17/6/18: ECB's Shift of Gears Presents Another Set of Risks

My article for Business Post from Friday covering ECB's latest announcements on QE and interest rates: https://www.businesspost.ie/opinion/ecbs-shift-gears-presents-another-set-risks-418797.

4/2/16: Tear Gas v Lagarde’s Tears: Greece

Here’s Greece on pensions reforms:

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/331265-greece-tear-gas-protet/#.VrN56JItCdA.twitter

Here’s IMF on same:

Note: to watch the video comment by Mme Lagarde on Greek situation, please click on this link: http://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/view.aspx?vid=4739363229001 (answer on Greece starts at 22’:22”). Otherwise, here’s official IMF transcript of it:

“I have always said that the Greek program has to walk on two legs: one is significant reforms and one is debt relief. If the pension [system] cannot be as significantly and substantially reformed as needed, we could need more debt relief on the other side. Equally, no [amount of debt relief] will make the pension system sustainable. For the financing of the pension system, the budget has to pay 10 percent of GDP. This is not sustainable. The average in Europe is 2.5 percent. It all needs to add up, but at the same time the pension system needs to be sustainable in the medium and long term. This requires taking short-term measures that will make it sustainable in the long term.

“I really don't like it when we are portrayed as the “draconian, rigorous terrible IMF.” We do not want draconian fiscal measures to apply to Greece, which have already made a lot of sacrifices. We have said that fiscal consolidation should not be excessive, so that the economy could work and eventually expand. But it needs to add up. And the pension system needs to be reformed, the tax collection needs to be improved so that revenue comes in and evasion is stopped. And the debt relief by the other Europeans must accompany that process.  We will be very attentive to  the sustainability of the reforms, to the fact that it needs to add up, and to walk on two legs. That will be our compass for Greece. But we want that country to succeed at the end of the day, but it has to succeed in real life, not on paper.”

Yep. Lots of good words and then there are those ungrateful Greeks who are just refusing to understand:

1. How can Mme Lagarde insist that there’s a second leg (debt relief) where the EU already said, repeatedly, there is none? and
2. How there can be sustainability to the Greek pensions reforms if there are actually people living on them day-to-day who may be unable to take a cut to their pay? Who's going to feed them? Care for them? On what money? Where has IMF published tests of proposed reforms with respect to their impact on pensioners?

Strangely, Mme Lagarde seems to be not that interested in answering either one of these concerns.

26/1/16: Chances of Repairing Greece?..

When someone says that Europe (or anyone else) "has missed a chance to" stabilise or repair or make sustainable or return to growth Greece, whilst referencing any time horizon spanning the last 8 years - be it today or 6 months ago, or at any recent iteration of the Greek crisis, I have two charts to counter their claims:

You can't really be serious when talking about stabilising Greece. Greece has not been stable or sustainable or functioning by its Government deficit metrics ever since 1980, and by Current Account balance in any year over the same time horizon, save for the last 3 years.

Yes, there probably are means and ways to significantly improve sustainability of the Greek economy. But such means and ways would have to be radical enough to undo three and a half decades of systemic mismanagement.

20/9/15: Euromoney: "Cyprus almost as safe as Portugal"

"The Cyprus risk score has steadily improved this year in Euromoney’s crowdsourcing survey, rebounding in Q2, and is seemingly on course for further improvement in Q3 as economists and other risk experts make their latest quarterly assessments. Chalking up almost 53.1 points from a maximum 100 allotted, Cyprus has managed to climb one place in the rankings to 56th out of 186 countries surveyed, leapfrogging India and closing in on Portugal into a more comfortable tier-three position:"

Read more here.

Here are my notes on the topic (to accompany the quote in the article):

In my view, Cypriot economy recovery after 3 years of deep recession and banking sector devastation is still vulnerable to growth reversals and deeply unbalanced in terms of sources for growth. Firstly, the rate of growth is hardly consistent with the momentum required to deliver a meaningful recovery. Cypriot GDP rose 0.2% y/y in 1Q 2015 and 1.2% y/y in 2Q 2015. This comes on foot of 14 consecutive quarters of GDP decline. Quarterly growth rate in 2Q came below flash estimate and expectations.

Positive growth was broadly based, but key investment-focused sector of construction posted negative growth. Deflationary pressures remained in the Cypriot economy with HICP posting -1.9% in August y/y on top of -2.4% in July. Over January-August 2015, HICP stood at -1.6% y/y.

Despite some fragile optimism, the Cypriot Government has been slow to introduce meaningful structural reforms outside the financial sector. The economy remains one of the least competitive (institutionally-speaking) in the euro area, ranked 64th in the World Bank Doing Business 2015 report - a worsening of its position of 62nd in 2014 survey. This compares poorly to the already severely under-performing Greece ranked in 61st place.

Thus, in my view, any significant improvements in the country scores relate to the policy-level post-crisis normalisation, rather than to a measurable improvement in macroeconomic fundamentals.

7/6/15: Greece: How Much Pain Compared to Ireland & Italy

Today, I took part in a panel discussion about Greek situation on NewstalkFM radio (here is the podcast link http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Talking_Point_with_Sarah_Carey/Talking_Point_Panel_Discussion/92249/Greece.#.VXPx-AJaDJQ.twitter) during which I mentioned that Greece has taken unique amount of pain in the euro area in terms of economic costs of the crisis, but also fiscal adjustments undertaken. I also suggested that we, in Ireland, should be a little more humble as to citing our achievements in terms of our own adjustment to the crisis. This, of course, would simply be a matter of good tone. But it is also a matter of some hard numbers.

Here are the details of comparatives between Ireland, Italy and Greece in macroeconomic and fiscal performance over the course of the crises.

Macroeconomic performance:

Fiscal performance:

All data above is based on IMF WEO database parameters and forecasts from April 2015 update.

The above is not to play down our own performance, but to highlight a simple fact that to accuse Greece of not doing the hard lifting on the crisis response is simply false. You can make an argument that the above adjustments are not enough. But you cannot make an argument that the Greeks did not take immense amounts of pain.

Here are the comparatives in various GDP metrics terms:

27/12/2014: Geography of the Euro Area Debt Flows

The debate about who was rescued in the euro area 'peripheral' economies banking crisis will be raging on for years to come. One interesting paper by Hale, Galina and Obstfeld, Maurice, titled "The Euro and the Geography of International Debt Flows" (NBER Working Paper No. w20033, see http://www.nber.org/papers/w20033.pdf) puts some facts behind the arguments.

Per authors, "greater financial integration between core and peripheral EMU members had an effect on both sets of countries. Lower interest rates allowed peripheral countries to run bigger deficits, which inflated their economies by allowing credit booms. Core EMU countries took on extra foreign leverage to expose themselves to the peripherals. The result has been asset-price bubbles and collapses in some of the peripheral countries, area-wide banking crisis, and sovereign debt problems."

