16/5/2013: Euro Area 'Austerity' in One Chart

Frankly, folks, there is nothing like making a factual argument across emotive subject lines... I have put up two posts on Euro area 'austerity' - here and here - and the readers want more numbers, usually in hope of finding a hole in my arguments.

Here is, perhaps a better, summary of the Euro area Austerity in its own numbers - in levels of nominal expenditure and revenues:

I hope this settles the issue:

1. Euro area austerity has meant revenues collected by the governments are up
2. Euro area austerity has meant that Government spending is up

Tell me if this is a 'savage cuts' story or a 'tax burden rising' story...

12/5/2013: Much austerity? Not really... & not of the kind we needed

A week ago I published a blogpost exploring IMF data on austerity in Europe, based on a sample of 20 EU countries with advanced levels of economic development (excluding Luxembourg). You can read that post here. The broad conclusions of that post were:

1. There is basically no austerity in Europe, traceable to either changes in deficits, changes in Government spending or changes in debt. If anything, the European fiscal policies can be characterised by a varying degree of fiscal expansionism during the current crisis, relative to the pre-crisis 2003-2007 period.
2. This, of course, does not account for transfers between one set of expenditures (e.g. public investment reductions) and other lines of spending (e.g. banking sector measures).
3. The only area of fiscal policy where austerity is evident is on taxation burden side, which rose in the majority of sampled economies.

The numbers got me worried and in this post I am looking solely on deficits side of Government spending. If there is savage austerity in EU27, so savage it is killing European economies, surely it would show up in General Government deficit numbers. As before all data reported is based on averages and comparatives computed by me from IMF's WEO data as reported in April 2013 edition of the database.

Let's take a closer look.

Only 2 countries out of 20 have recorded a reduction in average deficits during the crisis period (2008-2012) compared to the pre-crisis average (2003-2007). These were Germany, where annual average deficits declined by 0.95 percentage points (pretty significant) and Malta, where annual average deficits fell 0.79 percentage points (also pretty sizeable drop).

On average, EU20 sample annual deficits have increased by a massive 3.44 percentage points over the pre-crisis period. In  non-Euro area states, the average increase was 3.16 percentage points. But in 'savagely austerian' Euro area, the increases averaged 3.51 percentage points.

So far, the Euro area analysts' rhetoric opposing austerity has been focused on 2012 as the year of highest - to-date - cuts. Was this so? Not really:

Again, as above, there is scantly any evidence of deficit reductions, and plenty of evidence that deficits are getting worse and worse. Again, the comparative is not to the absurd levels of spending during peak spending years of the crisis, but to pre-crisis averages. After all, stimulus is not measured by an ever-escalating public spending, but by increase in spending during the recession compared to pre-recession.

The same conclusion can be reached if we look at 2007 deficit compared to 2012 deficit.

In other words, folks, Europe has had, so far, only 3 measurable forms of austerity, none comfortable to the arguments we keep hearing from European Left:

1. Tax increases (remember, we want to soak the rich even more, right?)
2. Revenue re-allocations to banks measures (remember, no one on Europe's official Left has come out with a proposition that banks should not be bailed out) and to social welfare (clearly, the Left would have liked to spend even more on this)
3. Germany

Note: we must recognise the simple fact that social welfare spending will rise in a recession for a good reason. The argument here is not that it should not (that's a different matter for different debate), but that when it does increase, the resulting increase is a form of Government consumption stimulus.

So let's make the following argument: Euro area did not experience 'austerity' in any pure form in the reductions in deficits. Instead, it experienced a 'stimulus' that was simply wasted on programmes and policies that had nothing to do with growth stimulus (e.g. banks supports). Here are two charts to illustrate:

What the charts above clearly show is that Euro area can be divided into three types of member states:

• Type 1: states where cumulated 5 year surpluses over pre-crisis period gave way to cumulated 5 year deficits. These are: Estonia, Finland, Spain and Ireland.
• Type 2: states where cumulated 5 year deficits over the pre-crisis period were replaced by more benign deficits over the crisis period period. These are Germany and Malta.
• Type 3: all other euro area states where cumulated 5 year deficits over pre-crisis period were replaced by even deeper cumulated deficits over the 5 years of the crisis.

The only two types of fiscal policy that Euro area is missing in its entirety is the type where pre-crisis deficits gave way to crisis period cumulated surpluses (no state in the sample delivers on this) and the type where pre-crisis surpluses gave way to shallower crisis-period surpluses (only one European state - Sweden - qualifies here).

Oh, and one last bit relating to the chart above: all of the peripheral countries, save Italy, had a massive increase in deficits on cumulated basis during the crisis compared to pre-crisis period. Apparently this is the savage austerity that has been haunting their economies.


Updated:
An interesting issue raised by one of the readers:

And my response:

2/5/2013: Austerity... savagely over-hyped?..

It was May 1 yesterday and in celebration of that great socialist holiday, "In Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and France tens of thousands of people took to the streets to demand jobs and an end to years of belt-tightening".

