24/5/16: Greek Crisis: Old Can, Old Foot, New Flight

So Eurogroup has hammered out yet another 'breakthrough deal' with Greece, not even 12 months after the previous 'breakthrough deal' was hammered out in August 2015. And there are no modalities to discuss at this stage, but here's what we know:

1. IMF is on board. Tsipras lost the insane target of getting rid of the Fund; and Europe gained an insane stamp of approval that Greece remains within the IMF programme. Why is this important for Europe? Because everyone - from the Greeks to the Eurocrats to the insane asylum patients - knows that Greece is insolvent and that any deal absent massive upfront commitments to debt writedowns is not sustainable. However, if the IMF joins the group of the reality deniers, then at least pro forma there is a claim of sustainability to be had. Europe is not about achieving real solutions. It is about propping up the PR facade.
2. With the IMF on board we can assume one of two things: either the deal is more realistic and closer to being in tune with Greek needs (see modalities here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/05/23516-debt-greek-sustainability-and.html) or IMF once again aligned itself with the EU as a face-saving exercise. The Fund, like Brussels, has a strong incentive to extend and pretend the Greek problem: if the Fund walks away from the new 'breakthrough deal', it will validate the argument that IMF lending to Greece was a major error. The proverbial egg hits the IMF's face. If the Fund were to stay in the deal, even if the EU does not deliver on any of its promises on debt relief, the IMF will retain a right to say: "Look, we warned everyone. EU promised, but did not deliver. So Greek failure is not our fault." To figure out which happened, we will need to see deal modalities.
3. What we do know is that Greece will be able to meet its scheduled repayments to EFSF and ECB and the IMF this year, thanks to the 'breakthrough'. In other words, Greece will be given already promised loans (Bailout 3.0 agreed in 2015) so it can pay back previous extended loans (Bailouts 1.0 & 2.0). There are no 'new funds' - just new credit card to repay previous credit card. Worse, Greece will be given the money in tranches, so as to ensure that Tsipras does not decide to use 'new-old' credit on things like hospitals supplies. 
4. Greece is to get some debt reprofiling before 2018 - one can only speculate what this means, but Eurogroup pressie suggested that it will be in the form of changing debt maturities. There are two big peaks of redemptions coming in 2017-2019, which can be smoothed out by loading some of that debt into 2020 and 2021. See chart below. Tricky bit is the Treasury notes which come due within the year window of maturity and will cause some hardship in smoothing other debts maturities. However, this measure is unlikely to be of significant benefit in terms of overall debt sustainability. Again, as I note here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/05/23516-debt-greek-sustainability-and.html Greece requires tens of billions in writeoffs (and that is in NPV terms).
5. All potentially significant measures on debt relief are delayed until post-2018 to appease Germany and a number of other member states. Which means one simple thing: by mid-2018 we will be in yet another Greek crisis. And by the end of 2018, no one in Europe will give a diddly squat about Greece, its debt and the sustainability of that debt because, or so the hope goes, general recovery from the acute crisis will be over by then and Europeans will slip back into the slumber of 1.5 percent growth with 1.2 percent inflation and 8-9 percent unemployment, where everyone is happy and Greece is, predictably, boringly and expectedly bankrupt.

Source: http://graphics.wsj.com/greece-debt-timeline/

Funny thing: Greece is currently illiquid, the financing deal is expected to be 'more than' EUR10 billion. Greek debt maturity from June 1 through December 31 is around EUR17.8 billion. Spot the problem? How much more than EUR10 billion it will be? Ugh?..So technically, Greece got money to cover money it got before and it is not enough to cover all the money it got before, so it looks like Greece is out of money already, after getting money.

As usual, we have can, foot, kick... the thing flies. And as always, not far enough. Pre-book your seats for the next Greek Crisis, coming up around 2018, if not before.

Or more accurately, the dead-beaten can sort of flies. 

Remember IMF saying 3.5% surplus was fiction for Greece? Well, here's the EU statement: "Greece will meet the primary surplus targets of the ESM programme (3.5% of GDP in the medium-term), without prejudice to the obligations of Greece under the SGP and the Fiscal Compact." No,  I have no idea how exactly it is that the IMF agreed to that.

