In searching for an expression that defines the economic turbulence of the first decade of the 21st Century, I have coined "Equilibrium Defiance". Archimedes principle states: "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object". Principles of equilibrium are prolific elements of our economy.
Take the price of oil for example. Most rejoiced when oil dropped to $35 per barrel. Personally, I also enjoyed the experience. But in defiance of the principles of equilibrium, those disappointed today by the surge in oil must have thought the Fed could print trillions of dollars, direct them via fire hose into the economy, and, under a nearly zero interest rate environment, strengthen or hold the dollar's value enough to keep oil prices low? You see, in the search for equilibrium, you pay one way or another - if not at the pump, then at the bank. Low interest rates and tons of cash pumped into the system - guess what - here comes a surge in oil prices.
The various economic stimulus efforts remind me of a chess game where all you have left is your king and you're frantically hoping to reach the 50-moves rule to claim a draw. I'd say we are on or about move 10, including the stimulus packages, the change in mark-to-market rules, reduction in rates, bank and auto bailouts, etc. The problem here is that this is not a game of chess and there is no economic benefit to a draw.
Our current path of ‘Equilibrium Defiance' will eventually catch up with us. Just consider one element of the economy and its metrics that seem largely out of equilibrium. For lack of a better name, I call it the C&I Loan-Equity Comparison. It shows two things: In red, the price of the S&P since 1950; in blue, the volume of Commercial and Industrial Loans (in billions) per the Federal Reserve. When graphed, you'll notice a fairly high correlation between the two metrics up until about 1995, which one could argue is when looser credit started - both commercially and for consumers, with only brief downturns in late 2000 and after 9/11, taking off again circa 2003, and taking with it the S&P value. Makes sense, right?
The easy access credit tempted companies and consumers to borrow at levels never before seen and spending reached historic heights. Interestingly, how does one explain our current situation? Why is the present downtick in C&I loans so slight? Is this the 100-year storm of credit crunches? It is no secret that small and mid-sized companies are having their credit lines cut or eliminated.
What are the plausible explanations? I believe that the government is pumping trillions into the credit system to prop it up, in true defiance of equilibrium. The economic activity indicated by the current levels of the S&P won't sustain this level of C&I loan activity. On the public market side, debt-to-equity ratios are now completely out of whack. Companies that can do so are drawing on available credit lines for operational runway, not growth. Many of those companies are using The Receivables Exchange to sell receivables to stay within their debt ratio covenants.
C&I loan activity won't remain at these levels. As they return to equilibrium, we will find ourselves facing another principle of equilibrium: survival of the fittest. As the working capital pie shrinks (substantially), the number of companies fighting over the smaller portion is only going to get fierce.
Nic Perkin is Co-founder and President of The Receivables Exchange, an accounts receivable financing tool. The Exchange is the world's first online marketplace for real-time trading of accounts receivable. Find out how to trade accounts receivable.