VERY SOON
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Bathroom Color Guide Gray
HOLD THE COMPANY GENERAL: Wind that shakes PANIC THE THIRD FRENCH BANK CRISIS
HOLD UP TO SOCIETE GENERALE: Wind that shakes PANIC THE THIRD FRENCH BANK
While storms and hurricanes of the subprime crisis continues to ravage across the U.S. , Europe and Asia, yet another earthquake has just shaken the general society. We learn from yesterday (January 24, 2008) that Société Générale has been victim of a fraud concealed one of his Golden Boys (broker) in the person of Jerome Kerviel (trained at the University of Lyon 2 Master Finance). Kerviel, according to the statements of General Management, is a broker for 31 years which enters the box (Bank) in 2000. He worked for 5 years in the oversight board of the Bank (Back Office) before being assigned to the trading floor - a body which sells the securities and the Bank. Our intention here is not of intent to sue broker out to this young pair but wonder about the effectiveness of the charge that he has been subjected in recent days.
The company claims to have recorded an overall loss for impairment of assets caused by the crisis removes about 2 billion euros, it added the 4.9 billion loss on fraud orchestrated by broker (Jerome Kerviel) for almost a year. While most experts agree that it is unlikely he could act alone (at least there's one or accomplices). The real question is wonder how it would be possible for a single senior broker (which barely touches EUR 100000 a year with commission) it happens to conceal an astronomical sum of around EUR 50 billion through the creation of a fictional company in a large bank like Société Générale. As a young professional and talented computer that has already spent 5 years in the oversight board of the Bank, the young broker could foil the workings of the Bank's control. But a problem arises, actually Jerome Kerviel committed an astronomical sum of around EUR 50 billion matured on January 19 last. Discovering fraud, Societe Generale officials have decided to liquidate all the transactions related to this commitment by selling those shares. And that's the problem, since it falls ill in a context marked by the subprime crisis that is ravaging everywhere, mistrust is the norm, then it is normal to sell loss. And that's what happens, Soc Gen was forced to sell shares that were worth 50 billion euros (a sum that exceeds the fund's own Bank! ") At a price of 45 billion Euros in a gloomy atmosphere of financial market and banking sector. Note that if she (Societe Generale) sold the shares in a context of market stability The Bank could have earned capital gains of around 5 billion euros or even more than .5 billion Euros, it's almost the annual income of Societe Generale, almost half the budget of education higher in France (12 billion euros in 2008), 1 / 8 budget deficit of France in 2008 (43 billion euros), so this is money that can do something. Woe then to very talented young broker who obviously lack professional rigor (it has not enriched say about this manipulation just happy to thwart and circumvent the control system Bank). As we have seen, control systems and security system of the big banks are not infallible then. There are still some flaws somewhere. It is the business of the wealthy said one side of the poor and that is true. Remember that the small customers of the Bank will have nothing to fear because of this panic. In France under the 1999 law, bank deposits are insured up to EUR 70000 and in case of force majeure, the Bank of France is here to save the day.
Whatever one may say, we know that these dealers (Golden Boys) have been trained and refer regularly to the theory of portfolio choice of Harry Markowitz (Nobel Prize in economics 1990). This theory states that the choice of a security depends less on fundamental analysis of the issuer that the structure of the portfolio the buyer. One theory as such, it is not infallible, especially in the world of modern finance, where uncertainty is appropriate (this treaty probability of Keynes is still relevant). It's no wonder we have witnessed the suicides at the Golden Boys or Managers of Hedge Funds (investissurs institutional-investment funds) when things go wrong. It is hoped that the young broker is not going to pass something tragic like that.
is an occupational hazard, it is true that Societe Generale will release only 600 or 700 million euros in profits in fiscal 2007 instead of $ 5 billion and more than she was used to grab. A major concern of leaders of the Bank (Societe Generale) is to be acquired by another. The rescue plan for capital increase of around 5, 5 billion euros mentioned yesterday (Thursday, January 24, 2008) shows indeed that it holds up, up proven otherwise. In the world of finance, the theory of Lavoisier: "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything changes" is almost verified. The loss of 7 billion Euros Bank Societe Generale and those 300 billion dollars (214 billion euros, while France's budget is estimated at 276 billion euros in 2008) at the global level because of the subprime crisis 5 (and which continue to ravage) does not disappear, this sum has just changed portfolios. It is the law on the subject: "it takes a winner, there must be a loser in life everyday.
