26/8/2012: The way of Berlin in Greek drama

"Those whom the gods wich to destroy, they first make mad" is a proverb that is commonly, but possibly mistakenly, attributed to Euripides, who was, by all official accounts, a Greek, to the bone. In modern parlance - a European, more than that, an ancestor to those we now call citizens of a member state of the euro area, and Schengen, the arrangements that distinguish them as being the members of the European Core. That, and, ... oh one of the three fathers of Greek - Athenian - tragedy.

But enough with history. Whether Euripides authored the above statement or not, it pretty certainly came from Greece. Sophocles uses a similar phrase in Antigone, which pre-dates Euripides' plays.

The latest revival of the rather dated by now idea of granting the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the powers to "monitor the budgets of the member states and punish those that run up a deficit" (reported here) is the case proving the above conjecture.

The extension of such powers would make the ECJ the only court system with the power to oversee and directly influence the fiscal policy of the sovereign states. It will also be the only power that will be allowed to impose sanctions on sovereign states. Even the IMF has no power of similar nature vis-a-vis the states.

But there is more to the above equation. The ECJ is a court, here to decide on the matters relating to the law. Giving it any power resting outside its remit both undermines the system of checks and balances that normally constitute the foundation of any state, and, as the result undermines the legitimacy of the court itself. Blending of the boundaries between the executive (fiscal authority), the legislature (power to budget), and the judiciary delegitimizes all three.

And exactly the same, in my view, applies to the fiscal supervision and oversight powers to be vested with the ECB per another recent plan. No Central Bank in the advanced world has such powers of control over the fiscal policies of the state. You can call it a 'Dictator Draghi' case, but humor aside, the remit creep infecting Europe today is worrisome.

The euro area lead states - Germany in particular - are now locked in a frantic drive to build up institutional solutions to the problem created by the poor design of the common currency union over fifteen years ago. These solutions are not only unlikely to work, but the method of arriving at them is now risking to undermine the still-functional institutions of the European Union as a whole.

Irony has it, we have to turn to Greeks to spot the trend in gods work.

4/5/2012: Sunday Times - 29/4/2012: Fiscal Compact

My Sunday Times article from April 29, 2012 (unedited version).

When first published, the Fiscal Compact (formally known as the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union) was billed as a ground-breaking exercise in European legislative activism. The main innovation of the treaty was not its content (which largely regurgitates already existent fiscal constraints established under the Maastricht Treaty), but its compact size and designed-to-be-digestible language.

Few months down the road, and the Fiscal Compact has become a subject to numerous conflicting claims and interpretations, thanks to both side of the referendum debate in Ireland. Mythology that surrounds the Fiscal Compact is impressively wide and growing. The fog of politicised sloganeering and scaremongering on the ‘Yes’ side is well matched by the clouds of emotive and quasi-economic nonsense from the ‘No’ camp.

The main alleged problem with the Compact is that its core rules – the 60% debt/GDP limit for Government borrowings, the 1/20 adjustment rule for dealing with excess public debt, the 3% deficit ceiling and the 0.5% structural deficit break – amount to prohibiting of the Keynesian economic policies in the future. This argument is commonly advanced by the Fiscal Compact opponents and implies that in the future crises, Ireland will not be able to use stimulative Government spending to support its economy.

In practice, however, Fiscal Compact restricts, but not eliminates the room for deficit financing. In the current economic conditions, under full compliance with the deficit rules, Irish Government would have been able to run a deficit of at least 2.97% of GDP – much lower than 8.6% targeted under Budget 2012, but close to 3.2% deficit forecast for 2012 for the euro area.

Far from ‘killing Keynesianism’, the Fiscal Compact induces in the longer run fiscal policies that are consistent with Keynesian economics. Any state that wants to secure a ‘fiscal stimulus’ cushion for future crises should accumulate surplus resources during the times of economic expansions, not rely on the goodwill of the bond markets to supply debt financing to the Governments when their economies begin to tank.

The treaty does limit significantly the state capacity to accumulate debt in the future. In the long run, debt to GDP ratio should converge to the ratio of average deficits to the long-term growth potential. Based on IMF projections, our structural deficit for 2014-2017 will average over 2.7% of GDP, which implies Fiscal Pact-consistent government deficits around 1.6-1.7% of GDP. Assuming long-term nominal growth of 4-4.5% per annum, our ‘sustainable’ level of debt should be around 36-40% of GDP. Although no one expects (or requires) Ireland to draw down our public debt to these levels any time soon, over decades, this is the level we will be heading toward if we are to comply with the Fiscal Compact rules.