Except, no one really asked them what did the mean by 'belt-tightening'. Some, correctly, meant by the term the concept of transfers from taxpayers (usually via higher taxes, rather than spending cuts) to the broken banks, but majority, undoubtedly, we decrying cuts in Government spending. You see, damned austerity is just that (or supposed to be just that): cuts in the levels of expenditure. These can mean reduction in absolute level of spending, or a reduction in spending as a proportion of GDP.

And, you see, not much of that is going on in Europe nowdays, despite all the fierce rhetoric about savage cuts.

Ok, let's do some exercises, using IMF data.

First, consider tax revenues:

In the chart above, I marked with darker columns countries where tax revenues as % of GDP have declined during the current crisis (more precisely, taking average tax revenues fior 2003-2007 pre-crisis boom days and comparing against 2012 outrun). Guess what?

• In % of GDP terms, savage austerity meant that Government revenues have declined by less than 1 percentage point in Cyprus (-0.89 ppt), Czech Republic (-0.64 ppt) and Portugal (-0.08 ppt), the revenues have fallen by between 1 and 2 percentage points in Ireland (-1.26 ppt) and the UK (-1.68 ppt) and have declined by more than 2 percentage points in Denmark (-2.50 ppt), Spain (-3.28 ppt) and Sweden (-3.15 ppt).
• All in, only 8 out of the 20 EU countries considered above (these are all advanced economies of the EU, excluding Luxembourg, where data is so dodgy, no meaningful analysis can be made) have managed to post any declines in Government revenues relative to GDP. All other countries have posted increases. Overall, sample average Government revenues as % of GDP stood at 43.04% in 2003-207 period and this has risen to 43.84% in 2012.
• Now, onto levels of revenues. The sample of countries shown above had combined annual Government revenues of EUR7,791.61 billion in 2003-2007 on average. In 2012 this number stood at a 17.96% premium or EUR9,190.96 billion.
• Of all 20 countries considered, only one - Ireland - had experienced level reduction in Government revenues, which dropped from an annual average of EUR57.896 billion in 2003-2007 period to EUR55.42 billion in 2012.
• As I said above, there is only one meaningful form of austerity in Europe today: austerity of higher tax burdens on people.

Now, let's check out expenditure side of Europe's 'savage austerity' story:

Again, chart above highlights in darker color countries where Government expenditure had declined in 2012 compared to 2003-2007 pre-crisis average in % of GDP terms. The picture hardly shows much of any 'savage cuts' anywhere in sight:

• Of the three countries that experienced reductions in Government spending as % of GDP compared to the pre-crisis period, Germany posted a decline of 1.26 percentage points (from 46.261% of GDP average for 2003-2007 period to 45.005% for 2012), Malta posted a reduction of just 0.349 ppt and Sweden posted a reduction of 1.37 ppt.
• No peripheral country - where protestes are the loudest - or France et al have posted a reduction. In France, Government spending rose 3.44 ppt on pre-crisis level as % of GDP, in Greece by 4.76 ppt, in Ireland by 7.74 ppt, in Italy by 2.773 ppt, in Portugal by 0.562 ppt, and in Spain by 8.0 ppt.
• Average Government spending in the sample in the pre-crisis period run at 44.36% of GDP and in 2012 this number was 48.05% of GDP. In other words: it went up, not down.
• In level terms, things are even uglier for the 'anti-austerians'. Total (for this sample of countries) Government annual spending averaged EUR8,002 billion in 2003-2004 period and this rose to EUR9,941 billion in 2012 a rise in Government spending of whooping 24.2%.
• In level terms, not a single country in the sample of 20 advanced EU economies posted a decline in Government spending from the pre-crisis period to 2012. All posted increases in overall spending ranging between 88% for Estonia, to 7.76% for Portugal. Of all peripheral countries, not one cut a single cent on 2003-20007 average spending levels, with Cyprus hiking spending by whooping 39.8% in 2012 compared to 2003-2007 averages, France delivering a massive increase of 24.9%, Greece raising it modestly by 8.73%, Ireland by a massive 22.01%, Italy by a relatively benign 14.67%, Portugal by the sample lowest rate of 7.76% and Spain by a jaw-dropping 38.67%.
• All in, there is no 'savage austerity' in spending levels or as % of GDP.

So what is going on, folks? May be we can find austerity in deficits? Afterall, Paul Krugman & Co are telling us that we need to run deficits in the economy during recessions and this is the leitmotif to all of the anti-austerian policies proposals?

Savage austerity thesis must find at least a significantly large number of countries where there is no deficit financing going on during the crisis compared to pre-crisis activity, or at least a very large number of countries where deficits have declined compared to pre-crisis activity. Is that the case?

Sorry to say it, folks, errr... No. That is not the case.

• Only three countries in the entire sample of 20 have posted decreases in Government deficits in level and as 5 of GDP terms.
• In level terms, deficits declined in Germany, Italy and Malta. They rose in all other countries. Overall level of deficits in 20 countries analysed rose from EUR40.07 billion in 2003-2007 (annual averages) to EUR127.79 billion in 2012. In other words, during 'savage austerity' deficits tripled, not shrunk.
• In terms of relative weight to GDP, deficits also declined only in three countries - the same three countries as above. 
• Savage austerity meant that deficits increased in all peripheral states save Italy and that across 20 economies, whereas average deficit stood at -1.315% of GDP in 2003-2007 period, that rose to -4.215% of GDP in 2012.