While we wait next earthquake in the financial market and banking sector. Who's next? This is not Africa or Madagascar, but in Europe, the United States - USA and Asia. As usual, Africa remains a spectator of the financial world changing yet remaining the GREAT case!! WHICH MAY BECOME A LITTLE OR DISAPPEAR IN ONE. 
HOLD UP TO SOCIETE GENERALE: Wind that shakes PANIC THE THIRD FRENCH BANK
While storms and hurricanes of the subprime crisis continues to ravage across the U.S. , Europe and Asia, yet another earthquake has just shaken the general society. We learn from yesterday (January 24, 2008) that Société Générale has been victim of a fraud concealed one of his Golden Boys (broker) in the person of Jerome Kerviel (trained at the University of Lyon 2 Master Finance). Kerviel, according to the statements of General Management, is a broker for 31 years which enters the box (Bank) in 2000. He worked for 5 years in the oversight board of the Bank (Back Office) before being assigned to the trading floor - a body which sells the securities and the Bank. Our intention here is not of intent to sue broker out to this young pair but wonder about the effectiveness of the charge that he has been subjected in recent days.
The company claims to have recorded an overall loss for impairment of assets caused by the crisis removes about 2 billion euros, it added the 4.9 billion loss on fraud orchestrated by broker (Jerome Kerviel) for almost a year. While most experts agree that it is unlikely he could act alone (at least there's one or accomplices). The real question is wonder how it would be possible for a single senior broker (which barely touches EUR 100000 a year with commission) it happens to conceal an astronomical sum of around EUR 50 billion through the creation of a fictional company in a large bank like Société Générale. As a young professional and talented computer that has already spent 5 years in the oversight board of the Bank, the young broker could foil the workings of the Bank's control. But a problem arises, actually Jerome Kerviel committed an astronomical sum of around EUR 50 billion matured on January 19 last. Discovering fraud, Societe Generale officials have decided to liquidate all the transactions related to this commitment by selling those shares. And that's the problem, since it falls ill in a context marked by the subprime crisis that is ravaging everywhere, mistrust is the norm, then it is normal to sell loss. And that's what happens, Soc Gen was forced to sell shares that were worth 50 billion euros (a sum that exceeds the fund's own Bank! ") At a price of 45 billion Euros in a gloomy atmosphere of financial market and banking sector. Note that if she (Societe Generale) sold the shares in a context of market stability The Bank could have earned capital gains of around 5 billion euros or even more than .5 billion Euros, it's almost the annual income of Societe Generale, almost half the budget of education higher in France (12 billion euros in 2008), 1 / 8 budget deficit of France in 2008 (43 billion euros), so this is money that can do something. Woe then to very talented young broker who obviously lack professional rigor (it has not enriched say about this manipulation just happy to thwart and circumvent the control system Bank). As we have seen, control systems and security system of the big banks are not infallible then. There are still some flaws somewhere. It is the business of the wealthy said one side of the poor and that is true. Remember that the small customers of the Bank will have nothing to fear because of this panic. In France under the 1999 law, bank deposits are insured up to EUR 70000 and in case of force majeure, the Bank of France is here to save the day.
Whatever one may say, we know that these dealers (Golden Boys) have been trained and refer regularly to the theory of portfolio choice of Harry Markowitz (Nobel Prize in economics 1990). This theory states that the choice of a security depends less on fundamental analysis of the issuer that the structure of the portfolio the buyer. One theory as such, it is not infallible, especially in the world of modern finance, where uncertainty is appropriate (this treaty probability of Keynes is still relevant). It's no wonder we have witnessed the suicides at the Golden Boys or Managers of Hedge Funds (investissurs institutional-investment funds) when things go wrong. It is hoped that the young broker is not going to pass something tragic like that.
is an occupational hazard, it is true that Societe Generale will release only 600 or 700 million euros in profits in fiscal 2007 instead of $ 5 billion and more than she was used to grab. A major concern of leaders of the Bank (Societe Generale) is to be acquired by another. The rescue plan for capital increase of around 5, 5 billion euros mentioned yesterday (Thursday, January 24, 2008) shows indeed that it holds up, up proven otherwise. In the world of finance, the theory of Lavoisier: "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything changes" is almost verified. The loss of 7 billion Euros Bank Societe Generale and those 300 billion dollars (214 billion euros, while France's budget is estimated at 276 billion euros in 2008) at the global level because of the subprime crisis 5 (and which continue to ravage) does not disappear, this sum has just changed portfolios. It is the law on the subject: "it takes a winner, there must be a loser in life everyday.