On the ‘Yes’ side, the biggest myth concerning the Fiscal Compact is that adopting the treaty will ensure that no more fiscal crises the likes of which we have experienced since 2008 will befall this state.

In reality, the collapse of exchequer finances in Ireland has been driven by a number of factors, completely outside the matters covered by the Fiscal Compact.

Firstly, significant proportion of our 2008-2011 deficits arises from the state response to the banking sector implosion and closely correlated property sector collapse. The latter was also a primary driver for the decline in tax revenues. The former was a policy choice. Thirdly, our deficits were driven not just by the fiscal performance itself, but also by the unsustainable nature of our government spending and taxation policies. For example, during the boom, Irish Governments consistently acted to increase automatic payments relating to unemployment and social welfare financed on the back of tax revenues windfall from property transactions. Property revenues collapse coincident with increases in unemployment has led to an explosion of unfunded state liabilities.

None of these shocks could have been offset or compensated for by the Fiscal Compact-mandated measures. In fact, during the 2000-2007 period, Irish Governments’ fiscal stance, on the surface, was well ahead of the Fiscal Compact requirements. Ireland satisfied EU Fiscal Compact bound on structural deficits in all years between 2000 and 2007, with exception of two. Of course, in all but one year over the same period, we also failed to satisfy the very same bound if we were to use the IMF-estimated structural deficits in place of those estimated by the EU, but that simply attests to the difficulty of pinning down the exact value of the potential GDP, required to estimate structural deficits. We also satisfied EU-mandated debt break in every year between 2000 and 2008. In fact, between 2000 and 2007 our debt to GDP ratio was below 40% - the benchmark consistent with long-term compliance with the Fiscal Compact. More than fulfilling the requirement for a 3% maximum Government deficit, Irish Exchequer run an average annual net surplus of 1.97% of GDP, accumulating 2000-2007 period surpluses of €11.3 billion and the NPRF reserves which peaked in Q3 2007 at €21.3 billion.

In short, the Fiscal Compact is not a panacea to our current crisis, nor is it a prevention tool capable of automatically correcting future imbalances, especially given the difficulty of forecasting future sources of risk.

Instead, Ireland needs a combination of institutional reforms to enhance our domestic capacity to identify points of rising risks and to deploy policies that can address these risks in advance. A flexible and highly responsive early warning system, such as a truly independent Fiscal Advisory Council, coupled with reformed Civil Service, aiming at achieving real excellence and accountability within the key Departments and regulatory offices can help. Furthermore, abandonment of the consensus-focused systems of governance, eliminating the expenditure-centric Social Partnership and the Dail whip system, and reformed legislative and executive systems to increase the robustness of the checks and balances on local and central authorities, are needed to develop capacity to respond to emerging future crises. Legal reforms, to address the imbalances of power of the vested groups, such as bondholders or state monopolists, vis-à-vis the taxpayers, are required to prevent future bailouts of private and semi-state enterprises at the expense of the Exchequer. Local authorities reforms are required to ensure that the madness of over-development and land speculation do not build up to a systemic crisis. Taxation reforms are needed to stabilize future revenues and develop an economically sustainable tax system.

The Fiscal Compact is a wrong policy for all of the above because it risks creating a confidence trap, which can replace or displace other reforms. It represents a wrong set of objectives, as it diverts state attention from considering the nature of underlying imbalances. It also re-directs much of the fiscal responsibility away from Irish authorities, potentially amplifying the reality gap between the real economy and the decision-makers. By endlessly blaming Europe for tying Government’s hands, the Compact will continue building up voters’ perception disenfranchisement, fueling stronger local political orientation toward parochialism and narrow interests representation, while alienating voters from European institutions.

In short, the Compact is not an end to the politics as usual. This, perhaps, explains why no independent analyst or politician is prepared to vote in favour of the new Treaty except under the threat of the Blackmail Clause contained not in the Fiscal Compact itself, but in the forthcoming ESM Treaty and which requires accession to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union as a pre-condition for gaining access to the ESM funds. Not exactly a moment of glory for either Europe or Ireland.

