23/02/2012: ECB - which side of policy divide?

A very interesting interview today in the WSJ with Mario Draghi (ECB) (link here) (and a HT to @LorcanRK). Some top level points:

"In the European context tax rates are high and government expenditure is focused on current expenditure. A “good” consolidation is one where taxes are lower and the lower government expenditure is on infrastructures and other investments.


The bad consolidation is actually the easier one to get, because one could produce good numbers by raising taxes and cutting capital expenditure, which is much easier to do than cutting current expenditure. That’s the easy way in a sense, but it’s not a good way. It depresses potential growth."

Now, EU austerity so far is primarily focused on (1) keeping taxes high, (2) cutting spending and (3) penalizing offending states (e.g. Hungary) by withdrawing funds for investment. In Ireland, meanwhile, the 1990s consolidation was based on lower taxes (corporate and personal income) and increasing investments (including public investments). The 2008-present consolidation is characterized by rapidly increasing taxes, complete choking off of public investment coupled with massive drop-off in private investment and effectively no cuts to current spending by the State.

Err... now, Draghi, supposedly, is the head of one Troika institution that has capacity to drive or influence policies in Ireland. Why is his description of a 'good' consolidation being exactly canceled by the Irish Government policies that the ECB is partially co-determines, then?

"In Europe first is the product and services markets reform. And the second is the labour market reform which takes different shapes in different countries. In some of them one has to make labour markets more flexible and also fairer than they are today. In these countries there is a dual labour market: highly flexible for the young part of the population where labour contracts are three-month, six-month contracts that may be renewed for years. The same labour market is highly inflexible for the protected part of the population where salaries follow seniority rather than productivity. In a sense labour markets at the present time are unfair in such a setting because they put all the weight of flexibility on the young part of the population."

Once again, quite correctly Mr Draghi identifies labor market rigidities that are clearly present in Ireland. And once again, these very same rigidities are not target of the Irish Government reforms. In fact they are precluded by the Croke Park Agreement that Mr Draghi's Troika is not challenging. What is going on here? Out of two core prescriptive policy sets, both are being wrongly pursued / targeted in Ireland under the watchful eye of Mr Draghi's ECB.

And to top up the proverbial cake: "The European social model has already gone when we see the youth unemployment rates prevailing in some countries. These reforms are necessary to increase employment, especially youth employment, and therefore expenditure and consumption."

Really? Well, EU Commission continues to talk about the Social Model. The irish Government and indeed majority of Government in Europe are continuing to run Social Partnership-linked policy making institutions (though of late, the Social Partnership in Ireland has run onto the rocks of insolvency). Where is Mr Draghi with his views on optimal policies?

12/2/2012: A road map to a cooperative solution for Greek crisis

Papandreou: 'this is a battle between the markets and democracy'.

Greek political discourse - mirroring the received wisdom of the crowds has been reduced to a blatant, and populist lie.

The battles in Greece today are between democracy and European/ECB dogma of preserving the status quo of existent statist system, of which patronage by the State of some markets participants is just an element. Here's why:

1. The markets did not impose ANY conditions on Greece - EU/ECB did. The markets simply refuse to be conned any longer into subsidizing the Greek state through cheap credit. This is the basic right of any participant in the markets - to refuse investing or lending to anyone, just as it is the right of any baker to refuse selling bread to someone with no money and no desire to pay on credit.
2. The markets investors are the injured party - excluding the bottom-fishing hedge funds who bought Greek bonds very recently at hefty discounts. The investors are the only ones who were first deceived by the Greek Governments cooking books and fudging numbers in official statistics. The investors should have known better, but that is not a valid defense of the case against them - they were deceived by fraudulent data reporting by the Greek State (yes, right - politicians, Governments, civil servants). The markets/investors are also the only ones who have to take any writedowns. The ECB and the European Union are taking no writedowns on Greek bonds, and are, in fact, lending Greece 'rescue funds' at a profit. 

I am pointing this not to prevent imposition of losses on Greek bonds investors. They deserve to lose and they should lose more than 70-75% of the face value of their investments in Greek bonds.