The causes explained, the paper maps out "the geography of international debt flows using multiple data sources and provide evidence that after the euro’s introduction, Core EMU countries increased their borrowing from outside of EMU and their lending to the EMU periphery."

So braodly-speaking, core euro area economies funded excesses. Hence, in any post-crisis rescue, they were the beneficiaries of transfers from the 'peripheral' economies and taxpayers.

Some details.

According to Hale and Obstfeld, "one mechanism generating the big current account deficits of the European periphery could be summarized as follows: after EMU (and even in the immediately preceding years), compression of bond spreads in the euro area periphery encouraged excessive borrowing by these countries, domestic lending booms, and asset price inflation. We further argue that a substantial portion of the financial capital flowing into the European periphery was intermediated by the countries in the center (core) of the euro area, inflating both sides of the balance sheet of the large financial institutions in the euro area core."

So, intuitively, lenders/funders of the asset bubbles should be bearing some liability. And it would have been the case were the funds transmitted via equity or direct asset purchases (investment from the Core to the 'periphery' in form of buying shares or actual real estate assets). Alas they were not. "These gross positions largely took the form of debt instruments, often issued and held by banks. Thus, EMU contributed not only to the big net deficits of the peripheral countries, but to inflated gross foreign debt liability and asset positions for nonperipheral countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands – countries that all experienced systemic banking crises after 2007."

Debt, as we know it now, has precedence over equity when it comes to taking a hit in a crisis, and debt is treated on par with deposits. Hence, "the tendency for systemically important banks to increase leverage in line with balance sheet size …implied a substantial increase in financial fragility for these countries’ financial sectors."

In the short run, prior to the crisis, leveraging up from the Core into the 'periphery' had a stimulative effect on asset bubbles. "Four main factors contributed to the suppression of bond yields in the European periphery after the introduction of the euro.
- First, the risk of investing in the European periphery declined with the advent of the euro due to investor assumptions (perhaps erroneous) about future political risks, including the possibility of official bailouts.
- Second, transaction costs declined and currency risk disappeared for euro area investors investing in the periphery countries.
- Third, the ECB’s policy of applying an identical collateral haircut to all euro area sovereigns, notwithstanding their varied credit ratings, encouraged additional demand for periphery sovereign debt by euro area financial institutions, which, moreover, were able to apply zero risk weights to
these assets for computing regulatory capital. The EU’s recent fourth Capital Requirements
Directive continues to allow zero risk weights for euro area sovereign debts, even though the borrowing countries cannot print currency to pay their debts.
- Fourth, financial regulations in the EU were harmonized and the euro infrastructure implied a more efficient payment system though its TARGET settlement mechanism."

Crucially, all four factors combined to reinforce each other giving "…core euro area financial institutions a perceived comparative advantage in terms of lending to the periphery, and this would also likely have affected financial flows from outside to both regions of the euro area.

In line with the above, the authors find:
- "...strong evidence of the increase in the financial flows, both through debt markets and
through bank lending, from core EMU countries to the EMU periphery."
- "… that financial flows from financial centers to core EMU countries increased, but predominantly due to increased bank lending and not portfolio debt flows.
- "In addition, …evidence from the syndicated loan market that is broadly consistent with the core EMU lenders having a comparative advantage in lending to the GIIPS."

Net conclusion: "The concentration of peripheral risks on core EMU lenders’ balance sheets helped to set the stage for the diabolical loop between banks and sovereigns that has been at the heart of the euro crisis."

Authors quote other sources on similar: “German banks could get money at the lower rates in the euro zone and invest it for a decade in higher yielding assets: for much of the 2000s, those were not only American toxic assets but the sovereign bonds of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. For ten years this German version of the carry trade brought substantial profits to the German banks — on the order of hundreds of billions of euros ... The German advantage, relative to all other countries in terms of cost of funding, has developed into an exorbitant privilege. French banks exploited a similar advantage, given their major role as financial intermediaries between AAA-rated countries and higher yielding debtors in the euro area.” (From Carlo Bastasin, Saving Europe: How National Politics Nearly Destroyed the Euro, Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 2012, page 10.)

Charts below summarise flows from Core markets to 'peripheral' markets

CPIS is stock of portfolio debt claims from CPIS data in real USD:

BISC is stock of total international bank claims from consolidated BIS data in real USD:

BISL Flow is valuation-adjusted flows of total cross-border bank claims from locational BIS data in real USD:

And conclusions: "Not only did peripheral countries borrow more after EMU; in addition, financial institutions in the core of the euro area expanded their balance sheets to facilitate peripheral deficits, thereby increasing their own fragility. This pattern set the stage for the diabolical feedback loop between banks and sovereigns that has been such a powerful driver of the euro area's recent crisis."

So next time someone says that 'periphery' is to be blamed for the causes of the crisis, send them here. for in finance, like in dating, it takes two to tango…

10/8/2014: Can EU Rely on Large Primary Surpluses to Solve its Debt Problem?

Another paper relating to debt corrections/deflations, this time covering the euro area case. "A Surplus of Ambition: Can Europe Rely on Large Primary Surpluses to Solve its Debt Problem?" (NBER Working Paper No. w20316) by Barry Eichengreen and Ugo Panizza tackle the hope that current account (external balances) surpluses can rescue Europe from debt overhangs.

Note: I covered a recent study published by NBER on the effectiveness of inflation in deflating public debts here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.it/2014/08/1082014-inflating-away-public-debt-not.html.

Eichengreen and Panizza set out their case by pointing to the expectations and forecasts underpinning the thesis that current account surpluses can be persistent and large enough to deflate Europe's debts. "IMF forecasts and the EU’s Fiscal Compact foresee Europe’s heavily indebted countries running primary budget surpluses of as much as 5 percent of GDP for as long as 10 years in order to maintain debt sustainability and bring their debt/GDP ratios down to the Compact’s 60 percent target." More specifically: "The IMF, in its Fiscal Monitor (2013), sketches a scenario in which the obligations of heavily indebted European sovereigns first stabilize and then fall to the 60 percent level targeted by the EU’s Fiscal Compact by 2030. It makes assumptions regarding interest rates, growth rates and related variables and computes the cyclically adjusted primary budget surplus (the surplus exclusive of interest payments) consistent with this scenario. The heavier the debt, the higher the interest rate and the slower the growth rate, the larger is the requisite surplus. The average primary surplus in the decade 2020-2030 is calculated as

• 5.6 percent for Ireland, 
• 6.6 percent for Italy, 
• 5.9 percent for Portugal, 
• 4.0 percent for Spain, and 
• (wait for it…) 7.2 percent for Greece."

It is worth noting that Current Account Surpluses strategy for dealing with public debt overhang in Ireland has been aggressively promoted by the likes of the Bruegel Institute.