  

Box-out:

By now, we have become accustomed to the endless repetition of the boisterous claims that the continued declines in Government bond yields since mid-2011 signal the return of the markets confidence in Ireland. Alas, based on the last two months worth of data, things are not exactly going swimmingly for this school of thought. Based on weekly data, Irish benchmark 9-year bond yields spreads over Germany have contracted sharply in year on year terms, falling on average 1.30 percentage points since March 1, 2012 and 1.26 percentage points in April. The former is the second best performance in the euro zone after Italy, and the latter marks the third best performance after Italy and Portugal. Alas, weekly changes have been much less impressive. Since March 1, our yields have actually risen, in weekly terms, with an average rate of increase of 0.02 percentage points. For the month of April, the same metric stands at 0.05 percentage points. The same performance pressure on Ireland is building up in the Credit Default Swaps markets, with our 5 year benchmark CDS spreads declining just 0.24 percentage points compared to Portugal’s 5.2 percentage points drop since a month ago. Overall, European CDS and sovereign bonds markets are now signalling the exhaustion of the positive momentum from the December 2011 and February 2012 LTROs. Ireland’s bonds and CDS are no exception to this rule, suggesting that the ‘special relationship’ that we allegedly enjoy with the markets might be now over.

4/5/2012: Irish Examiner 26/4/2012: Is there an alternative to austerity?

This an unedited version of my article that appeared in the Irish Examiner, April 26, 2012.

However one interprets the core parameters of the fiscal discipline to be imposed under the Fiscal Compact, several facts concerning the new treaty and Ireland’s position with respect to it are indisputable. Firstly, the new treaty will restrict the scope for future exchequer deficits. Combined structural and general deficit targets to be imposed imply a maximum deficit of 2.9-3.0 percent in 2012 as opposed to the IMF-projected general government net borrowing of 8.5% of GDP. Secondly, it will impose a severe long-term debt ceiling, but that condition will not be satisfied by Ireland any time before 2030 or even later.

At the same time, the Troika programme for fiscal adjustment that Ireland is currently adhering to implies a de facto satisfaction of the Fiscal Compact deficit bound after 2015, and non-fulfilment of the structural deficit rule any time between now and 2017. In other words, no matter how we spin it, in the foreseeable future, we will remain a fiscally rouge state, client of the Troika and its successor – the ESM.

Let me run though some hard numbers – all based on IMF latest forecasts. Even under the rather optimistic scenario, Ireland’s real GDP is expected to grow by an average of 2.27% in the period from 2012 through 2017. This is the highest forecast average rate of growth for the entire euro area excluding the Accession states (the EA12 states). And yet, this growth will not be enough to lift us out of the Sovereign debt trap. Averaging just 10.3% of GDP, our total investment in the economy will be the lowest of all EA12 states, while our gross national savings are expected to average just 13.2% of GDP, the second lowest in the EA12.

In short, our real economy will be bled dry by the debt overhang – a combination of the protracted deleveraging and debt servicing costs. It is the combination of the government debt and the unsustainable levels of households’ and corporate indebtedness that is cutting deep into our growth potential, not the austerity-driven reduction in public spending.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion that increasing the national debt beyond the current levels or that increasing dramatically tax burden on the general population – the two measures that would allow us to slow down the rate of reductions in public expenditure planned under the Troika deal – can support any appreciable economic expansion. The reason for this is simple. According to the data, smaller advanced economies with the average Government expenditure burden in the economy of ca 31-35% of GDP have expected growth rates of 3.5% per annum. Countries that have Government spending accounting for 40% and more of GDP have projected rates of growth closer to 1.5% per annum. Ireland neatly falls between the two groups of states both in terms of the Government burden and the economic growth rate.

Despite the already deep austerity, Irish Exchequer will continue running excess spending throughout the adjustment period. Between 2012 and 2017, Irish government net borrowing is expected to average 4.7% of GDP per annum, the second highest in the EA12 group of countries. Put differently, calling on the Government to deploy some sort of fiscal spending stimulus today is equivalent to asking a heart attack patient to run a marathon in the Olympics. Between this year and 2017, our Government will spend some €47.4 billion more than it will collect in taxes, even if the current austerity course continues. Of these, €39 billion of expenditure will go to finance structural deficits, implying a direct cyclical stimulus of more than €8.4 billion.

The exports-driven economy of Ireland simply cannot sustain even the austerity-consistent levels of Government spending. IMF projects that between 2012 and 2017 cumulative current account surpluses in Ireland will be €40 billion. This forecast implies that 2017 current account surplus for Ireland will be €10 billion – a level that is 56 times larger than our current account surplus in 2011. If we are to take a more moderate assumption of current account surpluses running around 2012-2013 projected levels through 2017, our Government deficits are likely to be closer to €53 billion.

