收藏 分享(赏)

债务与去杠杆化(2012年1月).ppt

上传人:无敌 文档编号:1416699 上传时间:2018-07-15 格式:PPT 页数:64 大小:1.56MB
下载 相关 举报
债务与去杠杆化(2012年1月).ppt_第1页
第1页 / 共64页
债务与去杠杆化(2012年1月).ppt_第2页
第2页 / 共64页
债务与去杠杆化(2012年1月).ppt_第3页
第3页 / 共64页
债务与去杠杆化(2012年1月).ppt_第4页
第4页 / 共64页
债务与去杠杆化(2012年1月).ppt_第5页
第5页 / 共64页
点击查看更多>>
资源描述

1、McKinsey Global Institute,Updated research,January 2012,Debt and deleveraging:Uneven progress on thepath to growth,The McKinsey Global Institute,The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the business and economics researcharm of McKinsey & Company, was established in 1990 to develop a deeperunderstanding

2、 of the evolving global economy. Our goal is to provide leadersin the commercial, public, and social sectors with facts and insights onwhich to base management and policy decisions.,MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management,employing the analytical tools of economics with the

3、 insights of businessleaders. Our “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomicindustry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forcesaffecting business strategy and public policy. MGIs in-depth reports havecovered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuseso

4、n six themes: productivity and growth; global financial markets; technologyand innovation; urbanization; the future of work; and natural resources.Recent reports have assessed job creation, resource productivity, cities ofthe future, and the impact of the Internet.,MGI is led by three McKinsey & Com

5、pany directors: Richard Dobbs, JamesManyika, and Charles Roxburgh. Susan Lund serves as director of research.Project teams are led by a group of senior fellows and include consultantsfrom McKinseys offices around the world. These teams draw on McKinseysglobal network of partners and industry and man

6、agement experts. Inaddition, leading economists, including Nobel laureates, act as researchadvisers.,The partners of McKinsey it is notcommissioned by any business, government, or other institution.For further information about MGI and to download reports, please McKinsey & Company 2012,McKinsey Gl

7、obal Institute,Updated research,Debt and deleveraging:Uneven progress on thepath to growth,January 2012,Charles RoxburghSusan Lund,Toos DaruvalaJames ManyikaRichard DobbsRamon Forn,Karen Croxson,Preface,In 2011, the global economy continued to feel the lingering effects of the 2008financial crisis.

8、For those hoping to see progress on reducing the debt overhangfrom the credit bubble and a stronger economic recovery, it was a year ofdisappointment and fresh dangers.,Two years ago, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) published a report thatexamined the global credit bubble and looked at 32 episod

9、es in which countrieshad significantly reduced their debtor deleveragedafter a financial crisis. Inthat research, Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economicconsequences, we warned how long and painful the process of reducing debtwould be.,In this report, we update that research

10、 and assess the progress in deleveragingby the major mature economies today. We focus particularly on the United States,the United Kingdom, and Spain, three large economies in which the credit bubblewas pronounced. These nations are facing a range of challenges that illustratethe difficult trade-off

11、s involved in stabilizing financial systems, reducing debt, andrestarting growth.,We also examine more closely the banking crises and deleveraging episodes ofSweden and Finland in the 1990s, which offer relevant lessons for debt reductiontoday. We see that these Nordic deleveraging episodes proceede

12、d in two,phasesseveral years of private-sector debt reduction and recession, followed bya longer period of economic expansion and public-sector deleveraging. It is ourhope that by looking deeply into how todays economies are progressing throughthese phases, business leaders and policy makers can gai

13、n a better perspectiveon what to expect and how to craft policies and strategies for a deleveragingenvironment.,McKinsey Global Institute leaders Charles Roxburgh and Susan Lund directedthis research. McKinsey directors James Manyika, Richard Dobbs, Toos Daruvala,and Ramon Forn provided support and

14、insight. The project team was headed byKaren Croxson and included Albert Bollard, Dennis Bron, and John Piotrowski.We thank Geoffrey Lewis for editorial support, and other members of the MGIcommunications and operations organization for their many contributions: JuliePhilpot, Deadra Henderson, Tim B

15、eacom, and Rebeca Robboy.,The analysis and insights in this report also reflect the generous contributions ofMcKinsey colleagues from around the world: Per-Anders Enkvist, Enrique GarciaLopez, Sara Jonsson, Carmen Martin Ruiz-Jarabo, Jaana Remes, Olli Salo, andAnnaliina Soikkanen. We are also gratef