And if you thought I was kidding that Greece was getting money solely to repay debts due, I was not: "The second tranche under the ESM programme amounting to EUR 10.3 bn will be disbursed to Greece in several disbursements, starting with a first disbursement in June (EUR 7.5 bn) to cover debt servicing needs and to allow a clearance of an initial part of arrears as a means to support the real economy." So no money for hospitals, folks. Bugger off to the corner and sit there.

And guess what: there won't be any money coming up for the 'real economy' as: "The subsequent disbursements to be used for arrears clearance and further debt servicing needs will be made after the summer." This is from the official Eurogroup statement.

Here's what the IMF got: "The Eurogroup agrees to assess debt sustainability with reference to the following benchmark for gross financing needs (GFN): under the baseline scenario, GFN should remain below 15% of GDP during the post programme period for the medium term, and below 20% of GDP thereafter." So the framework changed, and a target got more realistic, but... there is still no real commitment - just a promise to assess debt sustainability at some point in time. Whenever it comes. In whatever shape it may be.

Short term measures, as noted above, are barely a nod to the need for debt writedowns: "Smoothening the EFSF repayment profile under the current weighted average maturity: Use EFSF/ESM diversified funding strategy to reduce interest rate risk without incurring any additional costs for former programme countries; Waiver of the step-up interest rate margin related to the debt buy-back tranche of the 2nd Greek programme for the year 2017". So no, there is no real debt relief. Just limited re-loading of debt and slight re-pricing to reflect current funding conditions. 

Medium term measures are also not quite impressive and amount to more of the same short term measures being continued, conditionally, and 'possible' - stress that word 'possible', for they might turn out to be impossible too.

Yep. Can + foot + some air... ah, good thing Europe is so consistent... 

15/5/16: Don't Rush the Cheers for Eurozone Growth, Yet

Remember record-busting 0.6% preliminary flash estimate of the first estimate GDP growth figure for Euro area released back in April? Well, it sort of was true, sort of...

Eurostat now puts 1Q 2016 growth at 0.5% q/q in its updated estimate released today - 0.1% lower than the April estimate. This figure is tied jointly for highest q/q growth figure since 1Q 2011 when it hit 0.8%.

Sounds good? Brilliant - the euro area outperformed both the U.S. and the UK. But when one looks at annual rates of growth... things are not as shiny.

In annual terms, growth rate actually fell in 1Q 2016, from 1.6% in 2Q 215 through 4Q 2015 to 1.5% in 1Q 2016. You won't be jumping with joy on that. And as the euro area lead growth indicator, Eurocoin suggests, rates of growth have been declining over the last three months through April 2016, dropping from cyclical high of 0.48 in January 2016 to a 13-months low of 0.28 in April 2016:

There is a strong smell of smoke from the Eurostat figures. Demand side of the economy is apparently booming. Despite the fact that retail sales are tanking:

Meanwhile, external trade is also underperforming (on foot of euro appreciation from November 2015 lows against both the US dollar and British pound):

Euro bottomed out at around 1.057 to the dollar at the end of November, and steadily gained against the USD every month since, with current valuation around 1.13-1.14 range. This hardly supports European exports to the U.S. Controlling for volatility, similar trend is against British Pound. About the only thing going the euro way today is yen and it is immaterial to the Euro area’s economy.

So euro zone economic growth appears to be loosing momentum since the start of 2Q 2016. And there are both short term drivers for this and long term ones.

Short term drivers, as outlined above suggest that current risks environment appears to be titled to the downside:

• Eurozone Composite Output Index by Markit posted 53.0 in April against March 53.1. Statistically-speaking, the rate of growth effectively remained static. 
• German Composite PMI was at 53.6, which is an 11-months low, French Composite index reading was 50.2 (barely above the 50.0 line, but still at 3mo high), while Italian Composite PMI in April came in at 53.1, also 2 months high. 
• Importantly, the euro zone PMI indices have been moving out of step with the Global PMI readings. In April, while eurozone PMI declined marginally compered to the end of 1Q 2016, Global PMI reading marginally picked up, rising from 51.5 in March to 51.6 in April. 
• The ongoing stagnation in France continued, while solid expansions were noted in Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland.
• Developed markets saw all-industry output rise at the fastest pace in three months during April. However, the rate of increase still one of the weakest registered during the past three years. Growth remained only modest in both the US and the UK (UK growth slowed to its weakest pace since March 2013). This puts pressure on demand for eurozone exports and, in turn, pressures profit margins and investment.
• Given 1Q growth estimate at 0.5% (q/q growth) from the Eurostat, current level of Eurocoin suggest quarterly growth slowdown to around 0.4%. 
• Ifo’s Economic climate indicator for the Euro area has now been on a clear declining trend since mid-2015 and is now at its lowest levels since 1Q 2015 and second lowest reading in two-and-a-half years.
• In Germany, consensus estimates put gross domestic product growth at 0.3 percent in the current quarter and 0.4 percent in 3Q and 4Q, with full year growth of around 1.5 percent.

My view: we might see 2Q growth coming in at 0.3-0.4 percent, if April trends continue into the rest of 2Q. Overall, I expect 2016 growth to be around 1.4-1.5 percent which is just about to the downside on current consensus estimate of 1.5 percent.


Long term drivers for structural euro zone growth weakness: Even with positive 1Q 2016 print on growth side, it is fairly clear that euro zone lacks serious growth catalysts.

Everyone is talking about Brexit referendum and the renewal of the Greek crisis as key threats. Put frankly - this is a smokescreen. When it comes to longer term euro zone growth prospects both are irrelevant. Growth within the euro area has nothing to do with the UK. And Greece has been effectively removed from the markets and economic agents' considerations - the country is no longer commanding any serious media attention (with markets fatigued by the never-ending 'crises'). With ESM / EFSF /ECB now seemingly the sole bearers of Greek debt (with IMF likely to take back seat in the Bailout 3.0 as per http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/05/11516-71-steps-guide-to-greek-crisis.html) Greek funding issues and any risk of a default are unlikely to trigger Grexit. Put more directly, even if Greece were to exit the Euro, no one will bat an eyelid over such an event.

Meanwhile, the real long term problems for the euro area are:

• Capex remains subdued across the entire euro area, including Germany, Italy, France. 
• Fiscal policy is currently largely neutral and it is hard to see how the euro area can find any significant capacity to increase fiscal spending. 
• ECB stimulus is working in the financial markets, but not on the ground - there is still too much debt and too little prospect for a return on capital. Quality borrowers are not rushing to take on loans for capex. And the banks are not too eager to lend to borrowers with legacy leverage problems. 
• Eurozone banking is still a mess: capital and loans restructuring is sporadic, rather than systematic, negative rates taking a bite out of margins, but even if this headwind is taken out, markets volatility is not helping. 

And there are even bigger structural headwinds:

1. Lack of agility in the structurally over-regulated and sclerotic economy: technological innovation is weak, adoption of technological innovation is weak, labour force quality is deteriorating, so productivity growth has collapsed. Entrepreneurship is weak. Employment is sluggish and of deteriorating quality. That’s supply side.
2. Demand side is improving due to a short term boost from the post-Great Recession cyclical recovery. But, legacy issues of debt across corporate and household sectors and public finances are still present.
3. On financial side: banks-intermediated funding model for capex is a drag on growth and there is zero momentum on equity and direct debt issuance sides. Even with ECB going into another round of TLTROs, issuance of new bonds has spiked primarily because of larger corporates issuance, not because of market deepening.
4. On policies front, there is total and comprehensive paralysis. EU is malfunctioning, torn apart by crises of European making. National governments have lost capacity to legislate because of delegation of so much decision making to Brussels in the past. Political discontent is rising everywhere. We now have growing proportions of core European countries’ populations - the Big 4s - wanting to reexamine the entire EU.

Europe has been Japanified. And there is little that it can do to avoid this stagnation trap. There is no hope that  fiscal policy can do what monetary policy has failed to deliver - the great hope of Keynesianistas. And with that, both the monetary and the fiscal sides of European growth equation are out. What's left? Endless low interest rates (with a risk of policy error, should Germans rebel against Draghi's uncountable puts) and endless painful quasi-deflating (through low demand) of debt. Aka, pain.