In short, there is really no alternative to the austerity, folks, no matter how much we wish for this not to be the case.

Instead, what we do have is the choice of austerity policies to pursue. We can either continue to tax away incomes of the middle and upper-middle classes, or we cut deeper into public expenditure. The former will mean accelerating loss of productivity due to skills and talent outflows from the country, reduced entrepreneurship and starving the younger companies of investment, rising pressure on wages in skills-intensive occupations, while destroying future capacity of the middle-aged families to support themselves through retirement. The latter is the choice to continue reducing our imports-intensive domestic consumption and cutting the spending power of the public sector employees, while enacting deep structural reforms to increase value-for-money outputs in the state sectors. Both choices are painful and short-term recessionary, but only the latter one leads to future growth. The former choice is only consistent with giving vitamins to a cancer-ridden patient – sooner or later, the placebo effect of the ‘stimulus’ will fade, and the cancer of debt overhang will take over once again, with even greater vengeance.

6/2/2012: Fiscal Compact Treaty - Sunday Times 05/02/2012

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from February 5, 2012.

In medical analogy terms, this week’s Fiscal Pact signed by the 25 EU Member States, is equivalent to a misdiagnosed patient (the euro area economy) receiving a potent cocktail of misprescribed medicines.

In other words, the Fiscal Pact is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient solution to the ongoing crisis of the euro area insolvency. Moreover, it saddles the euro area with a choice of only two equally unpalatable alternatives. The first choice is compliance with the Pact that will lead to a situation whereby a one-policy-fits-all monetary framework will be coupled with an equally mismatched one-policy-fits-all fiscal framework. The second choice is business as usual, with continued reckless borrowing, internal and external imbalances and ever deepening links between the sovereign finances, the ECB and the banking sector balancesheets. In other words, there is a choice of either pushing Euro area down the deflationary, stagnation-inducing deleveraging spiral, or leaving it in the current modus operandi of reckless borrowing.

Both alternatives are internecine for Ireland, and both increase the probability of an eventual collapse of the euro over the next 5-10 years.

Suppose the EU member states, opt for the first alternative. As a whole, to comply with the Pact parameters, the Euro area economy will have to shrink by some €535-540 billion every year between now and 2020 – an equivalent of reducing euro area growth by a massive 3.9% annually. Just for the purpose of comparison, during the 2009 recession, Euro area experienced a real decline of overall income of 4.25%.

Ireland will be one of the worst impacted economies in the group courtesy of our excessively high structural deficits, debt to GDP ratio and cyclical deficits. In 2012, Ireland is forecast to post a structural deficit in excess of 5.5% of potential GDP – the highest structural deficit in the entire Euro area. To cut our structural deficit to 0.5% will require reducing annual aggregate demand in the economy by some  €7-8 billion in today’s terms. Debt reductions over the period envisioned within the pact will take an additional €12 billion annually. For an economy with huge private sector debt overhang, paying some 12% of its GDP annually to adhere to the Fiscal Pact is a hefty bill on top of the already massive interest bill on public debt.

Ireland’s fiscal performance under the Fiscal pact constraints, 2012

Sources: author estimates based on the combination of data from the Department of Finance, Budget 2012, IMF World Economic Outlook database, and author own forecasts

Crucially, the idea of the Fiscal Pact as a tool for resolving the structural crisis faced by the Euro area is equivalent to doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome.

The crisis arose because the Euro area combined vastly heterogeneous and complex economies under a one-policy-fits-all monetary umbrella. This has meant that no matter what policy the ECB pursued, interest rates and money supply will never be in synch with all economies within the Euro. The modern economic theory suggests that fiscal transfers can act as automatic stabilizers, correcting for monetary policy disequilibrium.

In European case, this theory is a pipe dream. Firstly, fiscal transfers cannot happen with the same timing as monetary policy changes, especially given the bureaucratic nature of the EU and its institutions’ detachment from the member states’ realities. Take one example – Ireland and other euro areas have been experiencing severe unemployment problems since 2009. Yet, only this week did the EU wake up to the problem and thus far, there are no tangible plans for dealing with it. Automatic stabilizer of fiscal policy will never be timely and responsive enough to undo damages caused by the unsuitable monetary policy. Secondly, fiscal transfers are an imperfect substitute for private sector adjustments to dislocations that monetary policy generates. No need to go beyond the current crisis to see this with aggressive monetary policy interventions since 2008 yielding not an ounce of real economic impact on the ground. Which means that the theoretical stabilizers are not really that effective in stabilizing the economic disruptions caused by monetary policy misfiring. Lastly, neither the current Pact, nor any other institutional arrangements within the Union provide for any automatic fiscal transfers.