These are ridiculous levels of target current account surpluses. And Eichengreen and Panizza go all empirical on showing why.

"There are  both political and economic reasons for questioning whether they are plausible. As any resident of California can tell you, when tax revenues rise, legislators and their  constituents apply pressure to spend them." No need to go to California, just look at what the Irish Government is about to start doing in Budget 2015: buying up blocks of votes by fattening up public wages and spending. Ditto in Greece: "In 2014 Greece, when years of deficits and fiscal austerity, enjoyed its first primary surpluses; the government came under pressure to disburse a “social dividend” of €525 million to 500,000 low-income households ... Budgeting, as is well known, creates a common pool problem, and the larger the  surplus, the deeper and more tempting is the pool. Only countries with strong political and budgetary institutions may be able to mitigate this problem (de Haan, Jong-A-Pin and Mierau 2013)."

More significantly, Eichengreen and Panizza show that "primary surpluses this large and persistent are rare. In an extensive sample of high- and middle-income countries there are just 3 (non-overlapping) episodes where countries ran primary surpluses of at least 5 per cent of GDP for 10 years." These countries are: Singapore (clearly not a comparable case to Euro area countries), Ireland in the 1990s and New Zealand in the 1990s as well.

"Analyzing a less restrictive definition of persistent surplus episodes (primary surpluses averaging at least 3 percent of GDP for 5 years), we find that surplus episodes are more likely when growth is strong, when the current account of the balance of payments is in surplus (savings rates are high), when the debt-to-GDP ratio is high (heightening the urgency of fiscal adjustment), and when the governing party controls all houses of parliament or congress (its bargaining position is strong). Left wing governments, strikingly, are more likely to run large, persistent primary surpluses. In advanced countries, proportional representation electoral systems that give rise to encompassing coalitions are associated with surplus episodes. The point estimates do not provide much encouragement for the view that a country like Italy will be able to run a primary budget surplus as large and persistent as officially projected."

Good luck spotting such governance institutions in the euro area 'periphery' nowadays. "Researchers at the Kiel Institute (2014) conclude that “assessment of historical developments in numerous countries leads to the conclusion that it is extremely difficult for a country to prevent its debt from increasing when the necessary primary surplus ratio reaches a critical level of more than 5 percent.”"

Eichengreen and Panizza take a sample of 54 emerging and advanced economies over the period 1974-2013. They show that "primary surpluses as large as 5 percent of GDP for as long as a decade are rare; there are just 3 such non-overlapping episodes  in the sample. These cases are special; they are economically and politically idiosyncratic in the sense that their incidence is not explicable by the usual economic and political correlates. Close examination of the three cases suggests that their experience does not scale."

As mentioned above, one case is Ireland, starting from 1991. "Ireland’s experience in the 1990s is widely pointed to by observers who insist  that Eurozone countries can escape their debt dilemma by running large, persistent primary surpluses. Ireland’s move to large primary surpluses was taken in response to an incipient debt crisis: after a period of deficits as high as 8 per cent of GDP, general government debt as a share of GDP reached 110 per cent in 1987. A new government then slashed public spending by 7 per cent of GDP, abolishing some long-standing government agencies, and offered a one-time tax amnesty to delinquents. The result was faster economic growth that then led to self-reinforcing favorable debt dynamics, as revenue growth accelerated and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined even more rapidly with the accelerating growth of its denominator. This is a classic case pointed to by those who believe in the existence of expansionary fiscal consolidations (Giavazzi and Pagano 1990). But it is important, equally, to emphasize that Ireland’s success in running large primary surpluses was supported by special circumstances. The country was able to devalue its currency – an option that is not available to individual Eurozone countries – enabling it sustain growth in the face of large public-spending cuts by crowding in exports. As a small economy, Ireland was in a favorable position to negotiate a national pact (known as the Program for National Recovery) that created confidence that the burden of fiscal austerity would be widely and fairly shared, a perception that helped those surpluses to be sustained. (Indeed, it is striking that every exception considered in this section is a small open economy.) Global growth was strong in the decade of the
1990s (the role of this facilitating condition is emphasized by Hagemann 2013). Ireland, like Belgium, was under special pressure to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and qualify for monetary union in 1999. Finally, the country’s multinational-friendly tax regime encouraged foreign corporations to book their profits in Ireland, which augmented revenues."

The point of this is that "Whether other Eurozone countries – and, indeed, Ireland itself – will be able to pursue a similar strategy in the future is dubious. Thus, while Irish experience has some general lessons for other countries, it also points to special circumstances that are likely to prevent its experience from being generalized."

Another country was New Zealand, starting with 1994. "New Zealand experienced chronic instability in the first half of the 1980s; the budget deficit was 9 percent of GDP in 1984, while the debt ratio was high and rising. Somewhat in the manner of Singapore, the country’s small size and highly open economy heightened the perceived urgency of correcting the resulting problems. New Zealand therefore adopted far-reaching and, in some sense, unprecedented institutional reforms. At the aggregate level, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994 limited the scope for off-budget spending and creative accounting. It required the government to provide Parliament with a statement of its long-term fiscal objectives, a forecast of budget outcomes, and a statement of fiscal intentions explaining whether its budget forecasts were consistent with its budget objectives. It required prompt release of aggregate financial statements and regular auditing, using internationally accepted accounting practices. At the level of individual departments, the government set up a management framework that imposed strong separation between the role of ministers (political appointees who specified departmental objectives) and departmental CEOs (civil servants with leeway to choose tactics appropriate for delivering outputs). This separation was sustained by separating governmental departments into narrowly focused policy ministries and service-delivery agencies, and by adopting procedures that emphasized transparency, employing private-sector financial reporting and accounting rules, and by imposing accountability on technocratic decision makers (Mulgan 2004). As a result of these initiatives, New Zealand was able to cut public spending by more than 7 per cent of GDP. Revenues were augmented by privatization receipts, as political opposition to privatization of public services was successfully overcome. The cost of delivering remaining public services was limited by comprehensive deregulation
that subjected public providers to private competition. The upshot was more than a decade of 4+% primary surpluses, allowing the country to halve its debt ratio from 71 per cent of GDP in 1995 to 30 per cent in 2010."

Agin, problem is, New Zealand-style reforms might not be applicable to euro area countries. Even with this, "it is worth observing that it took full ten years from the implementation of the first reforms, in 1984, to the emergence of 4+% budget surpluses in New Zealand a decade later."


Key conclusion of the study is that "On balance, this analysis does not leave us optimistic that Europe’s crisis countries will be able to run primary budget surpluses as large and persistent as officially projected." Which leaves us with the menu of options that is highly unpleasant. If current account surpluses approach to debt-deflation fails, and if inflation is not a solution (as noted here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.it/2014/08/1082014-inflating-away-public-debt-not.html) then we are left with the old favourites: debt forgiveness (not likely within the euro area), foreign aid (impossible within the euro area on any appreciable scale), or debt restructuring (already done several times and more forthcoming - just watch Irish Government 'early repayment' of IMF loans).