While we wait next earthquake in the financial market and banking sector. Who's next? This is not Africa or Madagascar, but in Europe, the United States - USA and Asia. As usual, Africa remains a spectator of the financial world changing yet remaining the GREAT case!! WHICH MAY BECOME A LITTLE OR DISAPPEAR IN ONE.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Can You Trade With Vba
DIT-ON!
SAYS CRISIS IS!
1-Financial crisis inevitable
Events and temperaments of financial markets, financial markets, the banking sectors in the U.S., Europe and major Asian financial centers show that Financial crisis is about to shake the global economy. If for some it is too early to confirm that a crisis is looming, for others it is already there. Recall that unlike the recent financial crises (Mexican crisis of 1994, Asia in 1997, Russia in 1998, Argentina in 2001, the LTCM crisis of 2000-2001, today's crisis affects mainly the United States first-world economic power. contagion of the crisis in other parts of the world (Europe, emerging Asia) are already evident. The turmoil and nervousness felt at major European financial markets (London, Paris) and Asia (Hong Kong, Shanghai, Bombay) before yesterday (21 January) that has calmed down a bit yesterday (January 22) demonstrate the interdependence of the global economy . How is it possible that a crisis Delete (mortgage in the U.S.) does affect the financial markets of other countries and regions thousands of kilometers of the outbreak of the crisis? Recall that the stimulus ( tax credit and government grants) of around U.S. $ 140 billion proposed by President George Bush, considered insufficient by financial analysts (Ie the market) that triggered the panic of recent days. The Fed's decision to reduce by three quarters of basis points its key interest rate (policy rate in the current language) has calmed down a little nervousness in financial markets, but the rest (the future) remains incertain.En Great Britain, credit of 30 billion Euros from the Bank of England to save the bankrupt Nothern Bank is already tangible evidence of the seriousness of this crise.Au globally, an estimated $ 300 billion (214 billion euros, or approximately 77.5% of the annual budget of France: 276 billion euros in 2008) have already evaporated after this crisis whose scope is still unknown to this day. One thing is sure, the U.S. goes into recession, but the problem is to know precisely the magnitude of this recession. The U.S. recession will affect the entire global economy, Europe, Asia, Africa but it is the countries that have a privileged economic relationship with the U.S. (link commercial and financial: the dollar zone) that will be most affected.
analysis of the importance of this crisis in developed countries can be understood through the examination of intermediation rate financial (ratio of bank credit / total domestic credit). According Boutiller and Bricongne [2006] in France, the rate of financial intermediation in the strict sense (excluding funds of mutual funds and insurance companies) from 54 to 39%, 5% from 1994 to 2004. This rate increased from 55.4% to 40 4% respectively in 1994 and 2004 if we take into account the credit of mutual funds and insurance companies. The rate of intermediation in the broad sense about him from 76, 2% in 1994 to 58, 8% in 2004. The French economy is an economy of financial markets if we refer rate intermediation in the strict sense (bank intermediation) but it is an economy of debt if you take into account the rate at large.
The situation of four other rich countries (USA, UK, Germany, Spain) deserves mention. Restricting the analysis to the level of intermediation in the strict sense (banking book), the United States and the United Kingdom are already classified in the financial market economy, however, that statement is relative because they are not really far from the border value of 1 / 2 which defines our classification because the rate of intermediation Financial U.S. and the UK have risen respectively to 33.6%, 33, 8% in 1994 to 42.9% and 38.9% in 2000. In 2004, this rate was respectively 47.7% and 46.2%. Germany and Spain are countries cons deserve a place in the countries' debt economics. "A high intermediation Financial of 69.6% in 1994 to 73.4% in 2000 and 68, 6% in 2004, making Germany the first country as intermediary among the richest countries. Spain, with a rate of 46.1% in 1994, 50.6% in 2000 and 60.2% in 2004 remains close. Countries with a rate of intermediation strictly financial (banking book) are important countries who may suffer the disorder over the current crisis.
