What Was the Asian Financial Crisis?

The Asian financial crisis, also called the “Asian Contagion,” was a sequence of currency devaluations and other events that began in July 1997 and spread across Asia. The crisis started in Thailand when the government ended the local currency’s de facto peg to the U.S. dollar after depleting much of the country’s foreign exchange reserves trying to defend it against months of speculative pressure.

Just weeks after Thailand stopped defending its currency, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia were also compelled to let their currencies fall as speculative market pressure built. By October, the crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the government to the brink of default.

Other economies also came under pressure, but those with solid economic fundamentals and hefty foreign exchange reserves fared much better. Hong Kong fended off several major but unsuccessful speculative attacks on its currency, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar via a currency board system and backed by massive U.S. dollar reserves. 

Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis

As the Thai baht fell, other Asian currencies fell—some precipitously. Across Asia, inflows of capital slowed or reversed.

The Thai baht had been trading at about 26 to the U.S. dollar before the crisis but lost half its value by the end of 1997, falling to 53 to the dollar by January 1998. The South Korean won fell from about 900 to the dollar to 1,695 by the end of 1997. The Indonesian rupiah, which had been trading at around 2,400 to the dollar in June 1997, plummeted to 14,900 by June 1998, less than one-sixth its precrisis level.

Some of the more heavily affected countries fell into severe recession. Indonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth fell from 4.7% in 1997 to -13.1% in 1998. In the Philippines, it slid from 5.2% to -0.5% over the same period. Malaysia’s GDP growth similarly slid from 7.3% in 1997 to -7.4% in 1998, while South Korea’s contracted from 6.2% to -5.1%.

In Indonesia, the ensuing economic crisis led to the collapse of the three-decade-old dictatorship of President Suharto.

The crisis was alleviated by intervention from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank, among others, which poured some $118 billion into Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea to bail out their economies.

As a result of the the crisis, affected countries restructured their economies, generally because the IMF required reform as a condition of help. The specific policy changes were different in each country but generally involved strengthening weak financial systems, lowering debt levels, raising interest rates to stabilize currencies, and cutting government spending.

The crisis also serves as a valuable case study for economists to understand how interwoven markets affect one another, especially as it relates to currency trading and national accounts management.

Causes of the Asian Financial Crisis

The crisis was rooted in several threads of industrial, financial, and monetary government policies and the investment trends that they created. Once the crisis began, markets reacted strongly, and one currency after another came under pressure. Some of the macroeconomic problems included current account deficits, high levels of foreign debt, climbing budget deficits, excessive bank lending, poor debt-service ratios, and imbalanced capital inflows and outflows.

Many of these problems were the result of policies to promote export-led economic growth in the years leading up to the crisis. Governments worked closely with manufacturers to support exports, including providing subsidies to favored businesses, more favorable financing, and a currency peg to the U.S. dollar to ensure an exchange rate favorable to exporters.

While this did support exports, it also created risk. Explicit and implicit government guarantees to bail out domestic industries and banks meant investors often did not assess the profitability of an investment but instead looked to its political support. Investment policies also created cozy relationships among local conglomerates, financial institutions, and the regulators who oversaw their industries. Large volumes of foreign money flowed in, often with little attention to potential risks. These factors all contributed to a massive moral hazard in Asian economies, encouraging major investment in marginal and potentially unsound projects.

As the crisis spread, it became clear that the impressive economic growth rates in these countries were concealing serious vulnerabilities. In particular, domestic credit had expanded rapidly for years, often poorly supervised, creating significant leverage along with loans extended to dubious projects. Rapidly rising real estate values (often fueled by easy access to credit) contributed to the problem, along with rising current account deficits and a buildup in external debt. Heavy foreign borrowing, often at short maturities, also exposed corporations and banks to significant exchange rate and funding risks—risks that had been masked by long-standing currency pegs. When the pegs fell apart, companies that owed money in foreign currencies suddenly owed a lot more in local currency terms, forcing many into insolvency.

Many Asian economies had also slid into current account deficits. If a country has a current account surplus, that means it is essentially a net lender to the rest of the world. If the current account balance is negative, then the country is a net borrower from the rest of the world. Current account deficits had grown on the back of heavy government spending (much of it directed to supporting continued export growth).

Response to the Asian Financial Crisis

The IMF intervened to stem the crisis with loans to stabilize the affected economies. The IMF and others lent roughly $118 billion in short-term loans to Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea. The bailouts came with conditions, though: Governments had to raise taxes, cut spending, and eliminate many subsidies. By 1999, many of the affected countries began to show signs of recovery.