21/6/2014: IMF 'Waived' Sustainability Requirement in Lending to Euro Area Countries

IMF paper, published yesterday now fully admits that the Fund has 'waived' its own core requirements for lending under the core programmes in euro area 'periphery'. More importantly, the criteria for lending that was violated by the Fund is… the requirement that "public debt be judged as sustainable with "high probability”" under new lending programme.

The paper is available here: http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/052214a.pdf

Quoting from the IMF report: "In the sovereign debt crises of the 1980s, concerted financial support from the private sector was a standard feature of Fund-supported programs, most of which were within the normal access limits. By contrast, the spate of capital account crises that began in the mid 1990s occurred at a time when the creditor base had become much more diffuse, and the Fund’s strategy sought instead to entice a resumption of private flows through programs involving large-scale Fund and other official resources. While this strategy worked well in some circumstances, it failed to play its catalytic role in cases where, amongst other factors, the member's debt sustainability prospects were uncertain." 

Thus, the Fund clearly recognised that probabilistically, extended lending can only work where there is some confidence that the borrower debts post-lending by the IMF, are sustainable. In other words, the Fund agreed that there is the need for more extensive lending (in some cases), but that such lending should, by itself, not push beyond sustainability levels of debt. Were it to do so, the Fund would have required restructuring of the sovereign debt to reduce levels to within sustainability bounds.

This is how this 'bounded' lending beyond normal constraints was supposed to work: "In response to this varied experience, and to ensure effective use of its resources, the Fund concluded that decisions to grant access above normal limits should henceforth be guided by defined criteria. These were established in the 2002 Exceptional Access Policy, [EAP] which included a requirement that public debt be judged as sustainable with "high probability.” The framework applied initially only in capital account cases, but in 2009 became applicable to all exceptional access decisions."

Now, fast forward to the Fund entanglement in euro area debt/default politics: "When Greece requested exceptional access in May 2010, the policy would have required deep debt reduction to reach the high probability threshold for debt sustainability. Fearing that such an operation would be highly disruptive in the circumstances prevailing at the time, the Fund decided to create an exemption to the high probability requirement for cases where there was a high risk of international systemic spillovers—an exemption that has since been invoked repeatedly in programs for Greece, Portugal, and Ireland."

Elaborating on this, the paper states: "An important rigidity of the EAP came to the fore when Greece requested financial support in early 2010. When “significant uncertainties” surrounding the sustainability assessment prevented staff from affirming that debt was sustainable with high probability, the existing EAP framework would call for a debt reduction operation to deliver such high probability as a condition for the provision of exceptional access. In the case of Greece, where the high probability requirement was not met, however, there were fears that an upfront debt restructuring would have potentially systemic adverse consequences on the euro area. Given the inflexibility of the EAP, and the crisis at hand, the Fund decided to create an exemption to the requirement for achieving debt sustainability with a high probability when there was a “high risk of international systemic spillovers”. Since then, the systemic exemption has been invoked 34 times by end-May, 2014 in the three EA programs for Greece, Portugal, and Ireland."

Note that the systemic exemption has been invoked 34 times in just four years, in all cases in relation to euro 'periphery'. That is a lot of 'we can't confirm sustainability of debt levels post-programme, so we won't look there' invocations. More significantly, did anyone notice these invocations in IMF country reports that repeatedly assured us, since 2010 on, that things are sustainable in these countries?

Conclusion: the Fund now fully admits that its lending to Greece, Portugal and Ireland:

1) Required (under previous conditions) deep restructuring of sovereign debt; and

2) Was carried out in excess of the already stretched sustainability bounds.

The Fund loaded more debt onto these economies than could have been deemed sustainable even by its already stretched standards of 2002 EAP.

22/5/2014: Paging Super Mario: Cleanup in the German Isle

Remember the OMT - the ballistic missile Super Mario fired in the direction of the markets to calm the hell out of them and dramatically lower the bond yields for the countries saddled with the likes of the FG/LP/Troika coalitions (known colloquially as 'peripherals')?

Well, those pesky Germans never really liked the idea and as we all know (past history is a good indicator) when Germans don't like something, it is for a long... long... long time...

25/4/2014: A stretch of numbers here... a bond sale there... Greek Deficit in 2013

This week we had the data release by Eurostat showing the fiscal position of the euro area sovereigns for 2013, followed by the statement by the Troika (EU Commission, the ECB and the IMF) on Greece's fiscal position.

Based on data-driven Eurostat conclusions (see details here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/04/2342014-some-scary-reading-from-eurostat.html) Greek fiscal deficit was 12.7% of GDP in 2013. Based on the Troika conclusions, Greece has managed to generate a budget surplus of 0.8% of GDP in 2013. The two numbers are so widely apart that the case of 'thou shalt not spin too much' comes to mind.

In reality, to arrive at 0.8% surplus, the Troika had to do some pretty extreme dancing around the real figures: they took out non-recurring spending out of the Greek deficits (all banks measures and all interest paid on gargantuan 175.1% of GDP Government debt). Just how on earth can debt interest payments be non-recurring is anyone's guess. But even removing that (to arrive at normal definition of primary deficits), the official primary deficit for Greece at the end of 2013 stands at 8.7% of GDP. The swing of 9.5% of GDP bringing this to a surplus of 0.8% is 'banks measures'.

The problem is that with 12.7% of GDOP deficit and 8.7% primary deficit in 2013 and with debt of 175.1% of GDP, Greece is plain simply and undeniably an insolvent state. This is precisely why exactly at the time of the above data publication and at the time when the Troika was extolling the virtues of the fiscal surplus in Greece, the very same European authorities praising Greek Government were announcing that they have engaged in a new round of debt relief negotiations with Greece (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9ec817d8-cadf-11e3-9c6a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz301XTTXyT).

Meanwhile, bust, bankrupted and in new default talks, Greek Government is hell-bent on buying votes into the upcoming European elections. Per FT account linked above:

"About 70 per cent of the [bogus Greek] primary surplus has already been allocated for current expenses rather than for writing down existing debt, according to the finance ministry. The government has set aside €524m as a one-off payment to low-income families and pensioners ahead of next month’s European elections. Another €320m will cover a projected deficit this year at IKA, the main social security organisation, following a decision agreed with international lenders to cut employers’ contributions."

This is truly epic: European authorities praising national Government for bogus surpluses that are explicitly being used to fund giveaways to vulnerable voters groups at the time of elections. This is 'reformed Europe'?