 

As I said above, there are really two reasons for protesting in Europe today against what can very loosely be termed 'austerity':

1. As taxpayers we should protest against higher taxes & charges levied against us by the States to pay for various banks rescue measures and for continued public spending inefficiencies and private sector subsidies (note: I am not saying that all public sector spending is inefficient, I am alleging that some of it remains inefficient today); and
2. As taxpayers and residents we should protest about misallocation of scarce resources (including some public spending) from necessities (e.g. social welfare and unemployment protection, health, education, etc) to rescuing insolvent banks and corporate cronies.

Aside from the above reasons, please spare yourselves the blind belief in various Social Partners-produced spin about 'savage cuts'. All they care for is to increase even more state spending on their pet projects.

27/10/2012: Ireland, Euro Area and US 2013-2016

Another interesting set of data from the Citi Research:

Table 1: These are Citi forecasts for real GDP growth. Two pints of interest:

1. Ireland v Euro area: 2.4 v 0.3 average rates of growth forecast for 2013-2016
2. US v Euro area

On the second point, chart below clearly shows support for my long-held thesis (since 2002 at leas) that in the long run, it is not the US that is decoupling from the World economy, but Europe...

Note: these are not my forecasts. My outlook differs from Citi outlook.

2/12/2011: Euro crisis: wrong medicine for a misdiagnosed patient

There's been much talk about the fiscal union and ECB money printing as the two exercises that can resolve the euro area crises. The problem is that all the well-wishers who find solace in these ideas are missing the very iceberg that is about to sink the  Eurotanic.
 (image courtesy of the ZeroHedge.com):

Let's start from the top. Euro area's problem is a simple one:

• There is too much debt - public and private - as detailed here, and
• There is too little growth - including potential growth - as detailed here.

Oh, and in case you think that discipline is a cure to debt, here's the austerity-impacted expected Government debt changes in 2010-2013, courtesy of the OECD:

In other words, it's not the lack of monetary easing or fiscal discipline, stupid. It's the lack of dynamism in European economy.

Let me explain this in the context of Euro area policies proposals.

• The EU, including member states Governments, believes that causality of the crisis follows as: Loss of market confidence leads to increased funding cost of debt, which in turn causes debt to become unsustainable, which in turn leads to the need for austerity and thus reduces growth rates in the Euro area economies.
• My view is that low growth historically combined with high expectations in terms of social benefits have resulted over the decades in a build up of debt, which was not sustainable even absent the economic recession. Economic recession caused the tipping point in debt sustainability beyond which markets lost confidence in European fundamentals both within the crisis environment, but also, crucially, beyond cyclical recession. My data on structural deficits (linked above) proves the last point.

So while Europe believes that its core malaise is lack of confidence from the markets, I believe that Europe's real disease is lack of growth and resulting high debt levels. Confidence is but a symptom of the disease. 

You can police fiscal neighborhood as much as you want (and some policing is desperately needed), but you can't turn European economy from growth slum to growth engine by doing so. You can also let ECB buy all of the debt of the Euro area members, but short of the ECB then burning the Government bonds on a massively inflationary pyre, you can't do away with the debt overhang. Neither the Euro-bonds (opposed by Germany) nor warehousing these debts on the ECB balance sheet (opposed by Germany & the ECB) will do the trick. Only long-term growth can. And in that department, Europe has no track record to stand on.

Take Italy as an example. Charts below illustrate the country plight today and into 2016. I use two projections scenarios - the mid-range one is from the IMF WEO for September 2011, the adverse one is incorporating OECD forecasts of November 2011, plus the cost of funding Italian debt increasing by 100bps on the current average (quite benign assumption, given that it has increased, per latest auctions by ca 300bps plus).

As chart below shows, Italy is facing a gargantuan-sized funding problem in 2012-2016. Note that the time horizon chosen for the assessment of fiscal sustainability is significant here. You can take two assumptions - the implicit assumption behind the Euro area policy approach that the entire problem of 'lack of markets confidence' in the peripheral states can be resolved fully by 2013, allowing the peripheral countries access to funding markets at costs close to those before the crisis some time around 2013-2014. Or you can make the assumption I am more comfortable with that such access to funding markets for PIIGS is structurally restricted by their debt levels and growth fundamentals. In which case, that date of regaining reasonable access to the funding is pushed well past 2015-2016.

Government deficits form a significant part of the above debt problem in Italy (see below), but what is more important is that even with rosy austerity=success model deployed by the IMF, the rate of decline in Italian public debt envisioned in 2013-2016 is abysmally small (again, see chart below). This rate of decline is driven not by the lack of austerity (deficits are relatively benign), but by the lack of economic growth that deflates debt/GDP and deficit/GDP ratios and contributed to nominal reductions in both debt and deficits.