17/5/2015: BlackRock Institute Survey: N. America & W. Europe, April

BlackRock Investment Institute released the latest Economic Cycle Survey results for North America and Western Europe:

"This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented a positive outlook on global growth, with a net of 48% of 56 economists expecting the world economy will get stronger over the next year, compared to 52% from previous report. The consensus of economists project mid-cycle expansion over the next 6 months for the global economy. At the 12 month horizon, the positive theme continued with the consensus expecting all economies spanned by the survey to strengthen or stay the same except Canada and Denmark."

Country results 6 months forward compared to current conditions assessment:

Note: (0,0) Corner point denotes Austria, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands

Country results 12 months forward:

"Eurozone is described to be in an expansionary phase of the cycle and expected to remain so over the next 2 quarters. Within the bloc, most respondents described Finland, Greece and Italy to be in a recessionary state, with the even split between contraction or recession for Portugal. Over the next 6 months, the consensus shifts toward expansion for Italy. Over the Atlantic, the consensus view is firmly that North America as a whole is in mid-cycle expansion and is to remain so over the next 6 months except Canada where the consensus is split between mid-cycle or late-cycle states."

Note: these views reflect opinions of survey respondents, not that of the BlackRock Investment Institute. Also note: cover of countries is relatively uneven, with some countries being assessed by a relatively small number of experts.

12/1/2015: Euro area and Russian Economic Outlooks: 2015

My comments to the Portuguese Expresso, covering forecasts for 2015 for Russia and the Euro area:

- Russia

Despite the end-of-2014 abatement of the currency crisis, Russian economy will continue to face severe headwinds in 2015. The core drivers for the crisis of 2014 are still present and will be hard to address in the short term.

Geopolitical crisis relating to Eastern Ukraine is now much broader, encompassing the direct juxtaposition of the Russian strategy aimed at securing its regional power base and the Western, especially Nato, interest in the region. This juxtaposition means that risks arising from escalated tensions over the Baltic sea and Eastern and Central Europe are likely to remain in place over the first half of 2015 and will not begin to ease until H2 2015 in the earliest. With them, the prospect of tougher sanctions on Russian economy is unlikely to go away.

While capital outflows are likely to diminish in 2015, Russia is still at a risk of increased pressures on the Ruble due to continued debt redemptions calls on Russian companies and banks. In H1 2015, Russian companies and banks will be required to repay ca USD46 billion in maturing debt, with roughly three quarters of this due to direct and intermediated lenders not affiliated with the borrowers. These redemptions will constitute a direct cash call of around USD25 billion, allowing for some debt raising in dim sum markets and across other markets not impacted by the Western sanctions. USD36.3 billion of debt will mature in H2 2015, which implies a direct demand for some USD17-20 billion in cash on top of H1 demand. The peak of 2015 debt maturity will take place in Q1 2015, which represents another potential flash point for the Ruble, especially as the Ruble supports from sales of corporate foreign exchange holdings requested by the Government taper off around February.

Inflation is currently already running above 10 percent and this is likely to be the lower-end support line for 2015 annual rate forecast. Again, I expect spiking up in inflation in H1 2015, reaching 13-14 percent, with some stabilisation in H2 2015 at around 11 percent.

Economic growth is likely to fall off significantly compared to the already testing 2014.

Assuming oil prices average at around USD80 per barrel (an assumption consistent with December 2014 market consensus forecast), we can expect GDP to contract by around 2.2-2.5 percent in 2015, depending on inflation trends and capital outflows dynamics.

Lower oil prices will lead to lower growth, so at USD60 per barrel, my expectation is for the economy to shrink by roughly 4-5 percent in 2015. Crucially, decline in economic activity will be broadly based. I expect dramatic contraction in domestic demand, driven by twin collapse in consumer spending and private investment. In line with these forces, demand for imports will decline by around 15 percent in 2015, possibly as much as 20 percent, with most of this impact being felt by European exporters. Public investment will lag and fiscal tightening on expenditure side will mean added negative drag on growth.

About the only positive side of the Russian economy will be imports substitution in food and drink sectors, and a knock on effect from this on food processing, transportation and distribution sectors.