Yet, when it comes to the penalties that apply to member states breaching the Pact conditions the new agreement are automatic and very tangible. This imbalance – with the Pact being all stick and no carrot – risks destabilizing economic systems struggling with shocks.

Take for example a country like Ireland. Suppose ECB policy in the future leads to high interest rates – a scenario consistent with the current monetary policy developments. This would imply that our terms of trade will deteriorate, reducing our exports and driving our economy into an external deficit. Simultaneously, slowdown in the economy will put pressures on our fiscal balance. This deterioration will not be consistent with a cyclical recession, implying that we are likely to simultaneously breach the twin deficits targets under the Fiscal Pact, triggering automatic penalties. Economy brought to its knees by the monetary policy mismatch will be forced to pay additional price through fiscal penalties.

In other words, the Pact is now attempting to create another policy system that will risk further detaching fiscal policies within the Euro area from the monetary policy.

When it comes to dealing with the current crisis, the new Pact contains no tools for achieving structural reforms required to arrive at sustainable public finances. Paying down the debts and cutting back deficits requires simultaneously running surpluses on the Exchequer side and the current account side. In other words, both external and internal surpluses must be achieved simultaneously. As international research shows, the likelihood of any state moving from long-term external imbalances to a sustainable current account surplus is extremely low.

Matters are worse when it comes to both fiscal and external balances. My own research based on the Euro area data shows that during 1990-2008, only two euro countries – Finland and Malta – have complied with the Fiscal pact criteria more than 50% of the time. The rest of the member states, including Germany and France, have run sustained deficits more than 60% of the time. Once a euro state found itself stuck in twin current and fiscal deficits in one decade (the 1990s), transitioning to a twin current account and fiscal surplus in the next decade (the 2000s) was virtually impossible. For example of all states in EA17 who were in current account deficit throughout the 1990s, only 2 have managed to achieve current account surpluses during the following decade. Only one country that experienced fiscal deficits in the 1990s has managed to generate fiscal surpluses over the following decade. No country has been successful in restoring fiscal and external balances after a decade of twin deficits.

The Fiscal Pact implies even less flexibility in adopting structural reforms necessary to achieve an already highly unlikely economic transition to the long-term sustainability path for many euro area states, including Ireland.

Consider for example two economies currently in a crisis – Ireland and Portugal. Portugal requires severe and substantial cuts in all public spending and then deep reforms in the private sectors of its economy. The country does not need a debt restructuring, but it needs huge capital injections to put it onto the path of capital investment convergence with the euro area average.

In contrast, Ireland needs restructuring of the private sector debts, deep reforms on the current expenditure side of the Irish exchequer, and more gradual reforms in the private sectors. Ireland has a functional exports generating economy, it has achieved current account surpluses on external side and balance on its Government spending side in the past. During the adjustment, Ireland needs structural reductions in the current spending best timed to start concurrently with the pick up in private sector jobs creation to offset adverse effects of these reforms on the most vulnerable – the unemployed. Ireland also needs to boost its after tax returns to human capital in the medium term – something that Portugal has no need for at this point in time.

There is nothing within the Pact that would facilitate either Portuguese or Irish economic stabilization and recovery. Neither will the Pact improve the chances of Spain, Belgium and Italy ever reaching real growth paths that imply sustainability of fiscal and external balances. In short, the Pact our Government so eagerly subscribed to is at the very best a continuation of the status quo. At its worst, Ireland and other member states of the Euro are now participants to a fiscal suicide pact, having previously signed up to a monetary straightjacket as well.

Box-out:

Last two weeks marked two significant milestones on Ireland’s economic performance front. Despite the adverse newsflow on the real economy side, Irish bond yields for 5 year bonds have dipped below 6% mark last week for the first time since the beginning of the crisis. This week, spreads on the 5 year Credit Default Swaps (the cost of insuring Irish bonds) also fell below 6% mark. For the first time since the crisis began our implied cumulative probability of default (CPD) – the probability that the Irish Government will default on its debt at some point over the next 5 years has touched 40%, down from over 46% at the end of 2011. Although the CPD is a mechanical function of CDS yields and not a statistical estimate of the true risk of the Government default, the CPD is an important metric for the markets. The significant decline in our CDS spreads this week, was prompted by the Irish banks buying into longer maturity bonds in the recent NTMA-led bond swap, plus the overall improving sentiment for sovereign debt in the euro area markets. The later itself was driven by the artificial forces, such as the ECB extending €497 billion to the banks in 3 year money. Nonetheless, our bond yields and CDS spreads declines are starting to show some improvement in overall markets risk-pricing for the Irish Government debt – a much needed stabilization and a moment of respite from the relentless crisis dynamics of the recent past.