But the proverbial rabbit hole goes deeper, in the case of Italy. IMF projections - made before September 2011 - were based on rather robust euro area-wide growth of the first quarter of 2011. Since then two things have happened: 

1. There is a massive slowdown in growth in Italy and across the euro area (see here), and
2. Cost of funding Italian debt has risen dramatically (see the second chart below).

These two factors, imperfectly reflected in the forecasts yield my estimation for Italian fiscal sustainability parameters under the 'adverse' scenario.

The above shows why, in the case of Italy, none of the solutions to the crisis presented to-date will work. Alas, pretty much the same applies to all other peripheral countries, including Ireland.

Which means that the latest round of euro area policies activism from Merkozy is simply equivalent to administering wrong medicine in greater doses to the misdiagnosed patient. What can possibly go wrong here?

24/10/2011: Some interesting links

Couple of interesting links on various topics of the crisis:

Fist, my most recent post for The Globe & Mail EconomicsLab: Europe’s (non) bailout plan predictable in its absurdity

Second, a very good graphic from NYTime on debt-default interlinks globally: Chart 1 and an interactive version here.

Third, some interesting points on global yield curves here.

And lastly, a good summary of contagion dynamics from the zerohedge blog which roughly outlines the scenario that I presented on Friday, October 14th, at the American Bar Association meeting in Dublin - that of the inevitable destruction of the euro as we know it (either in composition or in its totality) - here. 

16/10/2011: Hot air balloon of G20 summits

Having by now grown accustomed to the vacuous and pompous non-statements from European leaders of the crisis, one could not have expected much from the G20 summit other than predictable verbal ping pong of the non-EU nations urging Europe to deal with the crisis and the EU representatives returning boisterous claims that the “solution” being presented are “robust”, “timely”, “resolute”, “breakthrough”-like, “decisive”, and so on. This is exactly what is going on.

This weekend’s G20 summit failed to provide for anything different. Here are just few points from the final comments by the participants. The sources are here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/16/us-g-idUSTRE79C74G20111016) and here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/15/us-g20-highlights-idUSTRE79E1DA20111015).

Per French Finance Minister Fracois Baroin, the Euro crisis "…took up a little part of our dinner last night. We presented ... elements of the global and lasting package which heads of state and government will present at the Oct 23 summit. It responds to the Greek issue, the maximization of the EFSF, on the level of core tier 1 with a calendar which will be coordinated by the heads of government for the recapitalization of the banks. It responds, naturally, on the governance of the euro zone... We still have a week to finalize it."

Extraordinary vanity and vacuousness of the statement is self-evident. The idea that the Euro area crisis – pretty much the only reason for G20 gatherings nowdays “took up a little part” is absurdly juxtaposed by the claim that the EU presented “elements of the global… package” for resolution of the crisis. And do note the language: “global package” and “lasting”. To the French, it is rather common to refer to anything that impacts them as “global”, but the stretch of terminology here is obvious – the ‘package’ will have to be about the euro zone. In other words, it is not even pan-European, let alone global!

And then there’s that “lasting” bit. Per report: “The [G20] communique urged the euro zone "to maximize the impact of the EFSF (bailout fund) in order to address contagion". EU officials said the most likely option was to use the 440 billion euro [EFSF] fund to offer partial loss insurance to buyers of stressed member states' bonds in a bid to stabilize the market.” Now, give it a thought. A ‘lasting’ package of ‘solutions’ will use temporary guarantees to buyers of distressed debt?! This begs two questions: (1) How on earth will such use of EFSF address the main problem faced by over-indebted nations, namely the problem of unsustainable debts? Guarantees will not reduce Greek, Portuguese, Irish, Italian and Spanish debts to sustainable levels. (2) If EFSF were to remain a €440bn fund, how can the said amount be sufficient to provide already-committed sovereign financing backstop through 2015-2017, supply funds for banks recapitalizations to cover the shortfalls on sovereign funding, provide additional backstop funds for the sovereign deficits in the future, and underwrite a new tranche of CDS-styled insurance contracts that will have to cover ALL of the debt issuance by the distressed sovereigns? Note: it will require to provide cover for all debt, not just maturities-specific issues in order for it to be meaningful and prevent massive amplification of upward sloping yield curve, leading to potential front-loading of new debt by the distressed states and the resulting dramatic rise in maturity mismatch risks.

Baroin went on to dig himself even deeper into the verbal hole: "I have to tell you in truth that the results of the European Council on October 23 will be decisive… We've made good progress [on Greece] with the German finance minister. There are points of agreement which are emerging rather clearly and we will have an agreement on this point, but it would be premature to say what accord will emerge on Oct 23." In  other words: the summit achieved nothing and we might not even get a resolution ready for October 23^rd summit.

On France position on Greek creditor haircuts: "We will find an answer. [Read: we have no plan] You know the French position which is quite clear: we will refuse any solution that leads to a credit event." So overall, there is no plan and any plan will have to avoid significant write-downs on Greek debt. Or in other words: we have no idea how to solve it, but any solution will be irrelevant, because France wants it to be such.

