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...

25/5/2012: Why I don't like Eurobonds

Three reasons I don't like the idea of the Eurobonds:

1. Issuing Eurobonds to swap for existent Government debt is equivalent to attempting to treat debt overhang by relabeling the debt. While it might reduce the interest burden on the sovereigns suffering from more severe debt overhang, but that is a relatively shallow improvement, especially given that the heavier-indebted sovereigns are already being financed or about to be financed from a collective funding source of ESM.
2. Issuing Eurobonds to create capacity for new borrowing is equivalent to fighting debt overhang with more debt. In addition to being seriously problematic in terms of logic, there is also a capacity constraint. Eurozone will sport 89.964% debt/GDP ratio this year and under current IMF projections this debt will remain above 90% (+/-1%) bound for 2012-2015. At these levels, debt exerts long term drag on future growth potential for the Euro area as a whole. And this region doesn't have much of cushion in terms of growth rates to sustain such drag.
3. Issuing Eurobonds to generally drive down or harmonize the borrowing costs across the EA will simply replicate the very same conditions of cheap credit misaligned with relative sovereign risks that have been instrumental in creating the current crisis during the loose monetary policy pursued by the ECB. Except with a major difference this time around - loose credit costs will only apply to one side of the economy, namely the Public Sector. This is double troubling, because, in my view, it is the nature of the European disease that our policymakers are incapable of thinking about growth outside that supported by subsidies and neo-protectionism vis public expenditure. 

For these three reasons (not to mention lack of political infrastructure and the fact that once borrowing costs come down the sovereigns will simply engage in diverting 'savings' achieved to priming the public spending pump once again, setting their economies up for the scenario of lax structural reforms and raising the risk of increasing the strength of automatic fiscal destabilizers in the future cyclical downturns) I do not think Eurobonds represent a correct approach to dealing with this crisis.

Nor do I think it is reasonable to label Eurobond issuance a 'burden-sharing', unless Eurobonds are raised by a fully federal power presiding over the entire Euro Area - a power that is hard to imagine emerging for a number of reasons, including that Euro area is only a subset of a broader EU27 block.

I am with the Germans on this one - Eurobonds are a dangerous illusion of a solution.

Update: an interesting side-proposal is contained here. And a polar opposite to that - the senile ideas of one ex-ECB chief here.

24/11/2011: Beggar thy citizens

Things are desperate on a new level across Euro area, folks. So desperate, the Euro leadership delusions have shifted up a notched from already feverish levels they reached before.

Until now, the talk was all about the miracle pills of first "The Firewall of EFSF" then "ECB rescue" + "Euro bonds", now the convoluted plans to underwrite the failures of the last decades are getting more esoteric and, oh so European, at the same time.

Recall the EFS 'Firewall' - launched at first with ca €275 billion in lending capacity, enlarged to €440 billion capacity, then planned for a 'leveraged' enlargement to €1 trillion capacity. Now, with realisation that (1) €1 trillion is no longer enough of a 'Firewall' once Italy caught fire and the rooftop of Chateau France is getting steamy too; and (2) There is no €1 trillion worth of international idiots (oops... err.. investors) willing to part with their money for the greater good of European 'solidarity' the EFSF 'solution' has fallen off the radar.

Next, enter the idea of the ECB rescue and Euro bonds. These too are largely problematic. The ECB 'rescue' option at this stage will have to involve €1.5-2.5 trillion worth of assets purchases - something that will be (a) costly (imagine what will happen to bonds prices if the ECB were to wade in with that sort of cash into the secondary markets) and (b) internecine to ECB's mandate and reputation (in other words, turning your Central Bank into the financial toxic waste warehouse will do to the Euro just what the PIIGS combined default can - destroy it). The Euro bonds option requires two impossible to achieve things: (1) finding idiots... err... investors willing to pony up even more cash than for the EFSF for an undertaking written against largely non-controllable borrowers with little prospect of achieving economic growth to sustain repayments of their debts, and (2) balancing the need to get another credit against the risk of destroying credit ratings (as Euro bond will in effect simply give Governments more debt and this debt will be senior to their own previously issued national debt). And, of course, the Euro bond idea requires much closer political integration first - something that will take years to deliver.