Other financial institutions also intervened. For example, in December 1997, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank brokered a deal under which U.S. banks owed money by South Korean companies on short-term loans voluntarily agreed to roll them over into medium-term loans.

Lessons from the Asian Financial Crisis

Many of the lessons of the Asian financial crisis remain relevant today. First, beware of asset bubbles, as they have a habit of bursting. Another is that governments need to control spending and pursue prudent economic development policies.

The Bottom Line

In 1997, decades of economic policy planning that featured close relationships among government policy planners, regulators, the industries they regulated, and financial institutions came to a head when markets began putting downward pressure on Asian currencies. The most vulnerable were those countries with high levels of debt and insufficient financing to pay it.

The IMF stepped in to bail out the most affected economies, but it imposed strict conditions in exchange for the help. Some measures included requiring governments to cut spending, raise taxes, eliminate subsidies, and restructure their financial systems.

The crisis also serves as a case study in asset bubbles and how quickly panic selling can trigger contagion that central bankers cannot control.

What Is an Alternative Investment?

An alternative investment is a financial asset that does not fall into one of the conventional investment categories. Conventional categories include stocks, bonds, and cash. Alternative investments can include private equity or venture capital, hedge funds, managed futures, art and antiques, commodities, and derivatives contracts. Real estate is also often classified as an alternative investment.

Understanding Alternative Investments

Most alternative investment assets are held by institutional investors or accredited, high-net-worth individuals because of their complex nature, lack of regulation, and degree of risk. Many alternative investments have high minimum investments and fee structures, especially when compared to mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). These investments also have less opportunity to publish verifiable performance data and advertise to potential investors. Although alternative assets may have high initial minimums and upfront investment fees, transaction costs are typically lower than those of conventional assets due to lower levels of turnover.

Most alternative assets are fairly illiquid, especially compared to their conventional counterparts. For example, investors are likely to find it considerably more difficult to sell an 80-year old bottle of wine compared to 1,000 shares of Apple Inc. due to a limited number of buyers. Investors may have difficulty even valuing alternative investments, since the assets, and transactions involving them, are often rare. For example, a seller of a 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle $20 gold coin may have difficulty determining its value, as there are only 13 known to exist and only one can be legally owned.

Regulation of Alternative Investments

Even when they don’t involve unique items like coins or art, alternative investments are prone to investment scams and fraud due to the lack of regulations.

Alternative investments are often subject to a less clear legal structure than conventional investments. They do fall under the purview of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and their practices are subject to examination by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, they usually don’t have to register with the SEC. As such, they are not overseen or regulated by the SEC as are mutual funds and ETFs.

So, it is essential that investors conduct extensive due diligence when considering alternative investments. In some cases, only accredited investors may invest in alternative offerings. Accredited investors are those with a net worth exceeding $1 million—not counting their primary residence—or with an annual income of at least $200,000 (or $300,000 combined with a spousal income). Financial professionals who hold a FINRA Series 7, 65, or 82 license may also qualify as an accredited investor.

Strategy for Alternative Investments

Alternative investments typically have a low correlation with those in standard asset classes. This low correlation means they often move counter to the stock and bond markets. This feature makes them a suitable tool for portfolio diversification. Investments in hard assets, such as gold, oil, and real property, also provide an effective hedge against inflation, which hurts the purchasing power of paper money.

Because of this, many large institutional funds such as pension funds and private endowments often allocate a small portion of their portfolios—typically less than 10%—to alternative investments such as hedge funds.

The non-accredited retail investor also has access to alternative investments. Alternative mutual funds and exchange-traded funds—also called alt funds or liquid alts—are now available. These alt funds provide ample opportunity to invest in alternative asset categories, previously difficult and costly for the average individual to access. Because they are publicly traded, alt funds are SEC-registered and regulated, specifically by the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Example of Alternative Investments

Just being regulated does not mean that alt funds are safe investments. The SEC notes, “Many alternative mutual funds have limited performance histories.”

Also, although its diversified portfolio naturally mitigates the threat of loss, an alt fund is still subject to the inherent risks of its underlying assets. Indeed, the track record of ETFs that specialize in alternative assets has been mixed.

For example, as of January 2022, the SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate ETF had an annualized five-year return of 6.17%. In contrast, the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF posted a return of –6.40% for the same period.

What Is SEC Release IA-1092?

SEC Release IA-1092 is a release from the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) that provides uniform interpretations of how state and federal adviser laws apply to those that provide financial services.