"Central banks will continue to supply banks with necessary liquidity, we will ensure banks have the necessary capital. This is a very important message central banks are sending." That sounds like ‘do more of the same’ and pray for a different outcome.

"We prepared ambitious decisions for Cannes including a list of systemically important financial institutions." Jeez, what a breakthrough. How about just checking http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/07/BV_STRSTST0711_VF.html list - it’s pretty comprehensive and you don’t need a summit to get it.

My favourite court jester was also out in force with statements. EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn didn’t wait for too long to stick his foot into his mouth:

"The communique of this meeting rightly underlines the urgency and need for decisive action to overcome the sovereign debt crisis and restore confidence in our economies."

Sorry, but does the EU Commissioner still need another communiqué to underline the importance of resolving the greatest crisis his employer faced since foundation of the EU?

"The communique welcomes, since the Washington meeting three weeks ago, that in the EU the reform of the economic governance has been concluded."

What reform, Olli? When and how has it been ‘concluded’? And if the ‘reform has been concluded’, why on earth would you say there’s any ‘urgency to overcome the crisis’?

"It is a very important reform ... It will help us to prevent future crisis"

So that’s it, folks. EU will never have another crisis again. As soon as they can deal with the current one, that is. Which, so far, has taken… oh… like 3 years of wholesale destruction of European economies and wealth.

"Beyond these positive steps, and in order to break the vicious circle, ... we put last week on the table a comprehensive plan, a road map. I am pleased to say that this plan received today a warm welcome from our G20 partners" If so, Olli, why on earth would the G20 continue to urge action?

On the net, the ‘summit’ was just another hot air balloon floating up above the havoc of reality, heading straight into the hurricane. Good luck to all on board.

25/08/2011: National forecasts and systemic upward biases

New research, published today by NBER shows that national growth and budget forecasts in the Euro area tend to overestimate growth and revenue stability than in other advanced economies and are prone to provide more biased estimates in the period of economic expansion.

The paper, titled Over-optimism in Forecasts by Official Budget Agencies and Its Implications, and authored by Jeffrey A. Frankel of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and published as NBER Working paper 17239 (link here):
"... studies forecasts of real growth rates and budget balances made by official government
agencies among 33 countries.

In general, the forecasts are found: (i) to have a positive average bias, (ii) to be more biased in booms, (iii) to be even more biased at the 3-year horizon than at shorter horizons.

This over-optimism in official forecasts can help explain excessive budget deficits, especially the
failure to run surpluses during periods of high output: if a boom is forecasted to last indefinitely, retrenchment is treated as unnecessary."

In contradiction to the Franco-German recent mantra on fixed and centralized budgetary systems, the author states that: "Many believe that better fiscal policy can be obtained by means
of rules such as ceilings for the deficit or, better yet, the structural deficit. But we also find: (iv) countries subject to a budget rule, in the form of euroland’s Stability and Growth Path, make official forecasts of growth and budget deficits that are even more biased and more correlated with booms than do other countries. This effect may help explain frequent violations of the SGP."

In contrast, own budgetary discipline and honesty in forecasts pays off: "One country, Chile, has managed to overcome governments’ tendency to satisfy fiscal targets by wishful thinking rather than by action. As a result of budget institutions created in 2000, Chile’s official forecasts of growth and the budget have not been overly optimistic, even in booms. Unlike many countries in the North, Chile took advantage of the 2002-07 expansion to run budget surpluses, and so was able to ease in the 2008-09 recession."

07/08/2011: Emergency G7 Summit - Policy Dilemma

My latest column in the Globe & Mail on the topic of G7 emergency summit: link here.

05/07/2011: Pre-ECB council meeting note

Here's my (cynical, but) concise summary of the pre-ECB call on rates this week:

We (Euro zone) have:

• Greece being kept alive pretty much for its 'spare parts' (privatizations)
  
• Porto just gone into coma with the latest downgrade of its bonds to junk,
  
• IRL in an ICU on an artificial respirator (see the bottom line on Irish Exchequer expenditure here)
  
• Spain feverish & fading out of consciousness on negative watch and with banks starting to implode (HT to Namawinelake, Spain is facing €660 billion of redemptions in 24 months ahead and with banks providing just 10% provisions cover on €450 billion worth of development loans)
  
• Italy getting the first symptoms of the deadly debt/banks spiral virus (negative watch for ratings and latest signs of banks starting to slip)
  
• Belgium on the trolly about to be wheeled into casualty department
  

In this environment, ECB raising rates this week will be equivalent to shutting off power supply to the entire hospital that is Euro zone.

Economics 12/12/10: Europe's crisis won't be solved by the ideas advanced to-date

The most revealing feature of the EU response to the current crisis is the nation states' and Brussels/Frankfurt total denial of the real problem. We are witnessing a debt crisis stemming from unsustainable levels of liabilities piled onto weak economies in order to finance various forms of social welfare state.

