Special Report
Highlights China and Brazil are two extremes in regard to investment and savings - the former saves and invests a lot, the latter very little. The key difference between Brazil and China is neither the existing amount of deposits nor their propensity to save. Rather, it is their real economies' capacity to produce goods and services. Regardless of how capital expenditures are financed, when inputs for capital spending are procured domestically it is recorded as national "savings," but when they are imported there is no change in the level of national "savings." In China, policymakers are currently being forced to walk a very thin line between inflation and deflation. Brazilian consumers do not need to save more for companies to get financing for their investments. Instead, businesses - along with facilitation from the government - should build the supply side. Banks can finance the latter by originating loans "out of thin air." However, the natural consequence of this adjustment in Brazil will be considerable currency deprecation. Feature The Fallacy This is the fifth report in our series on money, credit, savings and investment. Its objective is to show that financing of investments is not constrained by national and foreign savings. This report argues against a postulate in mainstream economic literature which holds that in order to invest, nations with low savings rates need to either reduce consumption and boost national savings or to borrow foreign savings. Some examples of this economic thesis can be seen here: As Lindner neatly summarizes: "Many economists hold the position that "saving finances investment." They argue that saving - a reduction of consumption relative to income - is necessary for the provision of loans and the financing of investment." (Lindner 2015).1 Linder also provides other examples suggesting that this thesis is well entrenched in the economic theory and analysis. For example, he cites Gregory Mankiw's influential introductory macroeconomics textbook that upholds: "Saving is the supply of loans - individuals lend their saving to investors, or they deposit their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. [. . . ] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment, and the supply of loans equals the demand." (1997, p. 63) (Lindner 2015).2 This mainstream economic thesis - that financing is constrained by savings - is intuitive, and not surprisingly many investors take it for granted. Yet this is a false proposition. This thesis is correct for barter economies but is not pertinent to modern economies with their own banking systems and national currencies. Further, Lindner (2015)3 argues: "The fallacies loanable funds theory commits might be explainable by the mis-application of some ideas and concepts of neoclassical growth models - especially the Ramsey (1928), Solow (1956) and Diamond (1965) models - to the sphere of money and finance... The Ramsey and Solow models are models of real investment only. Financial markets, financial assets and financial saving do not play any role in those models. There is only one good which, for simplicity, will be called "corn". Corn has three functions: it can be consumed, invested and used as a means of payment since wages and interest payments are made with it..." Clearly, modern economies with their fiat money systems are much more complicated than a barter economies with no banks and money. The Veracity: Financing Is Different From "Savings" This and previous reports4 clarify and elaborate on the following aspects of banking, money creation and financing as well as savings and investments: 1. Attributing the lack of investment in many emerging market (EM) economies to their low savings is a major fallacy. Borio (2015)5 argues: "Crucially, the provision of financing does not require someone to abstain from consuming. It is purely a financial transaction and hence distinct from saving... The equality of saving and investment is an accounting identity that always holds ex post and reveals nothing about financing patterns. In ex post terms, being simply the outcome of expenditures, saving does not represent a constraint on how much agents are able to spend ex ante. If we step back from comparative statics and consider the underlying dynamics, it is only once expenditures take place that income and investment, and hence saving, are generated." 2. Banks do not need deposits or "savings" to lend. They create money/deposits when they originate loans or buy assets from non-banks. To settle payments with their peers as well as the central bank, they require reserves at the central bank. Reserves at the central bank - not client deposits - constitute true liquidity for banks. For a more detailed discussion on loan origination and money creation in absence of new deposits entering into the banking system, please refer to Appendix 1 and 2 on pages 14 and 18. Certainly, there are several factors such as regulations and shareholder preferences that can curtail banks' ability to expand their balance sheets. However, households' or nations' "savings" do not constrain banks' ability to originate new loans/create deposits. 