12/09/2011: IMF admits failures in debt risk forecasting frameworks

In the analysis published just minutes ago, the IMF ("Modernizing the Framework for Fiscal Policy and Public Debt Sustainability Analysis" by the Fiscal Affairs Department and the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department, dated for internal use from August 5, 2011) implicitly admits deep errors in the methodology for analyzing public debt dynamics. Given the magnitude of errors reported by the IMF (see table summary below), the entire exercise puts the boot into the EU-led attacks on the Big 3 ratings agencies - it turns out that the wise and uncompromisable IMF was not much good at dealing with fiscal sustainability risks either.

Here are the core conclusions: "Modernizing the framework for fiscal policy and public debt sustainability analysis (DSA) has become necessary... [This paper] proposes to move to a risk-based approach to DSAs for all market-access countries, where the depth and extent of analysis would be commensurate with concerns regarding sustainability..."

DSA could be improved, according to the IMF report, through a greater focus on:

• Realism of baseline assumptions: "Close scrutiny of assumptions underlying the baseline scenario (primary fiscal balance, interest rate, and growth rate) would be expected particularly if a large fiscal adjustment is required to ensure sustainability. This analysis should be based on a combination of country-specific information and cross-country experience." (Note that in Ireland's case such analysis would probably require, in my view, using GNP metrics in place of GDP).
• Level of public debt as one of the triggers for further analysis: "Although a DSA is a multifaceted exercise, the paper emphasizes that not only the trend but also the level of the debt-to-GDP ratio is a key indicator in this framework. [Apparently, before the level of debt didn't matter much, just the rate of growth in debt - the deficit - was deemed to be important] The paper does not find a sound basis for integrating specific sustainability thresholds into the DSA framework. However, based on recent empirical evidence, it suggests that a reference point for public debt of 60 percent of GDP be used flexibly to trigger deeper analysis for market-access countries: the presence of other vulnerabilities (see below) would call for in-depth analysis even for countries where debt is below the reference point." [So, now, folks, no formal debt bounds, but 60% is the point of concern. Of course, by that metric, IMF would have to do country-specific analysis for ALL euro area states]
• Analysis of fiscal risks: "Sensitivity analysis in DSAs should be primarily based on country-specific risks and vulnerabilities. The assessment of the impact of shocks could be improved by developing full-fledged alternative scenarios, allowing for interaction among key variables..." [Another interesting point, apparently the existent frameworks fail to consider interacting risks and second order effects. That is like doing earthquake loss projections without considering possibility of a tsunami.]
• Vulnerabilities associated with the debt profile: IMF proposes "to integrate the assessment of debt structure and liquidity issues into the DSA." [Again, apparently, no liquidity risk other than maturity profile analysis is built into current frameworks]
• Coverage of fiscal balance and public debt: "It should be as broad as possible, with particular attention to entities that present significant fiscal risks, including state owned enterprises, public-private partnerships, and pension and health care programs." [It appears that the IMF is gearing toward more in-depth analysis of the unfunded state liabilities, such as longer-term liabilities relating to pensions and health expenditure, as well as more explicitly focusing on unfunded contractual liabilities, such as specific contractual exposures on state pensions. If that is indeed the case, then there is some hope we will see more light shed on the murky waters of forthcoming sovereign exposures that are currently outside the realm of exposures priced in the market.]

Now, several interesting factoids on sovereign debt forecasts and sustainability as per IMF paper.

Here's the summary of IMF own assessment of its forecasting powers when it comes to Ireland: "The 2007 Article IV staff report included a public DSA, which showed that government net debt (defined as gross debt minus the assets of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the Social Insurance Fund) was low and declining. In the baseline scenario, net debt was projected to fall from 12 percent of GDP in 2006 to 6 percent of GDP by 2012. The medium-term debt position was judged to be resilient to a variety of shocks. The worst outcome-a rise in net debt to 16 percent of GDP in 2012-occurred in a growth shock scenario. Staff identified age-related spending pressures as the most significant threat to the long-run debt outlook. The report noted that, although banks had large exposures to the property market, stress tests suggested that cushions were adequate to cover a range of shocks. Net debt to GDP subsequently increased nearly fivefold from 2007 to 2010, owing to a sharp GDP contraction and large fiscal deficits linked mainly to bank recapitalization costs."

