Finacial poster

Most bank wholesale funding comes, directly or indirectly, from the current-account surpluses of the savings-exporting countries. China, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the others are the major source of the ‘hot money’ that has now been scared away, and will no longer finance bank holdings of structured securities. Their surpluses provided a large share of the cash deposited with banks through shortterm money markets (this can happen in many ways, through sale and repurchase or ‘repo’ lending, through purchase of asset-backed commercial paper, by investing in money market mutual funds or, most directly, by holding bank deposits).
There are other linkages as well. Government, companies or banks from the surplus countries also hold some bank-issued securities directly (shares, bonds or mortgage-backed and other structured securities). In addition to this direct funding surplus, country savings are invested in many non-bank securities, for example equities, government bonds, corporate bonds or short-term bills and commercial paper. This pushes down their returns and makes them less attractive.
As a result there is displacement of other domestic funds, from companies, insurance companies and pension funds into both short-term funding of bank portfolios through the money markets and bank- issued securities.
This pattern of world savings and investment, with high-saving countries, including Germany and Japan and the emerging market manufacturing exporters and resource exporters such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, lending large sums to the high-consuming countries has been a feature of the global economy for several years. Instead of shrinking, these imbalances have risen over the years.
Increasing global trade has opened up tremendous opportunities for growth. The rapidly growing economies of south-east Asia, including South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand, have all benefited, and, more recently, so have India and China. These rapidly growing economies should be the ones with the most attractive business investment opportunities. Yet the world’s savings are being channelled mostly from these fast-growing economies to mature developed economies, ones where the prospects for productive investment are relatively poor.
Why have savings been channelled to governments and consumers in the West rather than to productive investment in the emerging markets? One reason is that returns to investment in emerging markets are surprisingly low, due among other reasons to weak enforcement of property rights in the courts and bankruptcy laws that provide little protection to lenders.
A further part of the answer is the different operation of their banking systems. Banks in the United States, the United Kingdom and other developed countries have been extremely skilful in persuading households to borrow freely in order to finance both house purchase and general consumption. Meanwhile banks in emerging markets have been much less successful at finding opportunities to lend in their own countries, either to companies or to individuals. This reflects both much stronger social security systems in Western countries (households worry less about saving for old age) and more effective systems of credit referencing and credit scoring to identify creditworthy borrowers – systems that have been developed over many years.
The export of savings has also been encouraged by the fiscal and monetary and exchange-rate policies in the exporting countries, for example in China, where the exchange rate has been maintained at a very competitive level to encourage export growth.
This borrowing, or ‘capital importing’, has not just been used for household consumption. It has also financed government expenditures, including, for example, the large increase in military expenditure, especially in the United States, because of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Companies and governments have borrowed directly from overseas investors. But the most important destination for this flow of savings has been households, borrowing money from banks through mortgages, credit cards and other forms of personal credit, in turn financed on wholesale funding markets.

Brokerage Commissions, a direct cost: In the United States, if a house is sold, the seller’s broker typically receives six percent of the value of the house as commission (and splits this commission with the buyer’s agent). Thus, if a real estate agent manages to sell a house for $300,000, the commission is $18,000. Put differently, without an agent, the buyer and seller could have split the $18,000 between them. (Of course, brokers do many useful things, such as matching buyers and sellers, shepherding the selling process, etc., so the $18,000 may just be the intrinsic transaction cost to selling a house. However, inconsistent with this view, real estate commissions are much lower in other countries, and it is difficult to see why the cost of selling houses would be exactly 6% in practically all markets in the United States.)
Although only the seller pays the broker’s cost, it makes sense to think of transaction costs in terms of round-trip costs—how much worse you are off if you buy and then immediately sell an asset. You would mislead yourself if you thought that when you buy a house, you have not incurred any transaction costs because the seller had to pay them—you have incurred an implicit transaction cost in the future when you need to resell your investment. Of course, you usually do not immediately sell assets, so you should not forget about the timing of your future selling transaction costs in your NPV calculations.
Housing transaction costs are so high and so important that they are worth a digression. If you borrow to finance the investment, transaction may be higher than you think. The real estate agent earns 6% of the value of the house, not of the amount of money you put into the house. On a house purchase of $500,000, the typical loan is 80% of the purchase price, or $400,000, leaving you to put in $100,000 in equity. Selling the house the day after the purchase reduces the owner’s wealth of $100,000 by the commission of $30,000—for an investment rate of return of –30%. This is not a risk component; it is a pure and certain transaction cost.
Let us briefly consider what happens if the house price decreases or increases by 10%. If house prices decline by 10%, or the buyer overpays by 10%, the house can only be resold for $450,000, which leaves $423,000 after agent commissions. The house owner is left with $23,000 on a $100,000 investment. A 10% decline in real estate values has reduced the home owner’s net worth by 77%! In comparison, a 10% increase in real estate values increases the value of the house to $550,000, which means that $517,000 is left after real estate commissions. The house owner’s rate of return for the same up movement is thus only 17%.
With the tools you already know, you can even estimate how the value of a typical house might change if the Internet could instantly and perfectly replace real estate agents. You cannot be too accurate—you can only obtain a back-of-the-envelope estimate. A typical house in the United States sells every seven years or so. Work with a $1,000,000 house, and assume that the expected house capital-gain appreciation is 0%—you consume all gains as rental enjoyment. In this case, the house will stay at $1,000,000 in value, the commission will stay constant at$60,000 and will be paid every 7 years. If the appropriate 7-year interest rate were 40% (around 5% per annum), then the value of the brokerage fees would be a perpetuity of $60, 000/40% = $150, 000. The capitalized transaction cost would therefore have lowered the value of the $1,000,000 house by $150,000. If you could eliminate all commissions, e.g., by selling equally efficiently over the Internet, such a house would increase in value by about 15%. However, if you believed that the brokerage commission were to go up by the inflation rate (2% per annum, or 15% per 7-years), the friction would not be $150,000 but $240,000—more like 25% of the value of the house, not just 15%.
Other direct costs: In addition to direct agent commissions, there are also many other direct transaction costs. These can range from advertising, to insurance company payments, to house inspectors, to the local land registry, to postage—all of which cost the parties money.
Indirect and opportunity costs: Then there is the seller’s own time required to learn as much . about the value of the house as possible, and the effort involved to help the agent sell the house. These may be significant costs, even if they involve no cash outlay. After all, the seller could spend this time working or playing instead. Furthermore, not every house is suitable for every house buyer, and the seller has to find the right buyer. If the house cannot be sold immediately but stays empty for a while, the foregone rent is part of the transaction cost. The implicit cost of not having the house be put to its best alternative use is called an opportunity cost. Opportunity costs are just as real as direct cash costs.