3. In an economy where banks exist, "savings" and financing are very different things. Many investors use the term "savings" to refer to bank deposits. Yet, in macroeconomics, national and household "savings" are not related to deposits or money in the banking system at all. Chart I-1 demonstrates that there is no relationship between the savings and changes in the amount of money in the banking system. Chart I-1Savings And New Money ##br##Creation Do Not Correlate The confusion between national "savings" and financing creation is dealt with nicely again by Fabian Lindner. Having modelled it, Lindner argues: "... the aggregate economy's saving is equal to the newly produced tangible assets and inventories. That total saving is equal to just the increase in tangible assets ... (because) all changes in net financial assets in the economy add up to zero... Thus, for every economic agent increasing her net financial assets, there is a corresponding decrease in net financial assets of all other economic agents in the economy (Lindner 2015).6 Put in more general terms: An economic agent can only save financially if other agents dis-save financially by the same amount... That is why in the entire economy (that is the world economy or a closed economy) only the increase in tangible assets, thus investment, is saving...." In another paper, Lindner asserts: "Investment is the production of any non-financial asset in an economy and thus is always directly and unambiguously savings: it increases the economy's net worth... The economy as a whole cannot change its net financial wealth since it always equals zero. The aggregate economy can only save in the form of non-financial assets...The only way an economy can save is by increasing its non-financial wealth, i.e., its physical capital stock" (Lindner 2012).7 On the whole, deposits are a monetary concept; they represent money savings. Deposits are created by banks "out of thin air," as illustrated in Appendix 1 on page 14. Meanwhile, "savings" are a net addition to capital stock. Not surprisingly, there is no relationship between "real savings" and money savings, as illustrated in Chart I-1. In a nutshell, "savings" is an addition to the capital stock of a nation, which is the same as investment. Hence, the Savings = Investment identity for a closed economy is nothing other than a tautology as it de-facto means Investment = Investment. That is why in this report we use "savings" in quotations whenever we refer to it in the traditional sense of economic theory. 4. Households' (or businesses') propensity to save alters the velocity of money, not the amount of deposits/money in the banking system. A decision by a household to spend more rather than save does not change the amount of deposits in the banking system and does not affect the banking system's ability to provide more financing. When households or companies decide to spend their deposits, the velocity of money rises. Conversely, when households and companies decide to save (retain) their deposits, the velocity of money drops. The amount of deposits in the banking system stays constant. In turn, the amount of deposits and hence broad money supply in any banking system equals the cumulative net money creation by banks and the central bank over the course of their history. This has nothing to do with household and national "savings," which form the country's capital stock. 5. In a country with its own national currency, the true macro constraint on commercial banks' ability to expand financing infinitely are inflation and currency depreciation - not "savings." This is of course apart from demand for loans, regulations and shareholder preferences that can limit commercial banks' capacity to expand their balance sheets. Bottom Line: In an economy with banks, one does not need to save in the form of a deposit in a bank for the latter to lend money to another entity. Tales Of Brazil And China Chart I-2Two Extremes Of Investment ##br##And Savings: China And Brazil We use China and Brazil solely for illustrative purposes. One can use any country with a low savings rate instead of Brazil or a high savings rate economy such as Korea, Taiwan or Singapore in place of China. China has enjoyed a very high national savings rate and has been investing substantially (Chart I-2). In contrast, both the national savings rate and the investment-to-GDP ratio in Brazil have been depressed. It is very tempting to argue that Brazil has been experiencing very low investment because it saves so little. The narrative goes like this: Brazil's national savings rate is low because households save so little and the public sector dis-saves a lot - i.e., the government runs enormous fiscal deficits. This constrains the pool of available "savings" to finance private capital expenditures. This typical analysis concludes that Brazil needs to boost its "savings" - i.e., reduce its spending. This will allegedly enlarge the pool of available "savings" for investment and allow the country to invest, and consequently boost productivity and its potential growth rate. This narrative is misplaced in our view, because as we have shown in the past and in this report, banks do not need households, businesses or the government to save in order to provide financing. Banks can provide financing by simply expanding the money multiplier, among other things (see a more detailed discussion about the money multiplier below). So what is the true difference between Brazil and China? How has the latter achieved such high savings and investment rates, while the former has failed to finance its capital spending? Why have Brazilian banks not expanded their balance sheets more rapidly to finance investment (Chart I-3)? Chart I-3Snapshot Of Bank Assets-To-GDP Ratios Let's consider a hypothetical example. For simplicity and illustrative purposes, we assume there are two economies of equal size and have the same level of investment: savings and net exports. In short, they have identical starting points. We refer to