Smelling the rat... err... failure in the above magic bullets, some Governments are now desperate enough to resort to the classic European response to the crises: fleecing their own citizens to pay for their spending habits. Behold tax increases across Europe and Belgian plans to sell their unwanted bonds to their citizens (the story here). In the nutshell, the idea is that there are no idiots... err... investors out there willing to buy Belgian Government promissory notes (note: Belgium, of course doesn't even have a Government). So the solution - just as Joe Stalin did in the 1930s-1950s - is to sell these bonds to unsuspecting ordinary people of Belgium. To make the 'deal' even more egregious, the bonds are to be sold at a discount on the yields provided to banks purchasers. Not only will Belgian pople join the line of those who hold dodgy paper, cross-linked to their entire risk profile of living and working in Belgium and paying Belgian taxes, but they are expected to do so for less reward!

Priceless, really, folks. Comparable only to Irish Government 'Solidarity Bonds' and efforts to sell state junk to national pensions and insurance companies. In economics, there's a concept of policies that 'beggar thy neighbors' by shifting risks/costs/losses onto other countries via trade and investment restrictions, taxes and subsidies. In Europe, we are getting to the point of having 'beggar thy citizens' policies.

Economics 09/05/2010: What sort of EU leadership?.. Part 2

Underlying the unworkable logistics of the Euro-bond that Brussels is planning to deploy to contain the spillover of the fiscal crises in PIIGS, there is a pesky issue of the past record of the currency block management of its finances.

Here are some historic comparisons from the IMF latest GFS report worth highlighting.
Now, spot the odd ones in the above chart? That's right - the non-Euro zone countries are the ones with the lowest indebtedness of households in their economy. In other words, no matter how much the Euro area leadership talks about the US being the cause of the current crisis, data simply shows that the US - despite all its problems - has had far less of a bubble in overall debt terms than Euro area. The only reasons Germany does not figure amongst the countries with the weakest households are:

1. Germany's exports oriented economy which in effect is a 'beggar thy neighbor' economy reliant on someone else assuming credit to buy German goods; and
2. Germany's costly reunification coupled with poor demographics, which assured that over the last 20 years German consumers had virtually no improvements in their standards of living.

But in assuming all this debt, were Euro area households buying productive assets (as opposed to the Americans, who, per our Europhiles' assertions were all playing a property Ponzi game)?
Oops. Not exactly. While Americans were buying homes (fueling their own bubble), Europeans were buying... homes and public sector spending goodies. But may be, just may be, Euro area members were more prudent in buying homes than the Americans, who stand accused of causing the financial crisis of 2007-2009?
It turns out that this was simply not true. Chart above shows just how far more leveraged were the Euro area states compared to the US in terms of two main parameters of house prices sustainability.

And the same is true for overall asset valuations.
Oh, and those prudent lenders - the Germans and the rest of the Euro pack banks?
It turns out the US banks were actually much better off throughout the bubble formation period in terms of their lending and profitability than... hmmm... Germany and Belgium. Who could have known, judging by Mrs Merkel's hawkish statements as of late?

Now, take a look at the total external indebtedness of the Euro area... Recall, the US and Euroarea both have relatively similar GDP...
So suppose the EU Commission issues common bonds (and assume it places them in the market) to underpin PIIGS plus Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria - the sickest puppies of the Euro area. That would require bonds issuance to the tune of 20-30% of these countries outstanding public debt. Which means that the unified bond issuance volumes will be in the region of USD1 trillion, pushing Eurozone's combined indebtedness to over USD25 trillion. Does anyone really think this is a 'solution' to contagion or a surrender?

Economics 09/05/2010: What sort of EU leadership?.. Part 1

Prepare to be afraid, ye the financial markets – those always-on-time and forever-effective super leaders of the Eurozone have concocted a Plan. A Plan to deal once and for all with the frightening levels of their own governments’ insolvency. A Plan code-named Bondzkrieg!

The troops of illiquid and insolvent PIIGS will be backed by the armies of the liquid, but pretty much nearly as insolvent the rest of EU. The attack, commencing possibly as early as on Monday next will be a two-pronged strategy: a pincers manoeuvre.