To the adverse side of the above forecasts, if interest rates remain at current levels, we can see a broad and significant weakening in the banks balance sheets and cash flows arising from growth in non-performing loans, and corporate and household defaults, as well as huge pressure on banks margins and operating profits. This can trigger a banking crisis, and will certainly cut deeper into corporate and household credit supply.

On the downside of my forecast, a combination of lower oil prices (average annual price at around USD50-60 per barrel) and monetary tightening, together with fiscal consolidation can result in economic can result in a recession of around 7 percent in 2015, with inflation running at around 13 percent over the full year 2015.

Even under the most benign assumptions, Russian economy is facing a very tough 2015. Crucially, from the socio-economic point of view, 2015 will see two adverse shocks to the system: the requirement to rebalance public spending on social benefits in order to compensate for inflation and Ruble devaluation pressures, and the rising demand on social services from rising unemployment. Volatility will be high through H1 2015, with crisis re-igniting from time to time, causing big calls on CBR to use forex reserves and prompting escalating rhetoric about political instability. We can also expect Government reshuffle and rising pressure on fiscal policy side. The risk of capital controls will remain in place, but. most likely, we will have to wait until after the end of Q1 2015 to see this threat re-surfacing.


- Eurozone

2014 was characterised by continued decoupling of the euro area from other advanced economies in terms of growth. Stagnation of the euro area economy, arising primarily from the legacy of the balances sheet crisis that started in 2007-2008 will remain the main feature of the regional economy in 2015. Despite numerous monetary policy innovations and the never-ending talk from the ECB, the European Commission and Council on the need for action, euro area's core problems remain unaddressed. These are: public and private debt overhangs, excessive levels of taxation suppressing innovation and entrepreneurship, a set of substantial demographic challenges and the lack of structural drivers for productivity growth.

My expectation is for the euro area economy to expand by around 0.8-1 percent in 2015 in real terms, with inflation staying at very low levels, running at an annual rate of around 0.6-0.7 percent. Inflation forecast is sensitive to energy prices and is less sensitive to monetary policy, but it is relatively clear that consumer demand is unlikely to rebound sufficiently enough to lift inflation off its current near-zero plateau. Corporate investment will also remain stagnant, with exception of potential acceleration in M&A activities in Europe, driven primarily by the build up in retained corporate earnings on the balance sheets of the North American and Asian companies.

Barring adverse shocks, growth will remain more robust in some of the hardest-hit 'peripheral' economies, namely Ireland, Spain and Portugal. This dynamic is warranted by the magnitude of the crisis that impacted these economies prior to 2013. Thus, the three 'peripherals' will likely out-perform core European states in terms of growth. Italy, however, will remain the key economic pressure point for the euro area, and Greece will remain volatile in political terms. Within core economies, recovery in Germany will be subdued, but sufficient enough to put pressure on ECB and the European Commission to withdraw support for more aggressive monetary and fiscal measures. France will see little rebound from current stagnation, but this rebound will be relatively weak and primarily technical in nature.

Crucially, the ECB will be able to meet its balance sheet expansion targets only partially in 2015. Frankfurt's asset base expansion is likely to be closer to EUR300-400 billion instead of EUR500 billion-plus expected by the policymakers. The reason for this will be lack of demand for new funding by the banks which are still facing pressures of deleveraging and will continue experiencing elevated levels of non-performing loans. In return, weaker than expected monetary expansion will mean a shift in policymakers rhetoric toward the thesis that fiscal policies will have to take up the slack in supporting growth. We can expect, therefore, lack of progress in terms of fiscal consolidations, especially in France and Italy, but also Spain. All three countries will likely fail to meet their fiscal targets for 2015-2016. Thus, across the euro area, government debt levels will not post significant improvement in 2015, carrying over the pain of public sector deleveraging into 2016.

As the result of fiscal consolidation slack, growth will be more reliant on public spending. While notionally this will support GDP expansion, on the ground there will be little real change - European economies are already saturated with public spending and any further expansion is unlikely to drive up real, ROI-positive, activity.