This fact is clearly revealed in the 'solutions' being discussed by the EU leaders:

• Tax and fiscal policies harmonization - Harmonizing PIIGS, German, French and other fiscal systems will not achieve more transparency or discipline than the already existent SGP criteria for deficits and debt allowances delivers on the paper. Nor will it provide for better enforcement of these rules. More importantly, it will not reduce the unsustainable levels of debt accumulated by the citizens and sovereigns of Europe. Instead, the divergence between fiscal objectives of the younger and/or less developed states and those with older population and capital and consumption bases will be amplified.
• The idea that centralized bond issuing mechanism will solve the current crisis is basically equivalent to believing in self-healing properties of the disease that's killing you. Bond markets are shorting European sovereign debt not because it is issued by decentralized authorities, but because EU sovereigns have borrowed too much already and/or assumed too much of the private banking sector debt. To issue even more debt, underwritten by the very same sovereigns is like combating a hangover by drinking more whiskey in the morning. Common EU bond issuance will be repeating the fallacy of securitization that has resulted in the markets saturated with AAA-rated mortgages packages blending AAA and subprime loans.
• Increasing EFSF funding will not solve the problem, for it assumes that EU states are facing a cash flow problem, not a structural debt overhang. As I said before in the Irish and Greek cases - issuing more debt to pay down old debt is simply not going to be a long-term solution to our difficulties.
• Finally, the idea of national currencies or two-tier Euro is even more denialist in its nature than all of the above proposals combined. The argument against it is provided in my article in today's Sunday Independent here.

The core problem is that the EU and the national governments remain blind to the main issue at the center of the current crisis: European social welfare states have accumulated too much debt to sustain status quo. These debts were accumulated via various channels:

• The sovereign channels operated in Italy, Portugal, Belgium and Greece;
• The depressed consumption transferred private incomes into public in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and the Nordics;
• Banking debts socialization and obligations transfers from public spending to private liabilities has led to the debt explosion in Ireland
  

But across the entire Europe, either Governments or private sector or both simply live well beyond their means. The only resolution that can restore health to our economies rests with a two-step structural change:

1. Restructuring debts to reduce debt burdens on the real economy, followed by
2. Restructuring economies to make them leaner, fitter and capable of sustaining growth

Both require re-thinking of the European social welfare state system with a view of making it's core principles sustainable in the environment of economic growth we can deliver. Nothing else will do the job.

Economics 3/10/10: The real stress in Euro area banks

"A picture's worth a 1,000 words" an old proverb goes. So here's a couple of pictures from the latest GFSR analytical papers issued by the IMF last week:

Remember the favourite EU leadership myth: "The Americans caused this crisis". Ok, if so, one would assume that EU banks are in a better position through the crisis than their US counterparts.
If the assertion above was correct, why would the demand for CB financing be so much greater in the EU both in terms of banks demand for liquidity prior to the crisis and after the crisis?

Charts above are confirmed by the even more dramatically divergent case of the banking sectors exposure to the repo operations:
The magnitude of European banks internal sickness in structuring funding - from their chronic dependence on CB funding even at the times of plentiful liquidity, to their massive exposures to repo operations in general is stunning.

If you want to see the really frightening summary of this analysis, here it is, courtesy of the GFSR:
Notice the disproportional over-reliance of Euro area banks on short-term funding (the infamous maturity mismatch) and non-deposits-based long-term funding (the infamous liquidity and counterparty risk-linked bit). Now, check out the healthy US side of deposits finance - you'd think that the picture should be inverted, given Europe's demographics, but no - heading into the massive explosion of retirement age population in EU, our savings play so much smaller of a role in funding our banks, one must wonder: What happens when German consumers start drawing down their deposits to finance their retirement consumption? Will there be anything else left for the future of the continent other than sales of Mercs and BMWs to China?

Economics 19/06/2010: A quote

An unexpected quote (hat tip to Open Europe):

"What went wrong wasn't what happened this year. What went wrong was what happened in the first 11 years of the euro's history. In some ways we were victims of our success...It was like some kind of sleeping pill, some kind of drug. We weren't aware of the underlying problems".

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, 14 June 2010

Perhaps the only thing worth disagreeing here with is the idea that 'we weren't aware':

1. 'I didn't know' is not a legitimate defense for sleeping on the job.
2. Why weren't they listening?
3. Will anyone bear the consequences?
   

Economics 24/04/2010: Greece and Ireland

The unedited version of my op-ed in today's Irish Independent (link here)

“It’s been a brilliant day,” said a friend of mine who manages a large investment fund, as we sat down for a lunch in a leafy suburb of Dublin. “We’ve been exiting Greece’s credit default swaps all morning long.” Having spent a couple of months strategically buying default insurance on Greek bonds, known as CDS contracts, his fund booked extraordinary profits.

This wasn’t luck. Instead, he took an informed bet against Greece, and won. You see, in finance, as in life, that which can’t go on, usually doesn’t: last morning, around 9 am Greek Government has finally thrown in the towel and called in the IMF.

