By Simon van Norden

Today, we're fortunate to have Simon van Norden, Professor of Finance at HEC Montréal (École des Hautes Études Commerciales), continue as a guest contributor.

In my previous post, I wrote about some of the evidence linking serious banking crises to real estate market collapses. That evidence is far from iron clad; it is simply the observation that many banking crises in mature economies have their origins in a real estate boom and bust cycle. However, the idea is also intuitively appealing.

Remember that at the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that there was $12 Trillion of mortgage debt on residential properties in the US, with the Federal government and its agencies providing about 5% of the total, individuals 9% and the rest coming from the financial sector. The Case-Shiller composite index of housing prices has fallen 1/3 from its peak in

By Simon van Norden

Today, we're fortunate to have Simon van Norden, Professor of Finance at HEC Montréal (École des Hautes Études Commerciales), as a guest blogger.

"Once you've seen one financial market crisis...you've seen one financial market crisis."

-- Attributed to Federal Reserve Board Governor Kevin Warsh by former US Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel in The Financial Crisis: an Inside View, March 2009, p. 4.

The financial crisis has set a lot of records so far; it's certainly the worst US banking crisis of my lifetime. Some, as suggested by the above quote, see such crises as unique events; each one is singular and there's not much to be learned about how to handle one from looking at past crises. For example, there's no precedent that I know of for a banking crisis involves the failure of the biggest counterparties for credit default swaps.

It has been interesting to me how much excited commentary has been elicited by my posts on output gaps. [0],
[1], [2], [3] I had thought the subject fairly uncontroversial, especially my reliance upon the CBO measure, which is calculated in a conventional manner, and is an object well-understood in mainstream macroeconomics (take your pick — from Hall and Papell to Mankiw). However, it’s clear that there is no such agreement in the blogosphere (which can be taken as an indicator of how dispersed beliefs are in that world). In any case, the reaction tells me that one’s belief in what determines potential GDP defines in large part how one thinks about the workings of the economy, and so I thought it useful to discuss alternative measures coming out of current academic work.

Recap

As I’ve discussed earlier (see this post), in some incarnations actual output is

…

Calculated Risk observes that we already know the values for a significant chunk of 2008:Q3 GDP. And it doesn't look good.

CR notes that personal consumption expenditures, the biggest single item in GDP, is released by the BEA monthly, so we now know two of the three monthly values that will make up this item for 2008:Q3 GDP. The graph below shows the inference you'd make using the first two months' release of PCE to estimate the actual quarterly consumption component of GDP. The inference from two months alone looks pretty useful, though as Simon van Norden reminds us, it would be interesting to construct this graph using real-time vintages for the two-month estimates rather than the revised data shown here.

CR interprets:

in general, the two month estimate is pretty accurate. Maybe September