since 1994 according to a chart from the RBA and wage rates in Australia have generally been kept in line with the cost of living using the CPI. So I don't think borrowing strength in respect to Australia is not there. If there are more people employed and their wages are adjusted annually (which in my career has been the case anyway) then if people are borrowing less it is due to some other factor. Maybe tightening of credit criteria by financial institutions. Maybe people have less of an appetite for debt nowadays.

Easier credit that was available up until 2007 pushed debt growth into bubble territory stretching debt to income ratios that Economists like Steve Keen talk about (I think he has predicted 5 of the last 2 recessions (only joking)). Easy credit was withdrawn and the market had to focus on debt serviceability, rather than the capital gains to service their debts.

It is people's appetite for borrowing, not banks wanting to lend that drives debt growth. I think the point you make is right, over time wages are rising and our working population is growing at 3% a year, so after a period of consolidation people will need to increase their borrowing again.
 
I decided to post the chart here for the benefit of anyone similarly curious on such matters. I am also playing around with an idea of multiplying the first chart by AUDUSD (EDIT: or perhaps AUDGOLD), to see what it spits out so expressions of interest in the idea appreciated.
Interesting chart, interested to see audgold. Did you see any evidence that this chart had any leading indications? I.e. the velocity started to decrease prior to the crashes?
 
Interesting chart, interested to see audgold. Did you see any evidence that this chart had any leading indications? I.e. the velocity started to decrease prior to the crashes?

Yes, in hindsight, you can see the velocity of money slows down prior to the recession although generally it just appears as a slowdown at the base of the normal credit cycle.

If you take a look at "Net Foreign Liabibilities" or whatever, you can also see foreign money leaving the country in before the crisis.
 
Unemployment rates have been trending down since 1994 according to a chart from the RBA and wage rates in Australia have generally been kept in line with the cost of living using the CPI. So I don't think borrowing strength in respect to Australia is not there. If there are more people employed and their wages are adjusted annually (which in my career has been the case anyway) then if people are borrowing less it is due to some other factor. Maybe tightening of credit criteria by financial institutions. Maybe people have less of an appetite for debt nowadays.

If we look at demographics there might be some reasons for current this loss of appetite for debt. The baby boomers are preparing for retirement. They took a massive hit on their super fund balances during the GFC that scared the hell out of them. Now as they prepare for retirement they are getting their finances more in order, paying off debt and offloading highly geared investment properties. Eventually, these same baby boomers are going to be reverse mortgaging their homes and their demand for credit will go up.

Also, its been a while since I've had to endure talk of investment property at a dinner party so that is one nice side-benefit of the reduced demand for credit.
 
If you look at RBA G11 - that is GDP as measured by Income Components, includes compensation of employees, Corporate Surplus and General Government. There is about $100B of social security in Household income of $1,300 B in GDP, so it is not all productive, but the rest seems to be coming from all the tax returns lodged, so that looks productive.

Yep thanks for your response as we are now getting a bit off topic but this is exactly what makes no sense to me...

Property investor decides to rent out a house. Over 5 years, the value of the house goes up so he or she increases the rent. The ABS or RBA lodge this rental price increase in some database somewhere, and include it in the GDP. But did that person actually do anything productive? If you ask me, no. Yet the number (and many similarly stupid numbers) prints in the GDP.

To me this is the crux of the issue.
 
Top