The question that concerns us here, then, is whether the link between financial sector and real sector of the economy? How the financial sector influences he the real sector of the economy? Y-he has a unique relationship between these two sectors? Restricting the analysis to the theoretical level, our approach is just trying to advance the main debates on existing subject whose main goal is the clarification of a subject little discussed in the circles of discussion and reflection as ours, but which is central in the functioning of our society increasingly financialized that the feeble or not. Economists are divided as to whether or not a causal link or correlation between the financial sector and real sector of the economy.
2-financial sector and real sector: What relationship?
analysis of the interaction of real sector development (through growth) and that is a financial-old debate over a century. The question then arises: "Is the financial industry that draws influence and development of real sector or the reverse occurs? .
Walter Bagehot [1873] and Shumpeter [1911] were the first to highlight the existence of a link between economic growth and financial development. Three positions mark the link between the financial system and economic growth.
i)-The financial sector positively affects economic growth
This first group of authors believe that the financial system has a positive impact on economic growth. These authors such as Walter Bagehot [1873] and John Hicks [1969] that showed the critical role that the financial system played in the rise of industrialization in England by facilitating the mobilization of capital. Schumpeter [1911] emphasizing the importance of banks through technological innovation and financing of entrepreneurs is also in the same order The idea that Bagehot.
work of Gurley and Shaw [1960] (deepening the financial sector's role in the process of economic growth) and Gerschenkron [1962] (which has focused its research in the analysis of development gaps by differences in the banking system ) have illuminated the path in search of the existence of the link between financial sector and economic growth. But subsequent work by Goldsmith [1969] remains a benchmark. In his work, Goldsmith [1969], based on international cross-section data over the period 1860 to 1963 to regress the average growth on financial development defined by the size financial intermediation sector (measured by the value of its assets to GDP).
Later, Mac Kinnon and Shaw [1973] much emphasis on the theory of financial repression, Diamong. Dybvig.P D [1983], Bencivenga and Smith [1991] highlighting the role of the banking sector have helped to renew this approach. Bencivenga, Smith and Starr [1996], Greenwood and Smith [1997], Rousseau and Wachtel [2000] in turn showed that stock market liquidity is important for economic growth.
Recently, the work of King and Levine [1993], Levin [1997, 2000, 2004, 2005] are authoritative and even the basics of fundamental references for the analysis of the interaction between financial development and economic growth . Ross Levine [1997] focusing on a sample of 77 countries over the period 1960-1989 attempted to prove the existence of a formal link between the development of the real sphere and the sphere Financial. Even if the result is hardly conclusive, the author finds significant correlations between some indicators of economic growth and four indices of the maturity of the financial sector: i) - the ratio of liquid liabilities of the sector (currency in circulation and deposits) to GDP ratio, ii) - the primary role of banks in relation to the central bank, iii)-the private sector's share in domestic credit, iv)-outstanding loans from private companies compared GDP. Levine also notes that for 57 countries, the initial level (1960) the first index-liquid liabilities / GDP predicted so significant indicators of GDP growth during the next 30 years. We can also infer from the study of Levine that it is not possible to predict whether the economic growth rate could increase if the fact of how leading financial reforms specific changes for the major sector indices. But financial crises in emerging countries for years 1990 and subsequent years which have greatly destabilized the real sector are formal proofs of the existence of a causal link between financial sector and real sector.