No comment needed on the above. The IMF has clearly missed all possible macroeconomic risks faced by the Irish economy back in 2007.

On Greece: "In the 2007 Article IV staff report, staff indicated that fiscal consolidation should be sustained over the medium term given a high level of public debt and projected increases in pension and health care costs related to population aging. ...In the baseline scenario, public debt to GDP was projected to fall from 93 percent in 2007 to 72 percent in 2013. All but one bound test showed debt on a declining path over the medium term. In the growth shock scenario, debt was projected to rise to 98 percent of GDP by 2013. Two years later, staff warned that public debt could rise to 115 percent of GDP by 2010-even after factoring in fiscal consolidation measures implemented by the authorities-and recommended further adjustment to place public debt on a declining path."

So another miss, then, for IMF.

Here's the summary table on these and other forecast errors:

Next, take a look at a handy summary of debt sustainability thresholds literature surveyed by the IMF (largely - sourced from IMF own work):
So for the Advanced Economies (AE), debt thresholds range from 80-150 percent of GDP, the range so wide, it make absolutely no sense. Nor does it present any applicable information. By the lower bound, every euro area country is in trouble, by the upper bound, Greece is the only one that is facing the music. Longer term sustainability bound is a bit narrower - from 50% to 75%, with maximum sustainable debt levels of 183-192%.

And, for the last bit, off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities and actual debt levels chart:
Here's an interesting thing. Consider NPV of pension and health spending that Ireland is at - in excess of aging economies of Italy, Japan and close to shrinking in population Germany. One does have to ask the question: why the hell does the younger economy of Ireland spend so much on age-linked services and funds?

Another thing to notice in the above is that there appears to be virtually no identifiable strong statistical relationship between debt levels and pensions & health expenditures. This clearly suggests that the bulk of age-related spending looking forward is yet to be factored into deficits and debt levels. Good luck with getting that financed through the bond markets, I would add.

Economics 22/7/10: EU stress tests - what do they tell us, really?

The EU stress tests of the banks confirm the worst fears of all analysts – including myself. The tests were simply a PR exercise, so poorly conducted that no one can have any credibility in their outcomes. Worse than that, the whole circus:

• The difficulty with which the EU member states appeared to be willing to release information about the tests;
• The way in which information is being released (via a drip feed – bit by bit over time, with massive leaks beforehand);
• The struggle through which member states have gone in order to even agree to carry out the tests in the first place;
• The rhetoric from the EU regulators assigning an almost heroic quality to its efforts to test the banks in the face of a clear shambolic nature of the whole exercise.
  

All of these things provide for a strong suspicion that the EU will not be able to undertake robust regulation and monitoring of the euro zone banking system in the future, plus a clear cut realization that the entire idea of the euro member states coming together to police their own fiscal behaviour will be even less honest, transparent or robust. In other words, how can we expect the EU to act as a functional policeman of its members fiscal policies if:

1. It failed to do so over years past, even armed with already robust and automatic regime of the Stability & Growth Pact, and
2. It failed to properly stress test its own banks?
   

In the nutshell: German banks, including Landesbanken, have already privately leaked the ‘news’ that they all had passed the test. Ditto for banks in France, Ireland and Italy. Only one German bank – already failed HRE – has failed the test from among 91 institutions.

In the case of AIB – the sick puppy was ‘passed’ by allowing to include into regulators’ calculations the €7.4 billion the bank plans to raise by the end of 2010. Good intentions count for hard evidence, then, per EU regulators. And Bank of Ireland passed - along with all the rest of the PIIGS banks is by the test excluding any possibility of twin shocks - simultaneous continued deterioration in quality of loans and a sovereign debt crisis. Now, in all likelihood, if the sovereign debt crisis continues to rage, does anyone in their right mind thinks that housing and other asset markets in the likes of Ireland and Spain are going to improve to alleviate the loans book pressures?

Farcical!