Part 1 will, per latest reports from the EU16 summit, require an issuance of Euro Commission Bonds. These will be backed by the EU16 states’ guarantees and something that is called ‘an implicit ECB guarantee’. Sounds terrifying, folks:

1. What is exactly an ‘implicit ECB guarantee’? A sort of ‘we might print mucho Euro notes, should Brussels default’ stuff? What kind of nonsense is this? The best the ECB can do is promise to monetize the EU Common bond in the same way it monetizes Greek junk bonds. Yet, the latter has not stopped contagion, only accelerated it by undermining the ECB credibility.
2. What will back these Common bonds? The solvency of the EU nations guaranteeing them? But wait – isn’t the problem the EU is facing is precisely the very lack of solvency? How is it going to work then? A severely indebted and deficit ridden pack of nations issues new debt to cover up the old debt problems? Well, that did work for the Russian Government a miracle back in 1998. Without actually resolving the problem of excessive and long-running deficits, and without either restructuring (default) or deflating (devaluation which is a de facto default) the existent pile of debt, the new EU-wide bond issue will simply transfer Greek-style problems of the PIIGS to the rest of EU. Given that we are talking about roughly a €1 trillion worth of junk, the entire pyramid scheme concocted by the EU is going to collapse unless Germany is good for underwriting the entire EU16 with its economic might. Trouble is – Germany can’t. It has little prospect of growth and its’ current economy simply cannot carry the burden of the rest of EU16 obligations.
3. What will be the seniority of these bonds? If the new bond is subordinated to the existent state bonds (as implied by a ‘guarantee’ proviso), these bonds will have no meaning. If it will be senior to existent member states’ debt, then issuing them to pay down sovereign debt will be equal to deflating seniority of sovereign issues already outstanding. Which, in common English, is called defaulting on existent debt.
4. How can these bonds be priced? Normally a bond is priced by a combination of factors. Some are exogenous – such as global liquidity and portfolio driven demand. Some are endogenous – such as analysis of what the sovereign deficit is for the issuer, what debt burden the issuer is paying and what prospects for economic growth (and other components of future default probability) does a sovereign face. Finally, expected Forex positions for sovereign currency in which the bond is denominated are taken into account. Care to guess what any of these endogenous variables might be for the EU16? Right – they are totally meaningless. Will EU bond be written against EU own debt (which is nil) or against guarantors’ debt (sovereigns already overloaded with debt)? Will the Forex rates relate to the ECB rate which the ‘sovereign’ issuing the bonds (the EU Commission) cannot control (due to ECB independence)? Will EU ability to repay these bonds rest on Euroarea economic growth? If so, what does this mean, since the EU Commission collects revenue from EU27, of which 11 member states are not a party to issuance of the bond! Will, for example, UK government assume liability to the Eurozone-issued bonds by committing its own economy to the risk of a call on the bond should, say, Belgium decide to default?

The second prong of the EU attack on the markets is the incessant blabber about the need to set up an EU-own rating agency. Here, the promised might is clearly unmatched by any sort of internal capability:

1. The EU itself cannot certify own annual accounts, despite having only in-house own auditors. Even these are refusing to sign off on EU accounts for over a decade now. How can the same institution produce a credible rating agency that will be entrusted with providing assessment of the EU credit worthiness?
2. Can the EU-imposed metrics be seriously treated as fundamental benchmarks for solvency? Give it a thought – the EU oversees a union of member states bound by own sovereign treaty to uphold the Maastricht Criteria targets. The EU has failed to enforce these in the case of Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards, French, Italians, Belgians and so on. In other words, the EU cannot enforce its own rules, let alone police economic and fiscal performance parameters required to issue any sort of risk assessments. In fact, this year Euroarea deficit is expected to reach 6.6% of GDP and in 2011 -6.1% - way above the 3% the block set as its own rule. Debt to GDP is heading for double digits, before we add banks supports. Letting the EU run a rating agency is equivalent to letting an alcoholic run a bar!
3. The entire idea of an EU rating agency traces back to Merkel’s and Sarkozy’s desire to shift blame for the Greek (and indeed PIIGS) debacle off the shoulders of the European governments and Brussels and onto the shoulders of ‘speculators’ and the Big-3 rating agencies. Of course, the logical inconsistency of the EU attacks on the Big-3 is painfully obvious. The Big 3 are accused for failing to properly recognize and publicize risks to the systemic solvency of financial institutions in the case of ABS/MBS and so on. Yet, the minute the rating agencies actually do their jobs – as in the case of PIIGS in recent months – they are standing accused of… well… doing the jobs only to well? Can anyone have any trust in a ‘rating agency’ set up by the very people who are simply and evidently incapable of a simple logical argument?

Mrs Merkel have stated this Friday: "Those who created the excesses on the markets will be asked to pay up -- those are in part the banks, those are the hedge funds that must be regulated ... those are the short-sellers and we agreed yesterday to implement this more quickly in Europe." Obviously, over a decade of fiscal recklessness across the PIIGS was never a problem for Mrs Merkel. And she is supposed to be the reasonable one?

All I can say, folks, forget any hope for growth in Europe with this sort of leadership.