THE INSCRUTABLE YIELD CURVE
Is it really signaling a slowdown?
Keep your eye on the yield curve--the spread between the interest rates of debt securities with different maturities. One of the most sensitive economic barometers, its behavior in recent months is stirring a hot debate among economists.
In assessing the yield curve's implications, the general rule is that an upwardly sloping curve (the usual condition, in which yields are higher as maturities lengthen) points to an expanding economy, while a flat or downward-sloping curve means a slowing or contracting economy. And changes in the slope signal changes in the future pace of economic activity.
What's currently causing a stir is that the yield curve has flattened dramatically in recent months--and for unusual reasons. Indeed, since BUSINESS WEEK first discussed this development a few weeks ago (BW--Nov. 17), the yield gap between 10-year and 3-month Treasury securities, which had narrowed since early April from 1.64 to only 0.73 of a percentage point, has plunged even more, to 0.56 of a percentage point.
Ordinarily, such a flattening of the yield curve would foreshadow a sharp slowdown in growth, and that in fact is what many experts predict. The curve's "unambiguous message" is that less exuberant activity lies ahead, says Bruce Steinberg of Merrill Lynch & Co., who sees growth slowing to 2.5% in 1998, with "the risks on the downside."
Economist Joseph Carson of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, however, notes that the current narrowing of spreads is atypical: Usually, it is the Federal Reserve that sets the process in motion by pushing up short-term interest rates closer to long rates. But this time around, short rates have been relatively stable since March, while long rates have fallen in apparent response to investors' expectations that growth would slow and inflation would stay low.
"History shows that when the yield curve flattens in response to investors' expectations, rather than to monetary tightening, it loses accuracy as a leading indicator," says Carson.
Noting that the economy has grown by about 4% over the past year, Carson's colleague Joseph LaVorgna points out that the economy slowed from such a pace only six times since 1962, and in each case the Fed pushed up rates significantly. Thus, Carson and LaVorgna think the economy will continue to expand briskly in coming quarters--until the Fed finally acts to slow things down.
Time may prove them right, but many economists are dubious. In a recent article in Business Economics, Robert D. Laurent of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago argues that short-term rates reflect the supply of credit, whereas long-term rates reflect demand. Thus, if long rates decline while short-term rates are steady, the implication is that a slowdown lies ahead.
It has happened before. In the second half of 1985 and early 1986, notes Laurent, when long-term rates fell sharply in the face of a stable federal funds rate, most economists were expecting buoyant growth ahead. Instead, first-quarter growth in 1986 came in at just 0.6% and the Fed had to lower rates four times in subsequent months to revive the flagging economy.BY GENE KORETZReturn to top
Return to top
THE HIGH COST OF CORRUPTION
It's a "tax" on foreign investment
The recent agreement by major industrial nations to a treaty outlawing bribery of foreign government officials should actually help many developing nations to attract much needed foreign direct investment. That's an implication of a new study by Harvard University economist Shang-Jin Wei of the impact of corruption on investment flows from 14 source countries to 45 recipient countries in the early 1990s.
Other things being equal, Wei finds that corruption levels act like taxes in deterring foreign investment. He estimates that an increase in a country's level of corruption from that of Singapore, where it is low, to that of Mexico, where it is relatively high, reduces foreign investment as much as a 20-percentage-point increase in the tax rate on foreign corporations.
Despite rumors to the contrary, Wei also finds that corruption in East Asia turns off foreign investors as much as it does in other parts of the globe. And he finds that investors from many other industrial countries besides the U.S. are averse to host country corruption.
Even China, which has attracted a high level of investment despite significant corruption, has received relatively little capital from major industrial countries. Over 60% of its foreign investment in the past decade, notes Wei, has come from overseas Chinese, who "may be able to use personal connections to substitute for the rule of law."BY GENE KORETZReturn to top