What the 91 tested banks did ‘pass’ was not a stress test, but a joke, concocted either by those with no understanding of banking (Eurocrats?) or created specifically with an ex ante intent of passing them all. The French and Greek banks privately said that the haircut applied to their holdings of Greek government debt were about 23%. Markets are factoring in 50-70% haircuts, so the EU stress test was less than half as severe as what is being priced already. Worse than that – the sovereign debt haircuts were applied only to bonds held in banks’ trading books. That accounts for just 10% of all Greek bonds held by the euro area banks, as 90% of Greek sovereign debt has been already moved to ‘held to maturity’ parts of banks assets portoflia, not reflected on trading books.

In other words, when it comes to Greek sovereign debt exposure, the EU tests were capturing no more than 5% of the total risk of such exposure for the banks. Like a doctor, looking at the brain activity chart of the patient and saying: ‘Look, there’s no activity at all. But 95% of all other vital signs are performing just fine. Indeed, no worries old man, the patient is still looking 95% alive then…’

And there's more. Per media reports, a memo from Germany's Financial regulator BaFin earlier this year said the real concern should be contagion from "collective difficulties" across the PIIGS, not an isolated default of Greece.

All of this did not prevent Irish stockbrokers from issuing upbeat reports about 'the good news' for BofI and AIB. What good news? The shares in two banks rallied today because someone, somewhere, allegedly decided that if Greece softly defaults, Irish banks will survive? Did that someone actually paused for a second to think, before placing a 'buy' order if Irish banks can survive their own home-made disasters? Or whether they can survive a meltdown of Greek debt default as priced by the markets? Or whether they can survive both happening at the same time?

Irish analysts, who issue these forecasts should be required to read Taleb's 'Fooled by randomness', though one wonders if they will understand much of what Taleb is saying for years now. Investors who chose to belive that AIB and BofI passing of the 'test' this week is some sort of a 'good news' are simply fooling themselves by ignoring a simple fact of life - misdiagnosing a patient with heart attack as being free of an Avian flu is not going to improving the patient's chances of survival. It actually reduces them.

Shamed by this absolutely incompetent, if not outright markets manipulating ‘testing’, you’d think the EU leaders would step back and start an earnest conversation between themselves as to what has gone wrong here. Nope. They are hell bent on creating more Napoleonic sounding, but utterly unrealistic and even disastrously risky plans. This time around – for fiscal harmonization. France and Germany – the two countries that have been clearly at odds with each other in responses to the current crisis have decided that a bout of amicable activism is long overdue. So behold the latest Franco-German alliance on a list of fiscal policy co-ordination proposals.

Per reports in today’s media: a French cabinet meeting took place with German presence, during which Sarkozy called for a complete harmonisation of European tax systems. ‘He did whaaat?!’ I hear you cry… yeah, he did call for that which was explicitly denied by him and the entire EU leadership core as ever having a chance of happening in the run up to the Lisbon II referendum in Ireland.

Now, don’t take me wrong here – this is not a voluntary call for individual states cooperative action – it is a call for an EU-wide ‘reform’. And if you don’t think so, the same meeting called, once again, for member states with excessive deficits to be punished by withdrawal of voting rights in the Council of Ministers, plus a fine and the compulsory imposition of an interest-bearing deposit for member states.

Eurointelligence blog has put it succinctly: “In other words, France and Germany [have called] to continue the same dysfunction regime, except that they strengthen those parts that have prove the most dysfunctional.”

Let me be a tad controversial here - wasn't all of this predicted to happen by Declan Ganley, Anthony Coughlan, Mary Ellen Synon and others who argue in favour of democratic reforms in the EU? Weren't they 'refuted' on exactly these predictions by the entire 'establishment' in Brussels and the all-knowing dons of the Upper Merrion Street? You don't have to agree with their points of view. You might as well agree that the idea of fiscal harmonization is a great thing. But what cannot be denied is that:

1. Any policies absent meaningful ability to honestly, transparently and effectively enforce them (and EU has shown none of these in its stress tests of the banks - the easiest area to deliver them in current political and economic environment) is destined to be nothing more than a bullying pit for some states to arbitrarily control others; and
2. Given grave doubts about EU's capabilities to provide for (a), the automatic default option of any new policies should be to scale opportunism and adopt pragmatic, cautious, incremental reforms approach - when in doubt, measure and caution must be the prevalent guide.
   

After all, if I were a person with the power to shape EU principles, I would adopt the milenia-old medical code of ethics, that is based on the fundamental axiom of morality: Primum non nocere, or First, do no harm.

Then again, adopting such a principle would have meant not conducting these 'stress tests'.