16、ul to David Hunt, a former McKinseycolleague and now CEO of Prudential Investment Management.,McKinsey Global Institute,Debt and deleveraging: Uneven progress on the path to growth,We wish to thank several academic experts whose knowledge and guidancehelped shape this report: Martin N. Baily, Bernar

17、d L. Schwartz Chair in EconomicPolicy Development at the Brookings Institution; Klas Eklund, senior economist atSEB and adjunct professor of economics, University of Lund; and Matti Pohjola,professor of economics, Aalto University School of Economics and formerdeputy director of the United Nations U

18、niversityWorld Institute for DevelopmentEconomics Research (UNU-WIDER).,Our goal is to develop a clearer understanding of how economies can reducedebt and resume economic growth in an orderly way and provide some usefulmarkers of progress for policy makers and business leaders. As with all MGIprojec

19、ts, this research is independent and has not been commissioned orsponsored in any way by any business, government, or other institution.,Richard Dobbs,Director, McKinsey Global InstituteSeoul,James Manyika,Director, McKinsey Global InstituteSan Francisco,Charles Roxburgh,Director, McKinsey Global In

20、stituteLondon,Susan Lund,Director of Research, McKinsey Global InstituteWashington, DC,January 2012,1,11,43,McKinsey Global InstituteDebt and deleveraging: Uneven progress on the path to growthContentsExecutive summaryDebt and deleveraging: Uneven progress on the path to growthAppendix: Technical no

21、tes,Bibliography,51,1,1,2,McKinsey Global Institute,Debt and deleveraging: Uneven progress on the path to growth,Executive summary,The deleveraging process that began in 2008 is proving to be long and painful,just as historical experience suggested it would be. Two years ago, the McKinseyGlobal Inst

22、itute published a report that examined the global credit bubble andprovided in-depth analysis of the 32 episodes of debt reduction following financialcrises since the 1930s.1 The eurozones debt crisis is just the latest reminder ofhow damaging the consequences are when countries have too much debt a

23、ndtoo little growth.,In this report, we revisit the worlds ten largest mature economies2 to see wherethey stand in the process of deleveraging. We pay particular attention to theexperience and outlook for the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain, aset of countries that covers a broad range o

24、f deleveraging and growth challenges.We also look at the relevant lessons from history about how governments cansupport economic recovery amid deleveraging. We discuss six markers thatbusiness and government leaders can look for when monitoring progress, andwe assess how close to these milestones th

25、e United States, the United Kingdom,and Spain are today. Among our key findings:, The deleveraging process is in its early stages in most countries. Total debthas actually grown across the worlds ten largest mature economies since the200809 financial crisis, due mainly to rising government debt. Mor

26、eover, theratio of total debt to GDP has declined in only three countries in our sample:the United States, South Korea, and Australia (ExhibitE1)., The deleveraging episodes of Sweden and Finland in the 1990s areparticularly relevant today. They show two distinct phases of deleveraging.In the first,

27、 households, corporations, and financial institutions reduce debtsignificantly over several years, while economic growth is negative or minimaland government debt rises. In the second phase, growth rebounds andgovernment debt is reduced gradually over many years., Today, the United States most close

28、ly follows this debt-reduction path. Debt inthe financial sector relative to GDP has fallen back to levels last seen in 2000,before the credit bubble. US households have reduced their debt relative todisposable income by 15percentage points, more than in any other country;at this rate, they could re

29、ach sustainable debt levels in two years or so., Deleveraging in the United Kingdom and Spain is proceeding more slowly.The ratio of UK debt to GDP has continued to rise and UK households haveincreased debt in absolute terms. In Spain, households have barely reduceddebt ratios and corporations conti

30、nue to carry the highest level of debt relative,Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economic consequences, McKinseyGlobal Institute, January 2010 ( list comprises, in descending order by GDP: the United States, Japan, Germany, France,the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Spain, Aust

31、ralia, and South Korea.,2to GDP in our ten-country sample. It could take many more years to finish anorderly deleveraging in the United Kingdom and Spain. The Swedish and Finnish deleveraging episodes reveal six critical markersof progress before the economic recovery takes off: the financial sector

32、is stabilized and lending volumes are rising; structural reforms have beenimplemented; credible medium-term public deficit reduction plans are in place;exports are growing; private investment has resumed; and the housing marketis stabilized, with residential construction reviving.Despite concerns ov

33、er the strength of its recovery and the protracted debateover how to reduce public debt, the United States has reached more of thesemilestones than other nations and is closest to moving into the second, growthphase of deleveraging. Still, no country has all the conditions in place to revivegrowth.