This is precisely the circus that is driving up valuations of peripheral bonds (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/samaras-met-dimon-for-greek-bonds-on-way-to-a-400-return.html?alcmpid=markets) and that has an exactly negative correlation with the underlying strength / structural health of some of the peripheral economies (see my comment on this here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/04/2542014-ecb-denmark-negative-rates.html).

6/4/2014: IMF forecasts of unemployment; 'peripheral' countries

Note to my previously posted Sunday Times column from March 23, 2014 and to my Sunday Times column from March 30, 2014 (still to be posted here, so stay tuned).

Here is a chart summarising 'troika' programmes forecasts and revisions of unemployment:

18/1/2014: Portugal 'doin Dublin' or going for broke?

A very interesting interview with David Slanic, CEO of Tortus Capital Management LLC on Portugal's sovereign debt sustainability and the need for further debt restructuring.

http://janelanaweb.com/trends/portugal-needs-a-national-salvation-pact-with-a-short-mandate-to-restructure-the-sovereign-debt-david-salanic-tortus-capital/

Is Portugal really that close to restructuring as to pre-borrow reserves forward? Or is it pre-borrowing to do what Dublin did and exit in H2 2014 with no precautionary line of credit?..

Signals from the CDS markets? No evidence of serious markets concerns so far...

10/1/2014: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Euro area's miracle of recovery

A very good article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on the fallacy of European 'leaders' view of the peripheral countries economic stabilisation: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026365/barroso-triumphant-as-jobless-europe-wastes-five-precious-years-of-global-recovery/

Some caveats:

1. AEP argues that Ireland had the capacity to withstand domestic blowout caused (as he correctly states) by the monetary policy mismatch. His argument for this is that "Ireland is highly competitive (second best in EMU after Finland on the World Bank gauge)." The problem, of course, is that WB competitiveness indicator is superficial - it hardly reflects the reality on the ground when it comes to credit supply (non-existent in the economy, yet highly ranked in WB study), openness of domestic markets (not measured), access to public procurement (not measured), extent of domestic indirect taxes (not measured), security of domestic property rights (pensions or insurance contracts, anyone?), etc etc etc. 
2. AEP argues correctly that Ireland has high levels of exposure to international trade. And this is sustaining the macro-level recovery in the economic aggregates (GDP etc), but this has virtually no effect on the ground - the domestic economy is stagnant and most of the improvements that do take place are down to Malthusian contraction: emigration, jobs destruction, tax and charges hikes, rip-off via state-controlled prices and other measures that continue to shift private sector resources to fund the Exchequer. Ireland has had virtually no real reforms in the way domestic (public and private) business is conducted.
3. AEP acknowledges some of the above problems, saying that "But even if Ireland can make it without debt restructuring (and that is not certain), the underlying erosion of the workforce through hysteresis from mass unemployment – and from mass migration to the UK, US, and Australia – has greatly damaged the long-term growth potential of the economy." This is spot on. One qualifier, however - Ireland already had three rounds of debt restructuring: two rounds of restructuring Troika debts (terms extensions and rate reductions) and one round of restructuring banks-linked debt (Promissory Notes). These provided, in some cases real and in some temporary, relief to the fiscal funding side of the equation. It is, however, in no way certain that we will not need more restructuring.

Key is that AEP 100% correct in saying that:
"At the end of the day, Ireland was forced by the EU authorities to take on the vast liabilities of Anglo-Irish to save the European banking system in the white heat of the Lehman crisis, and the EU has since walked away from its pledge to help make this good. The Irish people have been stoic, disciplined, even heroic. They have survived this mistreatment. To cite it as a vindication of EU strategy sticks in the craw."

And per future, I couldn't have said it better myself:
"Europe is one external shock away from a full-blown deflation trap, and one recession away from an underlying public and private debt crisis. Nothing has been resolved. Aggregate debt ratios are higher than they were before the austerity experiment. In the end there will still have to be a "Brady Plan" like the Latin American debt write-offs at the end of the 1980s, but on a far larger scale and with far more traumatic effects on the European body politic. So celebrate today while the sun is still out, and dream on."

Let me add that Europe is one internal shock away from the above too. All that is needed is a massive wave of financial repression to derail the common currency's faltering monetary structure and push the banking sector back into contraction. The debt levels - private and public - are dramatic enough for the economy to succumb to either external or internal shocks. And one certainty we have is that shocks do happen.

14/11/2013: With banks or without, things are heading for desperate in Italy...

The banks stress tests are coming up and the Euro periphery system is quickly attempting to patch up the massive cracks in the facade. The key one is the continued over-reliance of banks on sovereign-monetary-banking loop of cross-contagion. The banking system weakness is exemplified by Italy: Italian banks are the main buyers of Italian sovereign debt, which in turn means that Italian government stability rests on the banks ability to sustain purchasing, which implies that the ECB (with an interest of shoring up Italian economy) is tied into continuing to provide cheap funding necessary for the Italian banks to sustain purchasing of Italian Government debt… and so on.

Three key facts are clouding this 'stability in contagion' picture:

1. Banks in Italy and elsewhere are not deleveraging fast enough to allow them repay in full the LTROs coming due January and February 2015;
2. Banks in Italy are now fully saturated with italian Government debt, posing threats to future supply of Italian bonds and putting into question the robustness of the banking stress tests; and
3. Italian Government is running out of room to continue rolling over its massive debts.

If all 3 risks play out at the same time or close to each other, things will get testy for the Euro.


Point 1: Banks in the euro zone continue to carry assets that amount to three times the size of the euro area economy. This puts into question the core pillar of banking sector 'reforms' that the ECB needs to see before the banking union (BU) comes into being. The ECB needs to have clarity on quality of assets held by banks and, critically, needs to see robust deleveraging by the banks before th BU can be launched. If either one of these conditions is not fully met, the ECB will be taking over the banking system that is loaded with unknown and unpriced risks.

Per recent ECB data, Banks in the euro zone held EUR29.5 trillion in total assets by the end of 2012. That is down 12% on 2008. Too slow of a pace for a structural deleveraging. Worse, the bulk of the adjustments was back in 2009 and little was done since. Which makes the level of assets problem worse: on top of having too many assets, the system has virtually stopped the process of deleveraging. Knock on effect is that the firming of asset markets in Europe in recent two years was supported by a slowdown in assets disposals by the banks. In turn, this second order effect means that many banks assets on the books are superficially overvalued due to their withholding from the market. Nasty, pesky first and second order effects here.

Worse. Pressure on assets side is not limited to the 'periphery'. German banks held EUR7.6 trillion in total assets at the end of 2012, followed by the French banks with EUR6.8 trillion. Spain and Italy's banking sectors came in distant second and third, with EUR3.9 trillion and EUR2.9 trillion in total assets.

