The De-Leveraging Virus
The Exhibit below shows how de-leveraging takes place in a levered world. Imagine a hedge fund with $20 of unlevered capital. If a bank or prime broker allows it to leverage five times, then the hedge fund can acquire $100 of risky assets with $20 of equity and $80 of debt. Assume the asset falls $10 (10%) in value. The hedge fund leverage increases to nine times ($10 of equity - the original amount less the loss - and $80 of debt supporting $90 of assets). If the leverage stays constant at five times then the hedge fund must sell $50 of assets - 50% of its holdings ($10 of equity and $40 of debt funding $50 of the asset). If lenders (more realistically) reduce permissible leverage, say, to three times, then the hedge fund must then sell $70 of assets - 70% of its holdings ($10 of equity and $20 of debt funding $30 of the asset).
Exhibit: Impact of Losses on a Leveraged Investor

Click to enlarge
De-leveraging requires liquid markets and buyers with capital to purchase the assets. Prices of risky assets must fall to market clearing levels as the system adjusts debt levels. The process described is now underway in financial markets.
The initial phase of de-leveraging, currently underway, is focused on financial markets. Banks have suffered losses in excess of $200 billion (with more possible). Approximately $1 trillion of assets have returned onto bank balance sheets. This included “warehoused” assets that were not able to be securitized and assets previously “parked” in asset backed security commercial paper (“ABSCP”) conduits, structured investment vehicles (“SIVs”) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (“CDOs”). An additional unknown amount of assets will return onto bank balance sheets as hedge funds gradually de-leverage.
Banks require funding and capital to cover losses and returning assets (christened IAG, or involuntary asset growth). High inter-bank rates reflect, in part, banks husbanding their cash resources to accommodate the increase in assets. Banks will also need in excess of $500 billion in new capital to cover losses and the regulatory capital required against returning assets. The capital required is around 20-25% of total global bank capital. Banks have raised in excess of $100 billion in new capital and the number of new equity raisings is accelerating. It is not clear how this capital requirement will be meet.
The additional capital will merely restore bank balance sheets. Growth in lending and assets will require additional capital. The banking system’s ability to supply credit will be significantly impaired for the foreseeable future. If the banks are not able to re-capitalize, then the contraction in credit supply will be sharper.
In recent years, off-balance sheet vehicles – ABS CP conduits, SIVs, CDOs and hedge funds (collectively known as the “shadow banking” system – have provided additional leverage. These vehicles relied extensively on bank funding or support. The withdrawal of this support means that these vehicles are also de-leveraging rapidly. Hedge funds have reduced leverage from an average 5/6 times to around 3/4 times as the supply of credit tightens. Each one time leverage reduction in hedge fund leverage represents in excess of $2 trillion of assets. This accelerates the de-leveraging process.
The next phase of de-leveraging will focus on the real economy. Availability and cost of funding has already adjusted. Corporations with maturing debt face refinancing difficulties. This will force de-leveraging of corporate balance sheets.
Personal balance sheets will also de-leverage. Consumers in the USA and to a lesser degree in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have used borrowings (against inflated real estate values) to offset a reduction in real incomes. Falling real estate prices and the reduced availability of “easy” credit will force de-leveraging.
An economic slowdown will exacerbate the de-leveraging. A fall in asset values can be sustained where the borrower has sufficient income and cash flow to service the debt. Reduction in corporate cash flows and reduced personal income (via unemployment) will sharply accelerate the de-leveraging. Uncertainty about the future and market volatility will also accelerate the de-leveraging as companies and consumers reduce debt and aggressively save.
De-leveraging in the real economy may result in increasing defaults. Firms and individuals with unsustainable amounts of debt will fail. This will result in further losses to financial institutions setting off negative feedback loops as both asset prices and the level of aggregate leverage adjusts.
Central banks and governments actions have been directed on maintaining liquidity and (increasingly) directly supporting the financial sector. In the US and Spain, direct fiscal stimulus is already being administered. These actions are designed to prevent a catastrophic collapse in the financial sector and maintain a normal supply of credit to creditworthy business and individuals. They are also designed to help the real economy from slowing down to a degree that the de-leveraging accelerates further. At best, these actions will smooth the inevitable de-leveraging and adjustment to financial asset prices.
Perhaps the better view of the current state of the financial crisis is that stated by Winston Churchill: “…this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
If this is really a post (WWII) sea change we could be in for interesting times. Will boomers be forced to de-lever? It seems to me that if such really took place, it would be pretty ugly.
Can all the king's men put Humpty Dumpty together again?
Kurt
In fact, the non-financial sectors look like absolute financial Puritans compared to their financial counterparts. On a macro basis, debt is low, very low. They seem to have successfully managed the supply chain, meaning that inventories are low going into the recession and unemployment is growing only slowly by historic standards. Moreover, they continue to increase productivity, albeit at slower rates than in earlier years.