34、For business leaders trying to navigate the new world of debt reduction,understanding the course of deleveraging is of critical importance. Althoughgrowth in the time of deleveraging may be slower and more volatile in somecountries, there are also clear opportunities to invest ahead of demand andexp

35、loit pockets of growth even within slowly expanding economies.Exhibit E1,Deleveraging has only just begun in the ten largestdeveloped economiesTotal debt,1 1990Q2 2011% of GDP,Significant increasein leverage2DeleveragingChangePercentage points,550500450400350300250200,JapanUnited KingdomSpainFranceI

36、talySouth KoreaUnited States,2000083717714589689175,2008Q2 201133920263512-16-16,1501000,1990 92,94,96,98 2000 02,04,06,08 Q22011,GermanyAustraliaCanada,77739,1-1417,1 Includes all loans and fixed-income securities of households, corporations, financial institutions, and government.2 Defined as an i

37、ncrease of 25 percentage points or more.3 Or latest available.SOURCE: Haver Analytics; national central banks; McKinsey Global Institute,3,3,McKinsey Global InstituteDebt and deleveraging: Uneven progress on the path to growthTHE PATH TO DELEVERAGING: A TALE OF THREE COUNTRIESIn our previous work on

38、 debt and deleveraging, we studied 32 episodes of debtreduction following financial crises. We find that the experiences of Sweden andFinland in the 1990s offer case examples for todays deleveraging economies.3 Inthe 1980s, both Nordic nations experienced credit booms and housing bubblesthat ended i

39、n financial crises. Starting in 1990, both nations experienced severerecessions, as private-sector debt was reduced and government debt rosesharplydoubling in Sweden and tripling in Finland. But these countries moveddecisively to resolve their financial crises and enacted reforms to set the stage fo

40、rgrowth. By 1994, GDP growth had rebounded in both countries and a long periodof fiscal discipline and government deleveraging began (ExhibitE2).Exhibit E2Deleveraging typically begins in the private sector, even as governmentdebt continues to growAverage of Swedish and Finnish deleveraging episodes

41、DeleveragingRecessionPrivate debt/GDPReal GDPPublic debt/GDP,Pre-crisisperiod10 years,Early stageof recession12 years,Private-sectordeleveraging46 years,Rebound and public-sector deleveraging10 years,Time,Real GDP growthAnnual average (%)Change in debt/GDPPercentage points Private sector Public sect

42、or,3%603,-3%815,1%-2621,3%87-30,SOURCE: International Monetary Fund; Haver Analytics; McKinsey Global InstituteToday, the United States is following the Swedish and Finnish examples mostclosely and may be two years or so away from completing private-sectordeleveraging. The United Kingdom and Spain h

43、ave made less progress and couldbe a decade away from reducing their private-sector debt to the pre-bubbletrend.The United States: A light at the end of the tunnelSince the end of 2008, all categories of US private-sector debt have fallen relativeto GDP. Financial-sector debt has declined from $8tri

44、llion to $6.1trillion andstands at 40percent of GDP, the same as in 2000. Nonfinancial corporationshave also reduced their debt relative to GDP, and US household debt has fallenby $584billion, or a 15percentage-point reduction relative to disposable income.Two-thirds of household debt reduction is d

45、ue to defaults on home loans andconsumer debt. With $254billion of mortgages still in the foreclosure pipeline,Of the 32 episodes, 21 were in emerging markets. Some that occurred in mature economiespredate the modern financial era (e.g., the US after the Great Depression and the UK afterWorld War II

46、), and others involved high inflation, which mechanically reduced the ratio of debtto GDP (e.g., Spain in 1976).,Peak,4the United States could see several more percentage points of householddeleveraging in the months and years ahead as the foreclosure processcontinues.Historical precedent suggests t

47、hat US households could be as much as halfwaythrough the deleveraging process. If we define household deleveraging tosustainable levels as a return to the pre-bubble trend for the ratio of householddebt to disposable income, then at the current pace of debt reduction, UShouseholds would complete the

48、ir deleveraging by mid-2013. When we compareUS household progress to the Swedish deleveraging episode, in which the ratio ofhousehold debt to income declined by more than 40percentage points, we seethat US household deleveraging is a little more than one-third complete. BecauseUS interest rates today are lower than interest rates were in Sweden during itsdeleveraging, US households may be able to sustain somewhat higher levels ofdebt (ExhibitE3).Exhibit E3,

展开阅读全文
相关资源
猜你喜欢
相关搜索

当前位置:首页 > 企业管理 > 经营企划

本站链接:文库   一言   我酷   合作


客服QQ:2549714901微博号:道客多多官方知乎号:道客多多

经营许可证编号: 粤ICP备2021046453号世界地图

道客多多©版权所有2020-2025营业执照举报