Similarly, financial markets transactions also incur transaction costs. If an investor wants to buy or sell shares of a stock, the broker charges a fee, as does the stock exchange that facilitates the transaction. In addition, investors have to consider their time to communicate with the broker to initiate the purchase or sale of a stock as an (opportunity) cost.
Brokerage and Market-Maker Commissions, direct costs: Still, the transaction costs for selling financial instruments are much lower than they are for most other goods. Let’s look at a few reasons why. First, even if you want to buy (or sell) $1 million worth of stock, some Internet brokers now charge as little as $10 per transaction. Your round-trip transaction, which is a buy and a sale, costs only $20 in broker’s commission. In addition, you have to pay the spread (the difference between the bid and the ask price) to the stock exchange. For example, a large company stock like PepsiCo (ticker symbol PEP) may have a publicly posted price of $50 per share. But you can neither buy nor sell at $50. Instead, the $50 is really just the average of two prices: the bid price of $49.92, at which another investor or the exchange’s market-maker is currently willing to buy shares; and the ask price of $50.08, at which another investor or the exchange’s market-maker is currently willing to sell shares. Therefore, you can (probably) purchase shares at $50.08 and sell them at $49.92, a loss of “only” 16 cents which amounts to round-trip transaction costs of ($49.92
− $50.08)/$50.08 ≈ −0.32%. You can compute the total costs of buying and selling 20,000 shares ($1,000,000 worth) of PepsiCo stock as This is not exactly correct, though, because the bid and ask prices that the exchange posts (e.g., on Yahoo!Finance or the Wall Street Journal ) are only valid for 100 shares. Moreover, some transactions can occur inside the bid-ask spread, but for most large round-trip orders, chances are that you may have to pay more than $50.08 or receive less than $49.92. So 0.32% is probably a bit too small. (In fact, if your trade is large enough, you may even move the publicly posted exchange price away from $50!) Your buy order may have to pay $50.20, and your sell may only get you $49.85. In real life, the true round-trip transaction cost on a $1 million position in PEP is on the order of magnitude of 50 basis points.
The above applies primarily to a market order, in which you ask your broker to buy or sell at the prevailing market price. A limit order can specify that you only wish to buy or sell at $50.00, but you are patient and willing to take the chance that your order may not get executed at all. There is a common belief that limit orders are “cheaper” in terms of transaction costs, but also “riskier.” For example, if you have a standing limit order to buy at $50, and the company reveals that it has managed earnings, so its value drops from $51 to $20, your limit order could still easily execute at $50.
Indirect and Opportunity Costs: Investors do not need to spend a lot of time to find out the latest price of the stock: it is instantly available from many sources (e.g., from the Internet such as Yahoo!Finance). So, the information research costs are very low: unlike a house, the value of a stock is immediately known. Finally, upon demand, a buyer can be found practically instantaneously, so search and waiting costs are also very low. Recall the often multi-month waiting periods if you want to sell your house.
Compare the financial securities transaction costs to the transaction costs in selling a house.Broker fees alone are typically 6%: for the $100,000 equity investment in the $500,000 house, this comes to $30,000 for a round-trip transaction. Add the other fees and waiting time to this cost and you are in for other transaction costs, say, another $10,000. And houses are just one example: Many transactions of physical goods or labor services (but not all) can incur similarly high transaction costs.
In contrast, if you want to buy or sell 100 shares in, say, Microsoft stocks, your transaction costs are relatively tiny. Because there are many buyers and many sellers, financial transaction costs are comparably tiny. Even for a $100,000 equity investment in a medium-sized firm’s stock, the transaction costs are typically only about $300–$500. To oversimplify, this blog will make the incorrect, but convenient assumption that financial transaction costs are zero (unless otherwise described). For individuals buying and selling ordinary stocks only rarely (a buy-and-hold investor), a zero transaction cost assumption is often quite reasonable.