ii)-Economic growth is positively the financial sector
The second group of authors foremost among the Keynesian rather think that Joan Robinson is growth that drives the financial system. For Robinson [1952], economic development creates demands for particular type which meets the financial system as it develops. The financial sector development can thus be interpreted as the result of requests made by the productive sector. Causality is reversed earlier: the growth process requires new modes of financing, which causes the development of the financial sector. This Keynesian view Robinson (as opposed to Schumpeter's vision that gives a central role of banks) based on the premise that: "where the company leads, finance follows." The banks and finance appear as as endogenous responses to the request made by economic agents. However, its contribution in 1979, it seems to qualify his position that approximates the concept of purchasing power of Schumpeter. It recognizes that growth can be hampered by a lack of credit. For Robinson [1979], an economy that has reached a certain level of complexity requires money which is the representation abstract purchasing power from which transactions can take place. Robinson led the vision of reality in a two-way causality. At first the company borrows from a bank, then when the project has borne fruit and increased earnings of the company, she began to issue shares or obligations and repay the loan at the bank, thus restoring its credit to borrow again. The second direction of causality occurs when more or less constant proportion of the investment is financed, increasing the investment rate leads to an increase bank loans. Thus, bank credit caused primarily investment which in turn leads to an increase in national income that accompanies higher levels of investment. This vision in both directions between finance and real development leads to the conclusion that Schumpeter was partly right.
iii)-No formal causality between financial sector and economic growth
This latter group of authors do not believe there is a correlation between formal financial system and economic growth. Robert Lucas [1988] and think that the role of financial factors in growth is exaggerated. Mayer [1988] about him beforehand that a developed stock market is not important for the financing of the company. Stiglitz [1985.1999] corroborates this observation saying that the liquidity of financial markets has no impact on the behavior of managers of companies and therefore does not have some corporate control. Most development economists are also skeptical about the role of the financial system in economic growth. But given the spectacular growth of the literature on endogenous growth, and some authors Berthelemy Varoudakis [1996] have highlighted the ambivalence the relationship between financial development and growth. The result of the study of these two authors leads to the non-linearity between an indicator of financial development and growth. They determined the existence of a minimum threshold of financial development beyond which there may be a causal sense in finances to growth (and this country is a convergence club to another). This correlation can be reversed or negative in the maturity of the financial sector.
In order to better understand our analysis, referring to the mainstream literature, the approach developed by Levine [1993, 1997] will be adopted here. To some extent already, so we adopt the position of Levine and his colleagues that: "The financial sector has a positive impact on growth." But this position is not formal. Levine himself in this work has raised doubts about the universality of causation. This position will provide key indicators of financial development critical to our analysis.
1-2 2-Indicators of financial maturity
As noted by Aghion [2007, p.80]: "In his excellent review of the literature in the Handbook of Economic Growth Ross Levine [2005] summarizes current research on finance and growth. Overall, all current research suggests that countries whose banks and markets work better grow faster, simultaneity bias does not seem to affect these findings, an increased efficiency of financial systems reduces the constraints on financing external companies indicate that this is one mechanism by which the development of financial markets affect growth. "Levine through this statement confirms the existence of a causal link formal between financial development and growth. His seminal article of 1997 helped pull the financial development indicators.
In a 1997 article, Professor Ross Levine [1997] in order to study the relationship between the development of the financial sphere and the real economy has identified four indices to assess the level of development A country's financial. These indicators reflect the state of financial maturity of a country.
i)-financial depth: a measure of the size of the financial sector, gives the ratio of liquid liabilities of the currency area in circulation plus demand deposits and interest bearing liabilities of banks and nonbank financial intermediaries to GDP (M2 / GDP).
ii)-The BANK: a measure of the primary role of banks vis-à-vis the central bank, gives the share of primary banks in the total domestic credit, that is to say the claim of the primary banks, more in-house assets of the central bank.
iii)-the private sector: a measure of the private sector's share in domestic credit, gives the ratio of credit allocated to private firms, excluding state enterprises, relative to total domestic credit net of credit granted to banks. The World Bank through its interventions and the various reports attaches particular importance to private sector development. It says so in the annual report of the World Bank [2007, p.21]: "From diverse markets efficient and well regulated, and a legal and regulatory framework conducive to private sector, allowing companies microenterprises to multinationals to invest productively, create jobs and grow. "
iv)-The Privy: a measure of the importance of private sector credit in the economy whole, gives the ratio of credit to private enterprises (as in iii) relative to GDP.