Capital ratios are up to the median Tier 1 ratio rising from 8% in 2008 to 12.7% in 2012. Quality of this capital is, however, subject to the above first and second order effects too - no one knows how much of the equity valuation uplift experienced by the euro area banks in recent months is due to banks reducing the pace of assets deleveraging…


Point 2: Assets quality in some large banking systems is too closely linked to the sovereign bonds markets. Italy is case in point. ECB tests are set to exclude sovereign debt risk exposures, explicitly continuing to price as risk-free sovereign bonds of the peripheral euro area states. But in return for this, the ECB might look into gradually forcing the banks to limit their holdings of sovereign bonds. This would be bad news for Italian banks and the Italian treasury.

The problem starts with a realisation that Italian banks are now primarily a vehicle for rolling over Government debt. Italy's Government debt is over EUR2 trillion. EUR397 billion of that is held by Italian banks. Another EUR200-250 billion can be safely assumed to be held by Italian banks customers who also have borrowings from these banks. Any pressure on the Italian sovereign and the ca EUR600 billion of Italian debt sloshing within the banking system of Italy is at risk.  That puts 20.7 percent of Italian banks assets at a risk play. [Note: by some estimates, Italian banks directly hold around 22% of the total Italian Government debt - close to the above figure of EUR397 billion, but way off compared to Spanish banks which are estimated to be holding 39% of the Spanish Government debt, hence all of the arguments raised in respect of Italy herein also apply to Spain. A mitigating issue for Spain is that it's debt levels are roughly half those of Italy. An exacerbating issue for Spain is that its deficit is second highest in Europe, well ahead of Italain deficit which is relatively benign).

Worse, pressure cooker is now full and been on a boiler for some time. In the wake of LTROs, Italy's banks loaded up on higher-yielding Italian Government debt funded by cheap LTRO funds - Italian banks took EUR255 billion in LTROs funds. In August 2013, Italian banks exposure to Italian Government debt hit EUR397 billion, just shy of the record EUR402 billion in June and double on 2011 levels. I

Either way, with or without explicit ECB pressure, Italian banks have run out of the road to keep purchasing Italian Government debt. Which presents a wee-bit of a problem: Italy needs to raise EUR65 billion in new debt in 2014. Italy is now in the grip of the worst recession since WWII and its debts are rising once again.

Chart below shows that:
1) Italian Sovereign exposures to external lenders declined in the wake of the LTROs, but are back to rising in recent quarters;
2) Italian banks reliance on foreign funding rose during the LTROs period, declined thereafter and is now again rising; while
3) Other (non-financial and non-state) sectors remain leveraged at the levels consistent with late 2006.

Point 3: Overall, Italian Treasury is now competing head on with the banks for foreign lenders cash and Italian corporate sector is being forced to borrow abroad in absence of domestic credit supply. Foreign investors bought almost 2/3rds of the last issue of Italian bonds, but how much of this appetite can be sustained into the future is an open question. Foreign investors currently hold slightly over a third of Italy's debt, or EUR690 billion, down from more than EUR800 billion back in 2011. The Italian Government is now turning to Italian households to mop up the rising supply. Italy issued EUR44 billion worth of inflation-linked BTP Italia bonds with 4 year maturity. As long as inflation stays low, the Government is in the money on these.

Next in line - desperate measures to raise revenues. Per recent reports, there is a proposal working its way through legislative corridors of power to raise tax on multinational on-line companies trading in Italy. The likes of Google, Amazon and Yahoo will be hit with a restriction on advertisers to transact only with on-line companies tax-resident in Italy, per bill tabled by the center-left Democratic Party (PD). The authors estimate EUR1 billion annual yield to the state - a tiny drop in the ocean of Italian government finances, but also a sign of desperation.

27/10/2013: Irish CDS spreads: a reason to smile for a change...

It might be disheartening sometimes (often) to read the newsflow involving Irish economy. But occasionally, there are some really worthy decent news... Here's an example: 12 months difference in CDS spreads:

First Q3 2012:

Now, Q3 2013:

That's a huge change... even though we are still far from where we want to be, the change is impressive.

8/10/2013: Jokers Burning Money: Public Sector Reforms - Village, October 2013

My article for the Village Magazine on pre-Budget 2014 analysis of health spending in Ireland: http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2013/10/gurdgiev-on-healthcare-jokers-burning-money/

8/10/2013: German Voters Go For Status Quo... Redux: Sunday Times September 29, 2013

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from September 29, 2013.


By any measure, last Sunday's German elections highlighted a resounding failure of the country electorate to connect with reality. Despite returning a number of historical outcomes, the voters reaffirmed the passive-conservative leadership mandate exercised by Angela Merkel since 2009. As the result, German policies are now likely to drift even farther away from the immediate needs of the euro area periphery, risking a renewal of the euro area crisis and a slowdown in the already less-than ambitious speed of European reforms. None of this is good news for Ireland.

The historical nature of the 2013 German elections is highlighted by the fact that Angela Merkel became the first euro area leader to be reelected as the head of state since the beginning of the Great Recession. And she has done it twice: first some 12 months into the crisis in 2009 and now 5 years from its onset. Ms. Merkel won the highest number of votes for her CDU/CSU party in 23 years. And she became the first German leader since the golden days of Konrad Adenauer back in 1961 to personally dominate the elections, instead of standing in the shadow of her party. Individually, all of these are rare events in modern German history. Taken together, they are probably unprecedented.

But herein lies the problem for all of us living outside Germany. The elections of 2013 have produced a strong mandate for doing nothing new when it comes to either the euro area or the larger Union reforms. The Chancellor re-elect retook the Bundeskanzleramt on a mandate of being a 'safe pair of hands'. The campaign her party waged focused on such important topics as charging foreign drivers for using autobahns. Instead of debating the core issues faced by the EU, and the role of Germany in this mess, voters largely engaged in navel-gazing. Satisfied with their relatively well-performing economy and receding immediate danger to the euro, they endorsed the leadership devoid of ideas, alternative views and aspirations. Not surprisingly, philosopher Jurgen Habermas declared the 2013 general election campaign a "collective failure" of the elites.

This means that the German elections left the core problems of the euro crisis unaddressed, raising the specter of renewed uncertainty about the future of the common currency area. This concern became immediately visible this week.

On Monday, ECB's Mario Draghi rushed to compensate for the policy paralysis signaled out of Germany by stating that the ECB is ready to deploy a new round of quantitative easing in the form of the third Long-Term Refinancing Operations (LTRO3). To remind you, the first two rounds of LTROs were the ECB’s ‘pre-nuclear option’ response to strategic threats to the euro area economy in late 2010-early 2011. The ‘nuclear option’ was the subsequent announcement of the stand-by quantitative easing programme, known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Mr. Draghi mentioning the prospect of renewing the LTRO scheme suggests that the ECB expects no change in euro area policies in the aftermath of last week’s elections.