As a precursor to this extraordinary collapse of one of the eurozone’s members, Greece has spent the last ten years amassing a gargantuan pile of public debt. Ever since 1988, successive Greek governments paid for their domestic investment and spending out of borrowed cash. Just as Ireland, over the last 22 years, Greece has never managed to achieve a single year when its Government structural balance – the long-term measure of public finances sustainability – were in the black.

Finally, having engaged in a series of cover-ups designed to conceal the true extent of the problem, the Greek economy has reached the point of insolvency. As of today, Greece is borrowing some 13.6% of its domestic output to pay for day-to-day running of the state. The country debt levels are now in excess of 115%. Despite the promise from Brussels that the EU will stand by Greece, last night Greek bonds were trading at the levels above those of Kenya and Colombia.

Hence, no one was surprised when on Friday morning the country asked the IMF and the EU to provide it with a loan to the tune of €45 billion. This news is not good for the Irish taxpayers.

Firstly, despite the EU/IMF rescue funds, Greece, and with it the Euro zone, is not out of the woods. The entire package of €45 billion, promised to Greece earlier this month is not enough to alleviate longer term pressures on its Government. Absent a miracle, the country will need at least €80-90 billion in assisted financing in 2010-2012.

The IMF cannot provide more than €15 billion that it already pledged, since IMF funds are restricted by the balances held by Greece with the Fund. The EU is unlikely to underwrite any additional money, as over 70% of German voters are now opposing bailing out Greece in the first instance.

All of which means the financial markets are unlikely to ease their pressure on Greece and its second sickest Euroarea cousin, Portugal. Guess who’s the third one in line?

Ireland’s General Government deficit for 2009, as revised this week by the Eurostat, stands at 14.3% - above that of Greece and well above that of Portugal. More worryingly, Eurostat revision opened the door for the 2010 planned banks recapitalizations to be counted as deficit. If this comes to pass, our official deficit will be over 14% of GDP this year, again.

All of this means we can expect the cost of our borrowing to go up dramatically. Given that the Irish Government is engaging in an extreme degree of deficit financing, Irish taxpayers can end up paying billions more annually in additional interest charges. Adding up the total expected deficits between today and 2014, the taxpayers can end up owing an extra €1.14 billion in higher interest payments on our deficits. Adding the increased costs of Nama bonds pushes this figure to over €2.5 billion. Three years worth of income tax levies imposed by the Government in the Supplementary Budget 2009 will go up in smoke.

Second, the worst case scenario – the collapse of the Eurozone still looms large despite the Greeks request for IMF assistance. In this case, Irish economy is likely to suffer an irreparable damage. Restoration of the Irish punt would see us either wiping out our exports or burying our private economy under an even greater mountain of debt, depending on which currency valuation path we take. Either way, without having control over our exit from the euro, we will find ourselves between the rock and the hard place.

Third, regardless of whatever happens with Greece in the next few months, Irish taxpayers can kiss goodby the €500 million our Government committed to the EU rescue fund for Greece. Forget the insanity of Ireland borrowing these funds at ca 4.6% to lend to Greece at ‘close to 5%’. With bonds issuance fees, the prospect of rising interest rates and the effect this borrowing has on our deficit, the deal signed by Brian Cowen on March 26th was never expected to break even for the taxpayers. In reality, the likelihood of Greece repaying back this cash is virtually nil.

Which brings us back to our own problems. What Greek saga has clearly demonstrated is that no matter how severe the crisis might get, one cannot count on the EU’s Rich Auntie Germany to race to our rescue. We have to get our own house in order. Unions – take notice – more deficit financing risks making Ireland a client of the IMF, because in finance, as in life, what can’t go on, usually doesn’t.

Economics 17/03/2010: Stuck in the Euroland

The silver lining to the ongoing PIIGS crisis in the Euroland is that finally, courtesy of the severe pain inflicted by the bonds markets, Brussels (and more importantly the core nation states) is forced to face the music of its own making.

I wrote for years about the sick nature of the European economy - at the aggregate levels and individual countries cases. Today's FT Alphaville article by Lombard Street Research’s Charles Dumas (here) offers another great x-ray of the issue:

Dumas' chart clearly shows just how sick the core Euro area economies are and how structural this sickness is. With exception of the bubble-driven catch-up kids, like Spain, the Euro area has manged to miss the growth boat since the beginning of the last expansion cycle.

"The chart above shows real GDP growth from the end of the last recession… Germany is placed evenly between the Sick Man of Europe, Italy (with no growth at all – the very fact of EMU membership has been enough to crush Italy), and the Sick man of the World, Japan (which at least managed nearly 1% annual growth). Germany’s pathetic advance over eight years was 3½%, less than ½% a year, and one third of the growth of Britain and France…" But France, and the UK, have managed roughly 0.975% annualized growth over the same time. Comparing this to the US at 1.27% puts the picture in clearer perspective.

The problem, of course, is much greater. I wrote before that the real global divergence - over the last 10 years - has been happening not via the emerging economies decoupling from the US, but via Europe's decoupling from the rest of the world. The chart above clearly shows that this significant in economic terms (as the gap between European 'social' economies wealth and income and the US/UK is still growing). But the chart also shows that Europe is also having a much more pronounced recession than the US.