these economies as Brazil and China. Now, commercial banks in both countries provide new financing of $50 - or equal to 5% of their respective GDP - to businesses for infrastructure building. This is new purchasing power created by commercial banks "out of thin air" in both economies. We assume that the only difference between these two countries is that in China, 100% of inputs for infrastructure (materials, machinery/equipment and so on) are produced/purchased domestically. In contrast, in Brazil, 100% of the inputs for infrastructure construction are imported, because this economy lacks production capacity. Table I-1 illustrates this hypothetical numerical example. As this infrastructure project is implemented, Brazil's imports will surge, and its net exports will deteriorate. Chart I-4 shows that this indeed is the case in Brazil - when capital spending expands, its current accounts deficit widens, entailing that Brazil imports a considerable portion of inputs for its investments. Table I-1A Hypothetical Example Of Investment - Saving Dynamics Chart I-4Foreign Content Of Brazil's ##br##Capital Spending Is High If there is no matching rise in foreign investor demand for Brazilian assets, the nation's currency will depreciate. Consequently, to support the plunging currency, Brazilian interest rates would have to rise. As a result, higher borrowing costs short-circuit the credit cycle. In China, because inputs for infrastructure are sourced and procured locally, there is no impact on its exchange rate or interest rates. If there is excess capacity in China to produce these inputs for infrastructure building, this new purchasing power will not lift inflation. A caveat is in order: Similar dynamics in trade balance deterioration, currency depreciation and inflation will prevail if there is a rise in consumer spending instead of capital expenditures. Importantly, the outcome will be the same in both economies if investment spending is done using existing money savings (deposits), not new credit. This example illustrates that a similar amount of capital expenditures financing via money creation "out of thin air" in both economies has increased national savings in China from $250 to $300, yet Brazilian savings stayed at $250 (Table I-1). In terms of savings rate, China will record a rise in its national savings rate from 25% to 28.6% of GDP (Table I-1). In Brazil, however, the national savings rate will remain at 25% of GDP, even though its banks, like Chinese ones, originated money "out of thin air" to finance infrastructure spending. The starting-point difference between China and Brazil is neither their banking systems' ability to expand their balance sheets nor the existing amount of deposits and assets. Rather, it is their real economies' capacity to produce goods and services. Therefore, we conclude: Regardless of how capital expenditures are financed - via new borrowing from banks or non-banks or using the investing company's own financial resources - when inputs for capital spending are procured domestically it is recorded as an increase in national "savings" level, but when they are imported there is no change in the level of national "savings." Over the decades, China, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan have all aggressively expanded their capacity to produce goods and services. They funded this capacity build-up via both money creation "out of thin air" and by attracting foreign capital. In the meantime, their large exports shielded their currencies from abrupt depreciation - as and when local bank financing was used to acquire foreign inputs. In the past decade, in China, loans - which banks have originated to build infrastructure - were largely spent on domestic inputs: cement, steel, chemicals, machinery and equipment all produced in the mainland. Even though some of that money/loans was used to purchase foreign inputs (commodities and equipment), China had large U.S. dollar revenues from exports that acted as an offset in its balance of payments. In short, Brazil and other low "savings" rate nations do not need to raise interest rates to curtail consumption and boost savings in order to release funds for financing capital expenditures. Chart I-5 demonstrates that there has been no positive relationship between real interest rates and the national savings rate in Brazil. Remarkably, real interest rates in this nation were often very high but that still did not lead to high "savings." Chart I-5Real Interest Rates And Savings Are Not Positively Correlated As They Are Supposed To Be What Brazil and other low "savings" rate economies need is to build efficient and competitive productive capacity - i.e., they need changes in the supply side of their economies. Only then can their banks expand their balance sheets and provide financing similar to how banks in high "savings" countries do. However, to shield the exchange rate from depreciation, these nations need to boost their exports first. This can be done by depreciating the currency and developing their global competitiveness. This is in effect what China has done in the past 25-30 years. Bottom Line: The key difference between Brazil and China is not their propensity to consume versus save, but their ability to produce goods and services domestically. So long as a nation builds and maintains excess productive capacity, its banks can originate loans "out of thin air" and finance capital and consumer expenditures. Money Multiplier Versus "Savings" Redundancy of the mainstream economic view that a pool of "savings" represents a constraint on financing