Acknowledging this, Draghi also tried to push aside the pesky issue of the Greek Bailout 3.0. And in a direct reflection of the Berlin’s preferences, Draghi also downplayed the possibility of the ESM being licensed to provide financing cover for future bank failures.

Mr Draghi’s precautionary moves were timed perfectly. Following the elections, sovereign yields on all peripheral countries’ bonds rose relative to German bunds. Credit default swaps – insurance contracts underwriting sovereign bonds – also crept up. The markets are not buying the ‘return to status quo’ story as good news. This was contrasted by the domestic news which saw the German economic sentiment, as measured by the CESIfo index of economic conditions rise for the third month in a row. This marks fifteenth consecutive quarter of the CESIfo index reading above historical average. In contrast, euro area economic conditions index has been stuck below its historical average levels for eight quarters in a row through this September.

Since 2009 elections, Chancellor Merkel held back from directly leading the euro area and instead opted repeatedly to wait for an escalation of the crises before responding with un-prepared, often ad hoc and wrong-footed solutions. Best examples of this approach to leadership are the EU's failures in Cyprus and Greece. Both are directly linked to Ms. Merkel’s prevarication in the face of escalating crises. All were driven by swings in domestic public opinion, rather than by any cohesive principles.

For Ireland, this mode of leadership spells lack of progress on key issues.

Gauging German public opinion there is currently zero appetite to shift away from the pre-elections status quo in which the Irish crisis is seen as largely self-induced and peripheral to German interests. This means that Germany is likely to continue supporting Irish debt sustainability rhetorically, while opposing practical resolution of the debt overhang. This week, Ms. Merkel gave another loud endorsement to Irish Government policies during the crisis. As she did so, the Irish Government – usually not known for its skeptical pragmatism – was actively pushing the timeline for banking debts problem resolution out into the later months of 2014. My gut feeling is that we can expect this timeline to stretch beyond 2015. Instead of allowing restructuring of our banking debts, Berlin will nod approvingly to a precautionary line of credit for Ireland via set-aside stand-by facility at the ESM. This credit will be provided on current ESM funding terms, some 1 percent below the cost of IMF funding and with longer maturities. Which is the good news.

In exchange for this token gesture we will be required to strictly adhere to fiscal adjustment targets for 2015. We will be further subjected to a new multi-annual fiscal programme stretching into 2018-2020 to be supervised by the EU Commission. ECB – by proxy, the German government – will be watching from the shadows.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Draghi statement this week indicates, Germany will block ESM from having any powers in dealing with future banking crises. Our retrospective banks debt deal will then have to wait until a new funding facility, most likely administered by the ECB, comes into place. Pencil that for sometime in 2016. Pushing legacy debts incurred by the Exchequer as the result of rescuing our banks into the hands of the ECB is likely to cost us. Frankfurt can, and potentially will, demand something in return for this. One thing the ECB can ask for is accelerated sales of the Central Bank-held Government bonds (the fallout from the Promissory Notes deal done earlier this year).  The ECB already has the power to do so. It also has a direct incentive: the bonds are set against our banks borrowings from the euro system. Of course, this will mean that we will be trading one debt for another, as accelerated sales of bonds will erode the temporary fiscal ‘savings’ achieved by the Promo Notes restructuring.

But the cost of the EU/German ‘assistance’ for Ireland will most likely extend further than bonds sales acceleration and new fiscal targets setting. German political agenda is well-anchored to continued saber-rattling on the need for corporate tax harmonization across the EU. With the 2009-2011 Franco-German tax harmonisation initiative all but dead, the focus in the next two-three years will shift toward advancing the consolidated common corporate tax base (CCCTB) proposals that suit German interests more than any other form of tax coordination. Based on her record to-date, Ms. Merkel is a fan of the CCCTB as are all of her potential coalition partners and the German voters.

German elections are also promising to create less certainty as to the structural reforms in the European Union space. Last Sunday’s results produced strong votes for the anti-euro party, Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD). The party also did well in the previously held local elections. The new Merkel-led coalition will have to show caution when facing any prospect of further harmonisation and consolidation of power in Brussels.

When it comes to structural reforms, German public prefers for euro area to focus on specific hard fiscal targets and on replicating Germany's own structural reforms of the 1990s. While such reforms can be beneficent to the euro area peripheral states, for Ireland they offer only marginal gains. German reforms of the 1990s have focused on two core policy pillars: increasing flexibility of the labour markets and decreasing the burden of the welfare state. These came at a cost of continued consolidation of German economy around larger enterprises and suppression of domestic demand and household investment.

Ireland today requires some reforms in the social welfare system. But we also need to break up our dominant market players in the domestic sectors and to increase our households’ spending and investment.

In short, in the wake of the German elections, there is preciously little that Ireland can expect in terms of the European support for our recovery. Europe, with German blessing, will most likely lend us a hand to help us out of the 'safe' boat of the Troika programme. Thereafter, swimming in the turbulent waters of the Eurozone crisis will be up to us. Let's hope Budget 2014 provides generously for flotation vests.

BOX-OUT:

Marking the fifth anniversary of the Banking Guarantee of September 2008, there are plenty of stocktaking exercises going around. Yet, for all the ‘Fail’ marks being rightly handed out to the Guarantee, all signs in the streets suggest we have learned next to nothing from our past errors. This week offers at least two such examples. Firstly, the crisis showed that a non-transparent system of monitoring and managing financial risks will result in the connected-few gaming the entire system. This week, Minister Noonan intervened in the process of winding down the IBRC, bending the rules that normally apply to company liquidations. Granting anonymity to the funders of the toxic banks comes as a priority in this country. Unintended consequence of this is that it also perpetuates the cronyist relationship between the financial services and the state – exactly the outcome we should have learned to avoid. Secondly, we know that principles-based regulations require swift, robust and unambiguous enforcement. Also this week, the Central Bank effectively shut the door on any further investigations into Anglo dealings with the regulators that could have arisen from the infamous Anglo Tapes. Five years in, there are zero prosecutions, and scores of closed investigations. To paraphrase Bon Jovi’s famous refrain: the less we learn, the more things stay the same…

2/10/2013: Euro area sovereign crisis: predictable and reasonably priced?

• Can a model-based credit ratings system be used to predict future fiscal distress? Answer seems to be: yes.
• And have the fiscal downgrades of the euro area peripheral states been predictable in advance? Answer seems to be: yes.
• In other words, are the downgrades warranted by the actual pre-crisis dynamics in the economies? Answer seems to be: yes.
• Lastly, were there useful signals of stress build up that could have been considered by the policymakers prior to the onset of the crisis to alleviate or prevent the collapse of euro area peripherals? Answer seems to be: yes.