Nonetheless, the combined impacts of a housing market depression, massive energy and food inflation, and a declining dollar are driving the consumer--the principal driver of the US economy--into the ground.
We are having a recession and it will be a longer than average one of moderate severity. Outside the financial sector, however, deleveraging will have little to do with it.
Also, I do not trust the Fed, but not being a conspiracy theorist and having never heard of Presidents that advocated dismantling the Fed being assassinated. Please provide some reading material, as it will be informative, if not entertaining.
De-Leveraging via the sale of real/old fasioned assets I understand. You just keep lowering the price until you sell.
De_leveraging synthetic assets may produce no buyers what so ever. What then? What do you sell to pay the bank back?
What is interesting in Australia is we have Mortgage Rates of about 9% and inflation of 4%. Deposit taking banks are paying about 8%. I should think that makes mortgage lenders in Australia loss makers right now.
Now with 4% inflation and 8% deposits the safe bet looks like cash for now? The usual hedges against inflation dont look too good with overpriced real estate of all classes just starting to De_leverage so staying in cash short term while offering to buy real assets at a 25% discount to 2007 prices may just work in Australia. Any comments welcome. Giday Dassie.Cheers for now. mates.
In your example you spoke of the "Hedge Funds" position and how it is leveraged. This assumes one thing not delineated. The fact that the hedge fund was positioned long the assets.
Many in the Ville have spoken on the topic of how many times greater the capital controlled by hedge funds has become than mutual funds.
Any basic text on hedge funds will start out by explaining how they are the greatest thing since sliced bread because of one fact. The fact that their profits are not tied to the success of the enterprise because they can and often do hedge or short against a position unlike mutual funds which are by statute required to remain long.
What is bothering me is this growing suspicion that hedge fund capital may not, as your example assumes, be leveraged or positioned in a manner other than to profit from the inevitable deleveraging that the government is desperately trying to avoid. If that is so, which I do not know and can not prove, does that not put their interest in direct conflict with the government?
If you take that as a starting point, a number of other significant questions arise that I don't want to raise for brevity sake.
In my opinion your comment makes a lot of false assumptions.
First, you make no mention of consumer debt and what falling home values will do to it.
Next, you may be right when you speak of non-financial sector debt but averages can be very misleading. How many 'Fortune 500' companies have a negative book value? How many companies are engaged in fancy (misleading) accounting ala Enron or even GM (I'm referring to the amazing 39 billion dollar writedown in the 3rd quarter last year that no one even blinked at)? Look at Daimler Benz and the Chrysler fiasco and tell me any of it makes sense.
Finally, there is the domino effect. When times are good the economy feeds off itself and results in an upward spiral. Successful businesses employ more people who spend more. They require more goods and services that spawn even more businesses and employment. The reverse happens in a downward spiral. As businesses slow down they need fewer employees, goods and services...thus the domino effect.
Add to this the highly leveraged state of banks and hedge funds, the housing glut, the energy crisis (peak oil, greenhouse gases competiton from developing countries), the baby boomers leaving their peak earnings years and, slowly but surely, becoming burdens on society through increased health care costs and the strain they will put on retirement funds and Social Security when they start withdrawing money. What will this do to the stock market and the financial well being of the underlying companies? What will happen to the housing market when these people start entering assisted living centers or simply start to die off? This will result in there being two houses for every person who would/could potentially buy a house. Is the answer for th government to buy up all these houses and bulldoze them under or to alow a flood up immigrants (with all the costs they represent) to move here and buy them up?
In addition we have a current account defict and national debt that show no sign of abating. The government cannot continue to prop up the economy through bailouts, rebates and defense spending. In retrospect the trillions squandered on the idiocy of the 'war on terror' may well end up being seen as the straw that broke the camels back.
It is true that the recession (let alone depression) haven't even started yet but what happens with respect to financing the national debt if/when GDP starts to fall?
How do we turn around our massive trade deficit now that we've shipped the majority of our manufacturing base overseas?
Where will the trillions come from to convert the electical grid for the electric cars that are suppose to be the salvation of the auto industry (and btw make Mr. Pickens a qudrillionaire)?
How long will the fact that we print dollars and have the guns save us?
Please, these are questions I am dying to see addressed.
Anyone?
Think about this for a moment: If Bernanke and gang really thought we were heading into a normal recessionary period, why would they not just let it happen? I believe that they understand that the "great unwinding" is underway and we are heading for a major global depression.
Sorry to sound so dire, but like my elementary school professor used to say "Let a word to the wise be sufficient"
Started a ways back but the come-uppance has arrived.
Corporate and Governmental greed and excess, private versions of the same, pushing consequences into the future and living for the moment.
If the cities and states can't keep up with the entitlement class demands to be cared for; the riots will ensue and it will be ugly indeed.
Let's hope it doesn't happen, but the real correction seems to be worldwide population destruction which makes all extant assets more valuable and can eliminate debt quickly. Keep praying.
