investments becomes apparent when one applies the money multiplier concept, which is in fact accepted by mainstream economic theory. The money multiplier is the ratio of broad money relative to excess reserves. A rise in the money multiplier will lead to more money creation and financing in an economy per one unit of excess reserves (liquidity provided by the central bank), everything else held constant. In brief, money supply/the amount of deposits in the banking system will change regardless of the level of national or household "savings." Let's assume two countries with the same level of income per capita and GDP have identical national savings and investment rates as well as money supply and excess reserves. In short, they have indistinguishable macro parameters. Now suppose their banking systems in the past year had different money multipliers. The monetary authorities in both countries maintain the banking system's excess reserves at 10 units. If the money multiplier were to remain constant, say at 15, the money supply/deposits in both banking systems would remain at 150 units (10x15). Let's assume the money multiplier increased to 20 in Country A while held constant at 15 in Country B. In such a case, broad money supply would have risen to 200 units (10x20) in Country A and would stay at 150 (10x15) units in Country B. This entails that banks in Country A increased their funding yet those in Country B did not. That is despite the fact that the savings rates (and amount of savings) were identical before the change in the money multipliers occurred. This is one way to prove that a nation does not need to cut consumption for its banks to provide financing. The reason why the money multipliers could vary in these two countries with otherwise similar macro-economic parameters is due to animal spirits: In Country A, banks may have felt increasingly confident to lend more per one unit of their excess reserves, and there was demand for credit from borrowers. In the meantime, the money multiplier remained the same in Country B. In China, the money multiplier - the ratio of broad money to excess reserves - has risen dramatically since 2013 (Chart I-6). Interestingly, the amount of excess reserves at the People's Bank of China has been broadly the same over the past five years, yet broad money has grown by an enormous 75% (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panel). The exponential money/credit creation in China since 2009 has to a large extent been due to the rising money multiplier - wild animal spirits among bankers and borrowers - rather than high national "savings." Bottom Line: In any country, banks can provide more financing simply by expanding the money multiplier. This can happen regardless of the country's savings rate. Investment Relevance Why is this analysis pertinent to investors? First, this issue is critical to assess whether China's excessive credit expansion is an outcome of the nation's high savings - like many economists and investors claim - or due to the enormous amount of money/deposits and credit originated by the mainland's banks "out of thin air." If it is the former, investors have no need to worry about China's money and credit dynamics. If it is the latter, we are facing a typical banking and money/credit bubble. This report corroborates that it is the latter. Chart I-7 shows that China's broad money has grown 4-fold since January 2009 and has reached RMB 200 trillion, or the equivalent of $30 trillion. Chart I-6China: Money Multiplier Has Risen A Lot Chart I-7A Money Bubble In China? Does this enormous quantity of RMBs pose an inflation and/or currency depreciation risk? Or will the ongoing policy tightening cause another deflationary slump in China? It is clear that Chinese policymakers are currently being forced to walk a very thin line: On the one hand, the immense amount of money created "out of thin air" could stoke inflation or currency depreciation. It may not take much of a rise in the velocity of money for inflation to become a problem. On the other, tightening policy amid high leverage in an economy that is addicted to money and credit could push it into a growth slump and deflation. There is always a chance that policymakers will get it right and manage it perfectly so that neither inflation/currency depreciation nor a growth slump transpire. We would assign a 25-30% probability to this benign outcome. Hence, in our opinion there are 70-75% odds of either inflation or deflation in China in the next 12-24 months. Given these odds, we have been and remain reluctant to chase the rally in EM and China-related plays. In particular, the Chinese authorities have been tightening liquidity and banking/shadow banking regulation as well as projecting the ongoing anti-corruption campaign into the financial industry. This poses a meaningful risk given the existing macro imbalances. Second, this analysis re-shapes how investors should think about economic development and understand how nations with low savings can grow without relying on foreign funding. This provides us with a framework to assess the developmental path and the sustainability of growth in various developing economies. These include but are not limited to nations with low national savings rates such as Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Russia, Colombia and many others. Finally, this analysis leads us to argue that Brazil does not need to maintain high real interest rates as a way to force consumers to cut spending and boost savings. In fact, this is the wrong prescription for Brazil. The most optimal