I am writing this to point that the battle we are facing in Athens today is between people pushed to a breaking point by the policies of the Governments past, and the EU/ECB.

And there is a way out, folks. Here's what should be done:

1. Impose full losses on Greek bondholders to bring debt/GDP ratio in Greece to 75%. Do same for banks bondholders in Ireland and Spain, and combine these sovereign and banking measures to achieve the same in Portugal and Belgium. Seniority under these arrangements should be as follows: private sector debt holders take the first hit, followed by the public debt holders.
2. All PIIGS bonds held by the ECB are to be transferred into a separate holding fund. This fund is to run between 2012 and 2021. Bonds are to be held in the fund not at face value, but at purchase value to instantaneously reduce debt overhang in these countries. Note: this imposes no loss on ECB until the fund is wound up.
3. The ECB Special Fund (outlined in (2) above) is to monitor the conditions of compliance with real (not the currently identified) reforms aiming to restructure PIIGS economies to put them on the path of private sector-driven growth and fiscal sustainability over 10 years horizon.
4. No coupon payments or principal repayments to be accepted by the ECB on these bonds between 2012 and 2021 to reduce debt overhang drag on the participating economies and improving their fiscal capacity to implement reforms.
5. The bonds held in the ECB fund are to be automatically written down to zero face value in 2021 as long as the participating country meets conditions of implementing the reforms.

The above proposal will eliminate or severely restrict the problem of moral hazard, as countries participating in the programme will be subject to strict reforms programme implementation. The plan will also reduce the burden of repayment of debt on the countries that do stick to the conditions of the reforms. The plan will also bring, gradually, these countries economies to more competitive institutional, fiscal and regulatory environment. In other words, the proposal contains both the sticks (under items (2), (3) and conditionality) and the carrots (items (4) and (5)).

In other words, the fund, as outlined above, would satisfy core objectives of the crisis resolution framework:

• Allow for meaningful change and reforms
• Create an incentive to participate actively in reforms for the countries engaged with the fund
• Reduce moral hazard problem
• Help to establish popular support for reforms by providing real, tangible improvement in the economies ability to sustain reforms

We can't keep fighting battles driven by noble objectives, but based on faulty logic that simply serves the very same elites that have created this crisis. We need to find a cooperative solution to the problems we face.

20/1/2012: A view from ECB's airconditioned halls

I am sure you are all aware of this, but here is a chart on the euro area monetary aggregates:

Do you spot much of drama here? No? How about a snapshot?

No prizes for guessing an answer: there is no drama in monetary policy path chosen by the ECB through the entire period of August 2007-present. None. Which, of course, is surprising, as outside the euro monetary policymakers halls, there was and still is plenty of drama - from banks liquidity crunches, to sovereign debt crises, to sovereign deficits crises, to recessions and double-dips, to unemployment rising, to banks assets valuations crisis, to inflation falling out of sync with FX valuations, to sovereign credit crunches, to socialization of banks losses... and so on. All of the above should have an effect on a monetary policy. Some in less interventionist fashion (but with at least an ex post correlation to the aggregates), and some with more interventionist fashion (with monetary policy being a major tool for dealing with them).

Alas, all is calm, trend(y)-like in the well airconditioned offices of ECB.

1/1/2012: Groundhog Year 2012 - part 2

And on with another summary of 2011. One side of the euro area economy had a boom year in 2011, unlike the rest of us. The boom, of course, was of a very dubious nature, but it is set to continue through 2012. That side was the ECB balance sheet.

Check out the following charts to spot the 'up year' for ECB's 'assets':

But what about ECB's capacity to carry these? Well, of course, ECB doesn't really function like a regular bank, but were it, with capital and reserves finishing 2012 at €81.481bn against total assets of €2,733.2 billion, ECB's leverage currently stands at 3,354%, which is well above 2000-2004 average of 1,372% and 2005-2008 average of 2,180% and 2009 level of 2,609% and 2010 level of leverage of 2,565%.

And, of course, more financial wizardry to come in 2012, folks. So brace yourselves for another 'up-and-up they go' year at ECB.