To these four indices identified by Levine, we will add on to the banks that we call "Banceco.
v)-The BANCECO: It is the ratio of bank credit to GDP. This index is very important because it assesses the importance of banks in financing the economy of a country.
the purposes of Levine, the assumption underlying indices is that the more each of them is high at time t, the faster the future growth of an economy. In other words, more the financial sector is deep (ie more depth is large), more known by the role the private sector in domestic credit, the greater the primary role of banks is large compared to that of the central bank, and credit in circulation in private firms is high relative to the overall economy, and the growth rate of the economy is high.
absence of adequate statistical data and lack of time, we could not really focus the analysis in pratique.Notre step has been precisely to the discussion. 
SAYS CRISIS IS!
1-Financial crisis inevitable
Events and temperaments of financial markets, financial markets, the banking sectors in the U.S., Europe and major Asian financial centers show that Financial crisis is about to shake the global economy. If for some it is too early to confirm that a crisis is looming, for others it is already there. Recall that unlike the recent financial crises (Mexican crisis of 1994, Asia in 1997, Russia in 1998, Argentina in 2001, the LTCM crisis of 2000-2001, today's crisis affects mainly the United States first-world economic power. contagion of the crisis in other parts of the world (Europe, emerging Asia) are already evident. The turmoil and nervousness felt at major European financial markets (London, Paris) and Asia (Hong Kong, Shanghai, Bombay) before yesterday (21 January) that has calmed down a bit yesterday (January 22) demonstrate the interdependence of the global economy . How is it possible that a crisis Delete (mortgage in the U.S.) does affect the financial markets of other countries and regions thousands of kilometers of the outbreak of the crisis? Recall that the stimulus ( tax credit and government grants) of around U.S. $ 140 billion proposed by President George Bush, considered insufficient by financial analysts (Ie the market) that triggered the panic of recent days. The Fed's decision to reduce by three quarters of basis points its key interest rate (policy rate in the current language) has calmed down a little nervousness in financial markets, but the rest (the future) remains incertain.En Great Britain, credit of 30 billion Euros from the Bank of England to save the bankrupt Nothern Bank is already tangible evidence of the seriousness of this crise.Au globally, an estimated $ 300 billion (214 billion euros, or approximately 77.5% of the annual budget of France: 276 billion euros in 2008) have already evaporated after this crisis whose scope is still unknown to this day. One thing is sure, the U.S. goes into recession, but the problem is to know precisely the magnitude of this recession. The U.S. recession will affect the entire global economy, Europe, Asia, Africa but it is the countries that have a privileged economic relationship with the U.S. (link commercial and financial: the dollar zone) that will be most affected.
analysis of the importance of this crisis in developed countries can be understood through the examination of intermediation rate financial (ratio of bank credit / total domestic credit). According Boutiller and Bricongne [2006] in France, the rate of financial intermediation in the strict sense (excluding funds of mutual funds and insurance companies) from 54 to 39%, 5% from 1994 to 2004. This rate increased from 55.4% to 40 4% respectively in 1994 and 2004 if we take into account the credit of mutual funds and insurance companies. The rate of intermediation in the broad sense about him from 76, 2% in 1994 to 58, 8% in 2004. The French economy is an economy of financial markets if we refer rate intermediation in the strict sense (bank intermediation) but it is an economy of debt if you take into account the rate at large.
The situation of four other rich countries (USA, UK, Germany, Spain) deserves mention. Restricting the analysis to the level of intermediation in the strict sense (banking book), the United States and the United Kingdom are already classified in the financial market economy, however, that statement is relative because they are not really far from the border value of 1 / 2 which defines our classification because the rate of intermediation Financial U.S. and the UK have risen respectively to 33.6%, 33, 8% in 1994 to 42.9% and 38.9% in 2000. In 2004, this rate was respectively 47.7% and 46.2%. Germany and Spain are countries cons deserve a place in the countries' debt economics. "A high intermediation Financial of 69.6% in 1994 to 73.4% in 2000 and 68, 6% in 2004, making Germany the first country as intermediary among the richest countries. Spain, with a rate of 46.1% in 1994, 50.6% in 2000 and 60.2% in 2004 remains close. Countries with a rate of intermediation strictly financial (banking book) are important countries who may suffer the disorder over the current crisis.