SEC Release IA-1092 builds on the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or the Advisers Act that Congress enacted to protect persons who rely on investment advisers for advice on purchasing and selling securities.

Understanding SEC Release IA-1092

SEC Release IA-1092 is the result of a 1987 collaboration between the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) on the federal side and the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) on the state side.

These organizations issued IA-1092 in 1987 as a memo in response to the proliferation of financial planning and investment advice professionals in the 1980s. The act reaffirmed the definition of an investment adviser (IA) as described in SEC Release IA-770 and added some refinements:

• First, pension consultants and advisers to athletes and entertainers were included as providers of investment advice.
• Second, in some cases, firms that recommend investment advisers also had to register themselves.
• Even if an IA did not render investment advice as their principal business activity, simply doing so with some regularity in many cases was enough to require registration.
• If a registered representative of a broker-dealer set up a separate business entity to provide financial planning or investment advice for a fee, they were not allowed to rely on the broker-dealer (BD) exemption from registration. (This became known as a statutory investment adviser.)
• Compensation did not have to be monetary to fall under the definition. Simply the receipt of products, services, or even discounts was also considered compensation.

With regard to sports or entertainment agents, those individuals that negotiated contracts but did not render investment advice were excluded from the definition of an investment adviser.

SEC Release IA-1092 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 defines an investment adviser as any person who, either directly or indirectly through writings, engages in the business of advising others on the value or profitability of securities and receives compensation for this.

Guidelines for the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 can be found in Title 15 section 80b-1 of the United States Code, which notes that investment advisers are of national concern, due to:

• Their advice, counsel, publications, writings, analyses, and reports being in line with interstate commerce.
• Their work customarily relating to the purchase and sale of securities that trade on national securities exchanges and in interstate over-the-counter (OTC) markets.
• Their connection with securities issued by companies engaged in interstate commerce.
• The volume of transactions often materially affecting interstate commerce, national securities exchanges, other securities markets, the national banking system, and even the economy as a whole.

What Is Aggregate Demand?

Aggregate demand is a measurement of the total amount of demand for all finished goods and services produced in an economy. Aggregate demand is commonly expressed as the total amount of money exchanged for those goods and services at a specific price level and point in time.

Understanding Aggregate Demand

Aggregate demand is a macroeconomic term and can be compared with the gross domestic product (GDP). GDP represents the total amount of goods and services produced in an economy while aggregate demand is the demand or desire for those goods. Aggregate demand and GDP commonly increase or decrease together.

Aggregate demand equals GDP only in the long run after adjusting for the price level. Short-run aggregate demand measures total output for a single nominal price level without adjusting for inflation. Other variations in calculations can occur depending on the methodologies used and the various components.

Aggregate demand consists of all consumer goods, capital goods, exports, imports, and government spending programs. All variables are considered equal if they trade at the same market value.

Aggregate Demand Components

Aggregate demand is determined by the overall collective spending on products and services by all economic sectors on the procurement of goods and services by four components:

Consumption Spending

Consumer spending represents the demand by individuals and households within the economy. While there are several factors in determining consumer demand, the most important is consumer incomes and the level of taxation.

Investment Spending

Investment spending represents businesses’ investment to support current output and increase production capability. It may include spending on new capital assets such as equipment, facilities, and raw materials.

Government Spending

Government spending represents the demand produced by government programs, such as infrastructure spending and public goods. This does not include services such as Medicare or social security, because these programs simply transfer demand from one group to another.

Net Exports

Net exports represent the demand for foreign goods, as well as the foreign demand for domestic goods. It is calculated by subtracting the total value of a country’s exports from the total value of all imports.

Aggregate Demand Formula

The equation for aggregate demand adds the amount of consumer spending, investment spending, government spending, and the net of exports and imports. The formula is shown as follows:

$\begin{aligned} &\text{Aggregate Demand} = \text{C} + \text{I} + \text{G} + \text{Nx} \\ &\textbf{where:}\\ &\text{C} = \text{Consumer spending on goods and services} \\ &\text{I} = \text{Private investment and corporate spending on} \\ &\text{non-final capital goods (factories, equipment, etc.)} \\ &\text{G} = \text{Government spending on public goods and social} \\ &\text{services (infrastructure, Medicare, etc.)} \\ &\text{Nx} = \text{Net exports (exports minus imports)} \\ \end{aligned}$​Aggregate Demand=C+I+G+Nxwhere:C=Consumer spending on goods and servicesI=Private investment and corporate spending onnon-final capital goods (factories, equipment, etc.)G=Government spending on public goods and socialservices (infrastructure, Medicare, etc.)Nx=Net exports (exports minus imports)​

The aggregate demand formula above is also used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to measure GDP in the U.S.

