Konjunktúraingadozások az Egyesült Államokban 1970-2010 - Értelmezési nehézségek = Business cycles and recession patterns in the US economy and in the G7

Lehet-e beszélni a 2011-ig felgyülemlett empirikus tapasztalatok tükrében egy egységes válságlefolyásról, amely a fejlett ipari országok egészére általában jellemző, és a meghatározó országok esetében is megragadható? Megállapíthatók-e olyan univerzális változások a kibocsátás, a munkapiacok, a fogyasztás, valamint a beruházás tekintetében, amelyek jól illeszkednek a korábbi tapasztalatokhoz, nem kevésbé az ismert makromodellek predikcióihoz? A válasz – legalábbis jelen sorok írásakor – nemleges: sem a válság lefolyásának jellegzetességeiben és a makrogazdasági teljesítmények romlásának ütemében, sem a visszacsúszás mértékében és időbeli kiterjedésében sincsenek jól azonosítható közös jegyek, olyanok, amelyek a meglévő elméleti keretekbe jól beilleszthetők. A tanulmány áttekinti a válsággal és a makrogazdasági sokkokkal foglalkozó empirikus irodalom – a pénzügyi globalizáció értelmezései nyomán – relevánsnak tartott munkáit. Ezt követően egy 60 év távlatát átfogó vizsgálatban próbáljuk megítélni a recessziós időszakokban az amerikai gazdaság teljesítményét azzal a célkitűzéssel, hogy az elmúlt válság súlyosságának megítélése kellően objektív lehessen, legalább a fontosabb makrováltozók elmozdulásának nagyságrendje tekintetében. / === / Based on the empirical evidence accumulated until 2011, using official statistics from the OECD data bank and the US Commerce Department, the article addresses the question whether one can, or cannot, speak about generally observable recession/crisis patterns, such that were to be universally recognized in all major industrial countries (the G7). The answer to this question is a firm no. Changes and volatility in most major macroeconomic indicators such as output-gap, labor market distortions and large deviations from trend in consumption and in investment did all, respectively, exhibit wide differences in depth and width across the G7 countries. The large deviations in output-gaps and especially strong distortions in labor market inputs and hours per capita worked over the crisis months can hardly be explained by the existing model classes of DSGE and those of the real business cycle. Especially bothering are the difficulties in fitting the data into any established model whether business cycle or some other types, in which financial distress reduces economic activity. It is argued that standard business cycle models with financial market imperfections have no mechanism for generating deviation from standard theory, thus they do not shed light on the key factors underlying the 2007–2009 recession. That does not imply that the financial crisis is unimportant in understanding the recession, but it does indicate however, that we do not fully understand the channels through which financial distress reduced labor input. Long historical trends on the privately held portion of the federal debt in the US economy indicate that the standard macro proposition of public debt crowding out private investment and thus inhibiting growth, can be strongly challenged in so far as this ratio is neither a direct indicator of growth slowing down, nor for recession.

Hedging under liquidity constraints

Although risk management can be justified by financial distress, the theoretical models usually contain hedging instruments free of funding risk. In practice, management of the counterparty risk in derivative transactions is of enhanced importance, consequently not only is trading on exchanges subject to the presence of a margin account, but also in bilateral (OTC) agreements parties will require margins or collateral from their partners in order to hedge the mark-tomarket loss of the transaction. The aim of this paper is to present and compare two models where the financing need of the hedging instrument also appears, influencing the hedging strategy and the optimal hedging ratio. Both models contain the same source of risk and optimisation criterion, but the liquidity risk is modelled in different ways. In the first model, there is no additional financing resource that can be used to finance the margin account in case of a margin call, which entails the risk of liquidation of the hedging position. In the second model, the financing is available but a given credit spread is to be paid for this, so hedging can become costly.