The question that concerns us here, then, is whether the link between financial sector and real sector of the economy? How the financial sector influences he the real sector of the economy? Y-he has a unique relationship between these two sectors? Restricting the analysis to the theoretical level, our approach is just trying to advance the main debates on existing subject whose main goal is the clarification of a subject little discussed in the circles of discussion and reflection as ours, but which is central in the functioning of our society increasingly financialized that the feeble or not. Economists are divided as to whether or not a causal link or correlation between the financial sector and real sector of the economy.
2-financial sector and real sector: What relationship?
analysis of the interaction of real sector development (through growth) and that is a financial-old debate over a century. The question then arises: "Is the financial industry that draws influence and development of real sector or the reverse occurs? .
Walter Bagehot [1873] and Shumpeter [1911] were the first to highlight the existence of a link between economic growth and financial development. Three positions mark the link between the financial system and economic growth.
i)-The financial sector positively affects economic growth
This first group of authors believe that the financial system has a positive impact on economic growth. These authors such as Walter Bagehot [1873] and John Hicks [1969] that showed the critical role that the financial system played in the rise of industrialization in England by facilitating the mobilization of capital. Schumpeter [1911] emphasizing the importance of banks through technological innovation and financing of entrepreneurs is also in the same order The idea that Bagehot.
work of Gurley and Shaw [1960] (deepening the financial sector's role in the process of economic growth) and Gerschenkron [1962] (which has focused its research in the analysis of development gaps by differences in the banking system ) have illuminated the path in search of the existence of the link between financial sector and economic growth. But subsequent work by Goldsmith [1969] remains a benchmark. In his work, Goldsmith [1969], based on international cross-section data over the period 1860 to 1963 to regress the average growth on financial development defined by the size financial intermediation sector (measured by the value of its assets to GDP).
Later, Mac Kinnon and Shaw [1973] much emphasis on the theory of financial repression, Diamong. Dybvig.P D [1983], Bencivenga and Smith [1991] highlighting the role of the banking sector have helped to renew this approach. Bencivenga, Smith and Starr [1996], Greenwood and Smith [1997], Rousseau and Wachtel [2000] in turn showed that stock market liquidity is important for economic growth.
Recently, the work of King and Levine [1993], Levin [1997, 2000, 2004, 2005] are authoritative and even the basics of fundamental references for the analysis of the interaction between financial development and economic growth . Ross Levine [1997] focusing on a sample of 77 countries over the period 1960-1989 attempted to prove the existence of a formal link between the development of the real sphere and the sphere Financial. Even if the result is hardly conclusive, the author finds significant correlations between some indicators of economic growth and four indices of the maturity of the financial sector: i) - the ratio of liquid liabilities of the sector (currency in circulation and deposits) to GDP ratio, ii) - the primary role of banks in relation to the central bank, iii)-the private sector's share in domestic credit, iv)-outstanding loans from private companies compared GDP. Levine also notes that for 57 countries, the initial level (1960) the first index-liquid liabilities / GDP predicted so significant indicators of GDP growth during the next 30 years. We can also infer from the study of Levine that it is not possible to predict whether the economic growth rate could increase if the fact of how leading financial reforms specific changes for the major sector indices. But financial crises in emerging countries for years 1990 and subsequent years which have greatly destabilized the real sector are formal proofs of the existence of a causal link between financial sector and real sector.
ii)-Economic growth is positively the financial sector
The second group of authors foremost among the Keynesian rather think that Joan Robinson is growth that drives the financial system. For Robinson [1952], economic development creates demands for particular type which meets the financial system as it develops. The financial sector development can thus be interpreted as the result of requests made by the productive sector. Causality is reversed earlier: the growth process requires new modes of financing, which causes the development of the financial sector. This Keynesian view Robinson (as opposed to Schumpeter's vision that gives a central role of banks) based on the premise that: "where the company leads, finance follows." The banks and finance appear as as endogenous responses to the request made by economic agents. However, its contribution in 1979, it seems to qualify his position that approximates the concept of purchasing power of Schumpeter. It recognizes that growth can be hampered by a lack of credit. For Robinson [1979], an economy that has reached a certain level of complexity requires money which is the representation abstract purchasing power from which transactions can take place. Robinson led the vision of reality in a two-way causality. At first the company borrows from a bank, then when the project has borne fruit and increased earnings of the company, she began to issue shares or obligations and repay the loan at the bank, thus restoring its credit to borrow again. The second direction of causality occurs when more or less constant proportion of the investment is financed, increasing the investment rate leads to an increase bank loans. Thus, bank credit caused primarily investment which in turn leads to an increase in national income that accompanies higher levels of investment. This vision in both directions between finance and real development leads to the conclusion that Schumpeter was partly right.