What Affects Aggregate Demand?

Interest Rates

Interest rates affect decisions made by consumers and businesses. Lower interest rates will lower the borrowing costs for big-ticket items such as appliances, vehicles, and homes and companies will be able to borrow at lower rates, often leading to capital spending increases. Higher interest rates increase the cost of borrowing for consumers and companies and spending tends to decline or grow at a slower pace.

Income and Wealth

As household wealth increases, aggregate demand typically increases. Conversely, a decline in wealth usually leads to lower aggregate demand. When consumers are feeling good about the economy, they tend to spend more and save less.

Inflation Expectations

Consumers who anticipate that inflation will increase or prices will rise tend to make immediate purchases leading to rises in aggregate demand. But if consumers believe prices will fall in the future, aggregate demand typically falls.

Currency Exchange Rates

When the value of the U.S. dollar falls, foreign goods will become more expensive. Meanwhile, goods manufactured in the U.S. will become cheaper for foreign markets. Aggregate demand will, therefore, increase. When the value of the dollar increases, foreign goods are cheaper and U.S. goods become more expensive to foreign markets, and aggregate demand decreases.

Economic Conditions and Aggregate Demand

Economic conditions can impact aggregate demand whether those conditions originated domestically or internationally. The financial crisis of 2007-08, sparked by massive amounts of mortgage loan defaults, and the ensuing Great Recession, offer a good example of a decline in aggregate demand due to economic conditions.

With businesses suffering from less access to capital and fewer sales, they began to lay off workers and GDP growth contracted in 2008 and 2009, resulting in a total production contraction in the economy during that period. A poor-performing economy and rising unemployment led to a decline in personal consumption or consumer spending. Personal savings also surged as consumers held onto cash due to an uncertain future and instability in the banking system.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused reductions in both aggregate supply or production, and aggregate demand or spending. Social distancing measures and concerns about the spread of the virus caused a significant decrease in consumer spending, particularly in services as many businesses closed. These dynamics lowered aggregate demand in the economy. As aggregate demand fell, businesses either laid off part of their workforces or otherwise slowed production as employees contracted COVID-19 at high rates.

Aggregate Demand vs. Aggregate Supply

In times of economic crises, economists often debate as to whether aggregate demand slowed, leading to lower growth, or GDP contracted, leading to less aggregate demand. Whether demand leads to growth or vice versa is economists’ version of the age-old question of what came first—the chicken or the egg.

Boosting aggregate demand also boosts the size of the economy regarding measured GDP. However, this does not prove that an increase in aggregate demand creates economic growth. Since GDP and aggregate demand share the same calculation, it only indicates that they increase concurrently. The equation does not show which is the cause and which is the effect.

Early economic theories hypothesized that production is the source of demand. The 18th-century French classical liberal economist Jean-Baptiste Say stated that consumption is limited to productive capacity and that social demands are essentially limitless, a theory referred to as Say’s Law of Markets.

Say’s law, the basis of supply-side economics, ruled until the 1930s and the advent of the theories of British economist John Maynard Keynes. By arguing that demand drives supply, Keynes placed total demand in the driver’s seat. Keynesian macroeconomists have since believed that stimulating aggregate demand will increase real future output and the total level of output in the economy is driven by the demand for goods and services and propelled by money spent on those goods and services.

Keynes considered unemployment to be a byproduct of insufficient aggregate demand because wage levels would not adjust downward fast enough to compensate for reduced spending. He believed the government could spend money and increase aggregate demand until idle economic resources, including laborers, were redeployed.

Other schools of thought, notably the Austrian School and real business cycle theorists stress consumption is only possible after production. This means an increase in output drives an increase in consumption, not the other way around. Any attempt to increase spending rather than sustainable production only causes maldistribution of wealth or higher prices, or both.

As a demand-side economist, Keynes further argued that individuals could end up damaging production by limiting current expenditures—by hoarding money, for example. Other economists argue that hoarding can impact prices but does not necessarily change capital accumulation, production, or future output. In other words, the effect of an individual’s saving money—more capital available for business—does not disappear on account of a lack of spending.

The Bottom Line

Aggregate demand is a concept of macroeconomics that represents the total demand within an economy for all kinds of goods and services at a certain price point. In the long term, aggregate demand is indistinguishable from GDP. However, aggregate demand is not a perfect metric and it is the subject of debate among economists.