However, the current economic policy toolkit does not take into account the human component, making crises potentially more frequent and devastating.

The results of the 2008 monetary crisis were still being felt as Theo Kocken, the creator of UK/Dutch consultancy and fiduciary manager Cardano, started dealing with the production of the documentary, which was presented by the late Terry Jones, member of the popular British funny group Monty Python. Kocken, who is also teacher of danger management at VU Amsterdam and chairman of the Cardano Advancement Structure, wished to raise awareness amongst the general public, especially economics students, about the lack of a historical and behavioural viewpoint in the study of financial crises.

Today, thanks to quick reserve bank and financial action, the world seems to have avoided the financial crisis that might have followed the 2020 market crash induced by COVID-19. The economy seems headed towards a robust healing from in 2015’s economic crisis thanks to enormous stimulus. Both reserve banks and governments have modified a few of the long-held beliefs around inflation and austerity.

But Kocken’s views about monetary crises seem more appropriate than ever. Financial obligation as a share of international output is peaking and stock exchange are widely detached from financial truth. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have warned about the possible effects of a high and quick increase in global insolvency. However there is arguably little attention paid to systemic risk.”There is a total detach in between the real economy and the monetary economy. It is not the first time in history that this occurs, of course. However it is becoming worse and even worse, and it is generally due to financial policy that fuels the bliss,” states Kocken.

“The economy is trapped in a vicious cycle, whereby reserve banks have to act quick and strongly to avoid negative effects from shocks like COVID-19. But their actions end up making the long-lasting issue potentially even worse.”

The idea of loss hostility, whereby individuals tend to want to avoid losses more than they wish to make gains, is an effective secret to check out the current scenario, according to Kocken. “Unfavorable rates force those who have big wealth to purchase monetary properties rather of deposits at banks. They are so rich they will not spend more in the real economy,” he says.

Those with low wealth, instead, have to borrow to buy houses at high costs. This financial obligation results in less spending and financial obligation deflation. It is not a surprise that property inflation is high and real-economy inflation is low.

These are the inescapable effects of unfavorable rates and what Kocken calls “quantitative flooding” by reserve banks. Institutional financiers are not unsusceptible to the loss-aversion bias that Kocken describes. That is why, till completion of the first quarter of this year, the tech sector was the primary driver of stock exchange returns.

Kocken is by no way alone in his analysis of the long-lasting results of unfavorable rates but, in his view, the fragility of the system is caused by other elements as well.

“The rules carried out after 2008 have made banks more secure individually, however one-size-fits-all regulation could have unexpected repercussions beyond the banking sector,” he states.

“The reality that banks have actually cut their trading activities implies liquidity in the monetary system has been decreased considerably. At present, there has not been a genuine test of liquidity.”

The substantial development of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) purchasing less liquid credit assets is a potentially weak spot in the system, according to Kocken. That is an area where the pledge of liquidity does not necessarily match the actual liquidity of the underlying properties. Another market that financiers, particularly pension funds, must view carefully is derivatives. The recent changes in guideline around main clearing suggest that the cleaning of derivatives is done specifically through main clearing counterparties (CCPs). There are 13 CCPs authorised in Europe and Kocken points out that such a limited number of market individuals, considered that there disappear than 3 to 4 genuine big players, might trigger unintentional systemic threat.

“I am not stating all these developments are necessarily harmful. For example, banks are well capitalised on a specific level. I am stating these brand-new advancements are untried and it looks like if connectivity has increased in the monetary world. We have rather a different system compared to the 2007 crisis, but the very same level of overvaluation of assets. This is why investors need to concentrate on scenario analysis,” says Kocken.

His technique might seem downhearted, but it is rooted in his threat management-based view. In truth, Kocken states that through group procedures at institutional level, one can become mindful of behavioural predispositions and, to some level, fix them and de-bias the financial investment procedure. “Moreover, our guidance has constantly been to develop convexity in portfolios. To secure portfolios from drawback danger, frequently financiers require to quit part of the benefit. In equity portfolios, that might mean buying choices,” says Kocken.

“When taking threats in portfolios, we promote a Nassim Taleb method, which means taking into consideration tail risks.”

Kocken refers to the ‘black swan’ principle popularised by statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb, which identifies unanticipated occasions that can have a huge impact on portfolios. COVID-19 might well be viewed as an example of a black swan event to some, although Taleb himself does not consider it as such, according to Kocken, whose larger issue is about an abrupt, unforeseen and overall collapse of the financial system.

The other key risk to take into consideration is liquidity. Kocken states: “We encourage clients to consider where they might get access to liquidity if needed. In today’s world, there is a trade-off in between liquidity threat and credit threat, whereby investing in apparently risk-free properties from a credit-risk perspective, such as sovereign bonds, potentially brings unidentified liquidity dangers.

“Investors may want to construct diversified portfolios not just in terms of credit risk however also liquidity. The point is to develop a defence against the risks that can harm the most, nevertheless little. Instead of wishing for the best, it is necessary to likewise get ready for the worst.”