macro adjustment path for Brazil is to reduce interest rates much further and encourage banks to finance private investment. Brazil needs to build an efficient supply side, and banks can provide funding by originating loans "out of thin air." Brazilian consumers do not need to save more for companies to get financing for their projects and invest. The natural causality of this adjustment will be considerable currency deprecation. However, Brazil is currently suffering from low inflation and high real interest rates (Chart I-8). Hence, reflationary policies are the right policy prescription. Chart I-8Brazil Needs To Reduce ##br##Interest Rates Much Further Foreign investors are therefore at risk due to potential currency depreciation. The new leaders to be elected in the October presidential elections may well adopt such a macro policy mix. Markets will front run this by pushing the real down and this will be negative for foreign investors. However, there will be a buying opportunity after the currency finds a floor. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: Loan Origination, Deposits/Money Creation And Settlement The amount of deposits is not a constraint on a banking system's ability to make loans and buy assets from non-banks. Figure I-1 and I-2 present stylized cases of how commercial banks can originate new loans without requiring a new deposit or extra excess reserves entering the banking system. Specifically Figure I-1 illustrates how commercial banks can originate loans with the subsequent net settlements among themselves taking place via inter-bank borrowing/lending. In this stylized example, the banking system is comprised of three commercial banks. These commercial banks hold all deposits in the system. Cash does not exist and all payments are done via wire transfers. Figure I-1Money Creation By Banks With Net Settlement Among Banks Via Inter-Bank Lending/Borrowing Figure I-2Money Creation By Banks With Net Settlement Between Banks & Central Bank 1. Loan Origination/Money Creation In the morning, Bank 1 originates a new loan worth $100 for Client 1. This transaction creates a new asset and, for the balance sheet to balance, Bank 1 should also increase the liabilities side of its balance sheet. Therefore, it simultaneously credits Client 1's chequing account by $100. Bank 1 does not transfer other depositors' money to Client 1's chequing account; it creates a new $100 deposit. The rest of the bank's depositors still have their full deposits, which they can draw on. In a nutshell, both assets and liabilities of Bank 1 rose by $100 - this was done "out of thin air" by just pressing the enter button on the computer. That also means that a $100 of new money was created by Bank 1 which increases the overall money stock in the banking system. Meanwhile, Bank 2 lends $200 to Client 2 and Bank 3 lends $300 to Client 3. Let's assume these were the only lending transactions during that day. In aggregate, the three banks originated $600 of new loans, and consequent new deposits/money "out of thin air." 2. Money Transfer / Payments Debtors do not borrow money and leave it sitting idle. They borrow money to pay their suppliers and others they owe. Even though Clients 1, 2 and 3 wire their payments to their respective suppliers on the same day, the total amount of deposits in the banking system does not change: Deposits simply move from one bank to another or from one bank client to another. In Figure I-1, Client 1 wires its $100 from Bank 1 to Supplier B that has an account at Bank 2; Client 2 pays its $200 invoice to Supplier C which in turn has an account at Bank 3; and finally Client 3 transfers $300 to Supplier A, who holds an account at Bank 1. The amount of money/deposits in the overall banking system has not changed as a result of these wire transfers. 3. Multilateral Net Settlement At the end of the day, banks should settle with other banks. Many countries employ a multilateral net settlement system typically operated by the central bank. In a multilateral net settlement system, at the end of the day, each bank pays (receives from) the system only the net amount they are due to pay to (receive from) other banks combined. Importantly, banks settle their payments with other banks using their excess reserves (herein called reserves) at the central bank, not the deposits of their clients. This entails that banks do not need deposits to pay their dues to other banks or the central bank. Figure I-1 illustrates the impacts on the banks' reserves under the multilateral net settlement system: Bank 1's reserves at the central bank change as follows: -$100 (Client 1's wire transfer out) + $300 (this is the amount that Supplier A with an account in Bank 1 gets from Client 3) = $200. The impact on Bank 2's reserves is as follows: -$200 (Client 2's wire transfer out) + $100 (this is the amount that Supplier B with an account in Bank 2 gets from Client 1) = -$100. The net change in Bank 3's reserves is: -$300 (Client 3's wire transfer out) + $200 (this is the amount that Supplier C with an account in Bank 3 gets from Client 2) = -$100. If we assume that all banks had no excess reserves before this day, then how do they settle their accounts? There are various alternatives, but we highlight two: Figure I-1 demonstrates the case of interbank lending. As a result of the settlements, Bank 1 has $200 in extra reserves, while Bank 2 and Bank 3 each have a $100 deficit in reserves. As such, Bank 1 lends $100 to each of Bank 2 and Bank 3. Why does it lend to other banks rather than keeping these reserves at the central bank? Because