A new paper from CEPR (DP9665) titled "Sovereign credit ratings in the European Union: a model-based fiscal analysis" and authored by Vito Polito and Michael R. Wickens (September 2013: http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP9665) presents "a model-based measure of sovereign credit ratings derived solely from the fiscal position of a country: a forecast of its future debt liabilities, and its potential to use tax policy to repay these." [emphasis is mine]

The authors "use this measure to calculate credit ratings for fourteen European countries over the period 1995-2012. This measure identifies a European sovereign debt crisis almost two years before the official ratings of the credit rating agencies."

Ouch!

Now, the fourteen European (EU14) countries in the model-based calculations are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the U.K.

So the main findings are: "…The model-based credit ratings:

1. Anticipate the downgrades of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the U.K. that occurred from the end of the 2010s; 
2. Downgrade Greece to the lowest rating (coinciding with its highest default probability) from at least mid 2000; 
3. Suggest that the Italian sovereign credit rating has been overstated. 
4. For all other countries, the model-based credit ratings are similar, but not identical, to the credit ratings provided by the CRAs 

"An implication of these results is that the cross-section distribution of the model-based sovereign credit rating is no longer concentrated within the investment grade prior 2010 and it starts changing significantly from 2008. This suggests that a model-based credit rating would have identified and signalled to market participants signs of the impending European sovereign debt crisis well before 2010, when the CRAs first reacted to the crisis."

And the kicker: "A by-product of the methodology proposed in this paper is the quantification of a country's debt limit (measured as its maximum borrowing capacity) and how this changes over time. The numerical analysis suggests that for most EU14 countries the scope for increasing borrowing capacity by increasing taxation is limited as actual tax revenues are similar to tax revenues maximized with respect to tax rates."

In other words, we've run out of the road for taxing our way out of the crisis.

"Our findings suggest that EU14 countries are more likely to be able to raise debt limits and achieve fiscal consolidation by reducing their expenditures than by increasing taxes."

Any wonder? Ok, check out the first link here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/2102013-low-tax-free-market-economy.html

29/9/2013: Economic Sentiment in Europe: Not Exactly a 'Crisis Over' Signal

There's a lot of optimism in the air nowadays across the EU with eurocrats of all shades of grey busying themselves declaring the end of the euro crisis... and the media is firmly on the bandwagon too - even signs of shallower contractions are interpreted as 'huge bounces' into growth.

Amidst all of this, the data on economic sentiment across all productive sectors, collected by the European Commission is a bit more sombre.

Take this simple chart, showing how economic sentiment in the euro area compares against the same in the EU27.

Yep, that's right: in September 2013, economic sentiment in the euro area was at the lowest point compared to the economic sentiment in the EU27 for any month since the formation of the euro... in fact, it was at the lowest point since July 1988 when many EU27 non-euro nations were struggling members of the Warsaw Pact. Congratulations on that recovery, folks!

Things behind the above numbers are even worse. Here's a chart plotting economic sentiment across the three sets of countries that are members of the euro area: the euro area core (Austria, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands), the periphery, and the rest...

Things are improving, all right, but are these improvements a miracle of the euro area recovery or a bounce from somewhere else? Take again the gap to EU27...

Now, we already know about downward direction across the euro area relative performance as a whole. Now we also know that all  part of the euro area are under-performing relative to the EU27 and that this underperformance has accelerated in recent months for two sub-regions other than the 'periphery'. Worse, the core is about to hit the levels of sentiment under-performance comparable to the peripherals back in H1 2013, while the non-core, non-periphery states are about to converge in earnest with the periphery. This is some 'improvement'...

17/7/2013: Wrong Austerity Compounds the Failures of the Monetary Union

Recent CEPR paper DP9541 (July 2013), titled "Debt Crises and Risk Sharing: The Role of Markets versus Sovereigns" by Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan, Emiliano Luttini, and Bent E Sørensen (linked here: www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP9541.asp) used "a variance decomposition of shocks to GDP", in order to "quantify the role of international factor income, international transfers, and saving in achieving risk sharing during the recent European crisis."

Basic idea of the exercise was that a lack of saving in good times may reduce consumption smoothing in bad times, forcing households to cut back their spending and consumption more dramatically once recession hits.

Under perfect risk sharing, the consumption growth of individual countries should be completely independent from all other factors, conditional on world consumption growth.

The authors of the study "calculate how much of a shock to GDP is absorbed by various components of saving, in particular government saving, and other channels, such as net foreign factor income for the sub-periods 1990-2007, 2008-2009, and 2010." The key finding here is that "overall, risk sharing in the EU was significantly higher during 2008-2009 than it was during the earlier period, but total risk sharing more or less collapsed in 2010." Notably, 2010 is the year when European economies embarked on 'austerity' path, primarily and predominantly expressed (especially in the earlier stages) in tax increases. It is worth noting that there virtually no reductions in public spending during 2009 or 2010 across the EU and even in countries where spending was cut, such as Ireland, much of the reductions came from indirect taxation - e.g. transfers of health spending from public purse to private insurance.

Further, the authors "study how the crisis a affected risk sharing for "PIIGS" countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), which were at the center of the sovereign debt crisis, compared to non-PIIGS countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom)."

Again, the findings are revealing: "For 1990-2009, risk sharing was mainly due to pro-cyclical government saving but the amount of risk sharing from government saving turned negative in 2010 for the PIIGS countries: government saving increased at the same time as GDP decreased." In other words - this is the exact effect of austerity as practised by the EU periphery.

"For [euro area peripheral] countries our measure of overall risk sharing turns negative because (conditional on world consumption growth) the decline in GDP in 2010 was accompanied by a more than proportional decline in consumption. This mirrors the behavior of emerging economies where government saving typically is counter-cyclical as shown by Kaminsky, Reinhart, and V egh (2005)."

Crucially, the study shows that there is basically no risk-sharing mechanism that operates on the entire euro area level. Even common currency zone - via lower interest rates - does not deliver risk sharing in 2010 and has potentially a very weak effect in 2008-2009 period. Worse, for the euro area peripheral states, euro has been a mechanism that seemed to have removed risk sharing opportunities both in and out of the crisis:

"…although non-PIIGS countries shared a non-negligible amount of risk during 2000{2007 while the PIIGS shared little risk in those years: in the good year 2005, consumption increased faster than GDP leading to "negative risk sharing." In 2008 and 2009 the major amount of GDP risk is shared for non-PIIGS with low consumption growth rates in spite of large drops in GDP, with the amount of risk shared in 2008 over 100 percent (positive consumption growth in spite of negative GDP growth). For the PIIGS, consumption declined very little in 2008 in spite of a large drop in GDP, while the drop in GDP in 2009 clearly led to declining consumption and, in 2010, consumption fell by almost as much as GDP, indicating little risk sharing."

Top line conclusion: once the authors "decompose risk sharing from saving into contributions from government and private saving", data reveals "that fiscal austerity programs played an important role in hindering risk sharing during the sovereign debt crisis."