Mahathir Mohamad and others love to blame buccaneering hedge funds for sparking Asia's recent financial crisis, but they have the wrong suspects. The "hot money" that rushed in and out of emerging markets came from irresponsible banks, not hedge funds. In fact, hedge funds are minor players in international finance. Rather than worsening financial turbulence, they might even help curb it.
Martin N. Baily is Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and a former principal of McKinsey & Co. Diana Farrell is a principal of McKinsey. Susan Lund is a consultant there.
All these countries have spent 40 years trying to build up their economies and a moron like Soros comes along with a lot of money to speculate and ruins things.
- Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister of Malaysia, January 1998
TOO DARN HOT
Mahathir's flamboyant rhetoric may be his alone, but his views have gained respectability in the wake of the recent financial crises in Russia and Asia. Famous for moving large sums of money in and out of countries quickly, hedge funds are frequently blamed for destabilizing economies and impoverishing the innocent. As their detractors see it, these funds routinely gamble vast sums of money in shadowy, overleveraged investments, unimpeded by government supervision. And this high-stakes financial poker, critics argue, sparked the volatile "hot-money" flows that undermined emerging markets in 1997 and 1998.
But skeptics thinking about imposing capital controls or otherwise curtailing the activities of hedge funds and other portfolio investors should pause. Those investments were not the prime cause of the volatility of global capital flows. In fact, the hot money in the recent crises came mostly from bank lending, not from hedge funds or other nonbank investments such as pension and mutual funds. International bank lending to emerging markets has often been more volatile than portfolio investments in equities and bonds -- because the vast majority of bank lending has taken the form of short-term loans between banks, not long-term project financing. As capital markets continue to grow, eventually replacing traditional bank lending as the primary source of international financing, capital flows are likely to become less volatile. Moreover, despite all the focus on hedge funds, they remain small when compared to other market players.
These facts reshape the entire global financial debate, which should instead center on how to help countries shift from bank financing to capital markets where the transition has just begun -- while ensuring that their governments and global financial institutions adequately protect investors.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The West often ascribes mystery and chaos to political and economic power in Japan. Yet Japanese power is actually a carefully structured hierarchy, and the capstone is neither big business nor the Ministry of International Trade and Industry but the little-understood and low-profile Ministry of Finance. The MOF controls Japan's equivalents of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It is the prime mover behind Japan's savings rate, distribution of overseas aid, and regulation of monopolies. However obscure, it may well be the most powerful bureaucracy in the world.
With China's economic clout growing rapidly, Americans are accusing Beijing of every offense from currency manipulation to crooked trade policies. None of these charges has much merit, but they have increased the probability of a U.S.-Chinese trade war that would do considerable damage to both sides.
Initially devised to maintain a system of fixed exchange rates, the IMF took on a new role during the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s-providing moderate amounts of credit, facilitating debt renegotiations, and recommending responsible macroeconomic policies. But the IMF is also applying the lessons of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where a fundamental economic restructuring was necessary, to Asia. So in Korea, for example, the fund called for reform of inefficient conglomerates and inflexible labor laws. However beneficial in the long run, such changes are not needed to resolve the current crisis. By stepping in too far and too soon, the IMF discourages countries from seeking modest help. Even worse, it encourages bankers to undertake more risky loans, making another crisis more likely.