interbank rates are typically slightly above the central bank's rate - the rate Bank 1 would get if it were to lend the $200 to the central bank. Figure I-2 portends the same transactions with the sole difference being the reserves flow. Unlike Figure I-1, here banks do not lend to/borrow from each other. Banks lend excess reserves to the central bank as well as borrow deficient reserves from the central bank. This is done to settle their payments with other banks. Bank 1 lends its free reserves of $200 to the central bank. Bank 2 and Bank 3 each borrow $100 reserves from the central bank to settle with the system at the end of the day. As a result, the aggregate amount of reserves at the central bank does not change. On the whole, banks created $600 of new deposits/money/loans during the day without requiring savings from households, companies, the government or foreigners. Thereby, the money supply was expanded and new financing in the amount of $600 was provided "out of thin air." Appendix 2: Deposits Versus Liquidity Below are additional questions that we seek to answer to provide further elaboration on the issues of banks creating money and the difference between deposits and liquidity: 1. Why would central banks provide reserves to banks? When a central bank targets interest rates, which is nowadays the most common policy framework in both advanced and developing countries, it must provide liquidity to banks: the latter is required to preclude interbank rates from deviating from the policy rate. Under an interest rate targeting regime, the central bank does not have complete control over banks' reserves nor broad money supply. A central bank can control either the quantity of money or the price of money (interest rates), but not both simultaneously. The following two quotes from the New York Federal Reserve Chairman William Dudley and the European Central Bank confirm that central banks nowadays provide banks with reserves on demand - i.e., the amount of reserves is determined by demand from banks. "The Federal Reserve has committed itself to supply sufficient reserves to keep the fed funds rate at its target. If banks want to expand credit and that drives up the demand for reserves, the Fed automatically meets that demand in its conduct of monetary policy. In terms of the ability to expand credit rapidly, it makes no difference whether the banks have lots of excess reserves or not." (Dudley, 2009) European Central Bank (2012), May 2012 Monthly Bulletin: "The Eurosystem ... always provides the banking system with the liquidity required to meet the aggregate reserve requirement. In fact, the ECB's reserve requirements are backward-looking, i.e. they depend on the stock of deposits (and other liabilities of credit institutions) subject to reserve requirements as it stood in the previous period, and thus after banks have extended the credit demanded by their customers." 2. Why do banks compete for deposits if they create deposits themselves? The true reason banks compete for deposits is not that they require more deposits, but because they require more reserves. When a bank attracts a deposit from another bank, the latter must transmit to the former reserves equal to the amount of the deposit transferred. When a bank is experiencing a liquidity shortage, more deposits are of no help. Banks can always create more deposits themselves, but they cannot create reserves at the central bank. The true liquidity for banks is their reserves at the central bank - not deposits. Reserves are solely created by central banks "out of thin air." A central bank may decide not to provide funding to certain banks in some cases when the authorities deem these banks insolvent and/or in breach of regulations. Otherwise, if the central bank wants to keep policy rates stable, it must provide all liquidity (reserves) banks require. 3. Why do banks attract deposits if the central bank provides liquidity on demand? The primary reason why banks seek to attract deposits instead of borrowing from the central bank is due to the cost of funding and duration of liabilities as well as regulatory requirements. Deposits may be cheaper and have longer duration than short-term funding from the central bank. 1 Lindner, F. (2015), "Does Savings Increase the Supply of Credit? A Critique of Loanable Funds Theory", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, World Economic Review 4, 2015. 2 Lindner, F. (2015), "Did Scarce Global Savings Finance the US Real Estate Bubble? The Global Saving Glut thesis from a stock flow Consistent Perspective", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 155, July 2015. 3 Lindner, F. (2015), "Does Savings Increase the Supply of Credit? A Critique of Loanable Funds Theory", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, World Economic Review 4, 2015. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016, January 18, 2017 and December 20, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Borio, C. and Disyatat, P. (2015), "Capital flows and the current account: Taking financing (more) seriously", BIS Working Papers, No. 525, October 2015. 6 Lindner, F. (2015), "Did Scarce Global Savings Finance the US Real Estate Bubble? The Global Saving Glut thesis from a stock flow Consistent Perspective", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 155, July 2015. 7 Lindner, F. (2012), "Savings does not finance Investment: Accounting as an indispensable guide to economic theory", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 100, October 2012. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