iii)-No formal causality between financial sector and economic growth
This latter group of authors do not believe there is a correlation between formal financial system and economic growth. Robert Lucas [1988] and think that the role of financial factors in growth is exaggerated. Mayer [1988] about him beforehand that a developed stock market is not important for the financing of the company. Stiglitz [1985.1999] corroborates this observation saying that the liquidity of financial markets has no impact on the behavior of managers of companies and therefore does not have some corporate control. Most development economists are also skeptical about the role of the financial system in economic growth. But given the spectacular growth of the literature on endogenous growth, and some authors Berthelemy Varoudakis [1996] have highlighted the ambivalence the relationship between financial development and growth. The result of the study of these two authors leads to the non-linearity between an indicator of financial development and growth. They determined the existence of a minimum threshold of financial development beyond which there may be a causal sense in finances to growth (and this country is a convergence club to another). This correlation can be reversed or negative in the maturity of the financial sector.
In order to better understand our analysis, referring to the mainstream literature, the approach developed by Levine [1993, 1997] will be adopted here. To some extent already, so we adopt the position of Levine and his colleagues that: "The financial sector has a positive impact on growth." But this position is not formal. Levine himself in this work has raised doubts about the universality of causation. This position will provide key indicators of financial development critical to our analysis.
1-2 2-Indicators of financial maturity
As noted by Aghion [2007, p.80]: "In his excellent review of the literature in the Handbook of Economic Growth Ross Levine [2005] summarizes current research on finance and growth. Overall, all current research suggests that countries whose banks and markets work better grow faster, simultaneity bias does not seem to affect these findings, an increased efficiency of financial systems reduces the constraints on financing external companies indicate that this is one mechanism by which the development of financial markets affect growth. "Levine through this statement confirms the existence of a causal link formal between financial development and growth. His seminal article of 1997 helped pull the financial development indicators.
In a 1997 article, Professor Ross Levine [1997] in order to study the relationship between the development of the financial sphere and the real economy has identified four indices to assess the level of development A country's financial. These indicators reflect the state of financial maturity of a country.
i)-financial depth: a measure of the size of the financial sector, gives the ratio of liquid liabilities of the currency area in circulation plus demand deposits and interest bearing liabilities of banks and nonbank financial intermediaries to GDP (M2 / GDP).
ii)-The BANK: a measure of the primary role of banks vis-à-vis the central bank, gives the share of primary banks in the total domestic credit, that is to say the claim of the primary banks, more in-house assets of the central bank.
iii)-the private sector: a measure of the private sector's share in domestic credit, gives the ratio of credit allocated to private firms, excluding state enterprises, relative to total domestic credit net of credit granted to banks. The World Bank through its interventions and the various reports attaches particular importance to private sector development. It says so in the annual report of the World Bank [2007, p.21]: "From diverse markets efficient and well regulated, and a legal and regulatory framework conducive to private sector, allowing companies microenterprises to multinationals to invest productively, create jobs and grow. "
iv)-The Privy: a measure of the importance of private sector credit in the economy whole, gives the ratio of credit to private enterprises (as in iii) relative to GDP.
To these four indices identified by Levine, we will add on to the banks that we call "Banceco.
v)-The BANCECO: It is the ratio of bank credit to GDP. This index is very important because it assesses the importance of banks in financing the economy of a country.
the purposes of Levine, the assumption underlying indices is that the more each of them is high at time t, the faster the future growth of an economy. In other words, more the financial sector is deep (ie more depth is large), more known by the role the private sector in domestic credit, the greater the primary role of banks is large compared to that of the central bank, and credit in circulation in private firms is high relative to the overall economy, and the growth rate of the economy is high.
absence of adequate statistical data and lack of time, we could not really focus the analysis in pratique.Notre step has been precisely to the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)