Europe's failure to keep up with the US during the last cycle is made even more spectacular by the political realities of the block. Unlike any other developed country or block, EU has manged to produce numerous centralized plans for growth. Since the late 1990s, aping Nikita Khruschev's 'We will bury you!' address to the US, Brussels has managed to publish a number of lofty programmes - all explicitly aimed at overtaking the US in economic performance. All promised some new 'alternative' way to growth nirvana: Lisbon Agenda was followed by Social Economy, which was displaced by the Knowledge Economy. The latest installment - this year's Agenda 2020 is a mash of all three - the strategies that failed individually are now being mixed up in a noxious cocktail of economic policy confusion, apathy and sloganeering.

But numbers do not lie. The real source of Euro area's crisis is a deeply rooted structural collapse of growth. No amount of waterboarding of the real economy with cheap ECB cash, state bailouts and public deficits financing will get us out of this corner. Tax cuts paid for through fiscal spending reductions could have helped in the long run by deleveraging Europe's economy out of the state control bubble. But this opportunity is now firmly wasted through unprecedented amounts of deficit financing deployed in 2009-2010.

Never mind Greece and the rest of PIIGS, EU has no growth engine to get ourselves out of the Japan-styled (or shall we call it Italy-styled) long term stagnation.

Economics 27/10/2009: What credit flows data tells us...

There is a superb blog post by Ronan Lyons exposing the economic nonsense spun by Nama supporting 'economists' - read HERE. In case you still wonder who that 'mysterious' uber-adviser from Indecon was - well, might it have been Time Magazine-famous (see here) Pat 'Never-Heard-of-Before' McCloughan?..


An interesting data from the ECB: The annual rate of growth of M3 money supply has decreased to 1.8% in September 2009, from 2.6% in August 2009. This marks new deterioration in money growth. The 3mo average of the annual growth rates of M3 over the period July 2009 - September 2009 decreased to 2.5%, from 3.1% in the period of June 2009 - August 2009. Table below summarises:
The annual rate of change of short-term deposits other than overnight deposits decreased to -5.3% in September, from -4.1% in the previous month. This implies that banks are bleeding cash at an increasing rate. In the mean time, the annual rate of change of marketable instruments increased to -8.8% in September, from -9.3% in August. Hmmm - has this anything to do with more aggressive repo operations? Or with more aggressive re-labeling of what constitutes 'marketable' instruments? Or both?

On the asset side of the MFI sector, "the annual growth rate of total credit granted to euro area residents increased to 3.1% in September 2009, from 2.8% in August. The annual rate of growth of credit extended to general government increased to 13.6% in September, from 11.5% in August, while the annual growth rate of credit extended to the private sector was 1.1% in September, unchanged from August." So here we have it - the credit pyramid in full swing. Banks borrow against bonds issued by the state (increasing supply of 'marketable' paper to the ECB). The states promptly issue more bonds that are then bought up by the banks, increasing supply of credit to the governments.

In the mean time the real economy is taking more water: "...the annual rate of change of loans to the private sector decreased to -0.3% in September, from 0.1% in the previous month (adjusted for loan sales and securitisation the annual growth rate of loans to the private sector decreased to 0.9%, from 1.3% in the previous month)." [The latter number means that barring accounting shenanigans with re-classifying and restructuring loans, credit to private sector was falling even faster].

"The annual rate of change of loans to non-financial corporations decreased to -0.1% in September, from 0.7% in August. The annual rate of change of loans to households stood at -0.3% in September, after -0.2% in the previous month. The annual rate of change of lending for house purchase was -0.6% in September, after -0.4% in August. The annual rate of change of consumer credit stood at -1.1% in September, after -1.0% in August, while the annual growth rate of other lending to households was 1.5% in September, after 1.3% in the previous month." Again, the last sentence reflects increases in credit due to arrears (short-term lending to households).

So to summarise, economy is still tanking, while the governments are still monetizing new debt through the banks. Expect a bumper crop of profits from Eurozone financial institutions in months to come as they reap the gains of the government-financing pyramid.

Let me show you some illustrations based on ECB data:

First we have Government borrowing:
followed by non-MFIs
...and non-financial corporations
and finally by the households:

As commented in the charts, this data shows conclusively that the private sectors (non-financial corporations and households) have been:

• accumulating liabilities in the years before crisis in a transfer of the debt off the public sector shoulders onto private economy shoulders; and
• were unable to deleverage in the last 24 months since the onset of the financial crisis.
  

This implies that in years to come, weakened consumers and corporates will be exerting downward pressure on European growth, with interest rates hikes potentially inducing a destabilizing pressure on already over-stretched households and corporates. In this environment:

• any talk about ECB and Governments' 'exit strategies' is premature, unless one is to completely disregard the credit bubble still weighing on non-financial private economy; and
• continued public sector spending stimuli and ECB discount window-reliant monetary policy cannot be a workable solution to the crisis. Instead, there is an acute need for orderly deleveraging in the private economy.