Overall, euro area will, despite all the policy measures being put forward, remain a major drag on global growth in 2015, with the regional economy further decoupling from the North American and Asia-Pacific regions. The core causes of European growth slump are not cyclical and cannot be addressed by continuing to prime the tax-and-spend pump of traditional European politics. Further problem to European growth revival thesis is presented by the political cycle. In the presence of rising force of marginal and extremist populism, traditional parties and incumbent Governments will be unable to deploy any serious reforms. Neither austerity-centric deleveraging approach currently adopted by Europe, nor growth-focused reforms of taxation and subsidies mechanisms will be feasible. Which simply means that status quo of weak growth and severe debt overhangs will remain in place.

The above outlook is based on a number of assumptions that are contestable. One key assumption is that of no disruption in the current sovereign bonds markets. If the pick up in the global economy is more robust, however, we can see the beginning of deflation in the Government bonds markets, leading to sharper rise in 'peripheral' and other European yields, higher call on funding costs and lower ability to issue new debt. In this case, all bets on fiscal policy supporting modest growth will be off and we will see even greater reliance in the euro area on ECB stance.

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…

15/12/2014: BlackRock Institute Survey: North America & Western Europe, December 2014

BlackRock Investment Institute released the latest Economic Cycle Survey results for North America and Western Europe:

"This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented a positive outlook on global growth, with a net of 52% of 84 economists expecting the world economy will get stronger over the next year, compared to net 47% figure in last month’s report." Back in October, the proportion was 43% and in September it was 55%. The consensus of economists project mid-cycle expansion over the next 6 months for the global economy - same as in October and November.

"At the 12 month horizon, the positive theme continued with the consensus expecting all economies spanned by the survey to strengthen or stay the same except Finland, Sweden and Norway." Norway featured as an exception in October report and November. Back in October and November reports, expected deviation from stronger trend was also reported for Belgium.

"Eurozone is described to be in an expansionary phase of the cycle and expected to remain so over the next 2 quarters. Within the bloc, most respondents described Finland and Italy to be in a recessionary state, with the even split between contraction or recession for Greece, France and Portugal. Over the next 6 months, the consensus shifts toward expansion for both Finland and Italy." These results were broadly consistent with october and November reports.

"Over the Atlantic, the consensus view is firmly that North America as a whole is in mid-cycle expansion and is to remain so over the next 6 months." Again, this was in line with October and November reports.

 Note: Red dot denotes Austria, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Switzerland.

For comparative purpose: October survey mapping 6 months out:

Previous report was covered here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/10/6102014-blackrock-institute-survey-n.html

Note: these views reflect opinions of survey respondents, not that of the BlackRock Investment Institute. Also note: cover of countries is relatively uneven, with some countries being assessed by a relatively small number of experts.

6/10/2014: BlackRock Institute Survey: N. America & W. Europe, September 2014

BlackRock Investment Institute released the latest Economic Cycle Survey results for North America and Western Europe. Here are the main points (emphasis and comments are mine):

"This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented a positive outlook on global growth, with a net of 55% of 98 economists expecting the world economy will get stronger over the next year, compared to net 59% figure in last month’s report [and 81% in July survey]."

Global outlook: "The consensus of economists project mid-cycle expansion over the next 6 months for the global economy. At the 12 month horizon, the positive theme continued with the consensus expecting all economies spanned  by the survey to strengthen or stay the same except France, Finland and Belgium.

Regional outlook: Euro Area: "Eurozone is described to be in an expansionary phase of the cycle and expected to remain so over the next 2 quarters. Within the bloc, most respondents described Greece, Italy and France to be in a recessionary state [same outcome was recorded back in August survey], with the even split between contraction or recession for Belgium and Finland [in August survey, this applied to Portugal and Finland]. Over the next 6 months, the consensus shifts toward expansion for Greece and Italy [with Italy being a new addition to this list compared to August survey]."

US and North America: "Over the Atlantic, the consensus view is firmly that North America as a whole is in mid-cycle expansion and is to remain so over the next 6 months." [Same result as in August survey].


Two charts to illustrate:

Previous month results are here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/08/2382014-blackrock-institute-survey-n.html

Note: these views reflect opinions of survey respondents, not that of the BlackRock Investment Institute. Also note: cover of countries is relatively uneven, with some countries being assessed by a relatively small number of experts.

23/8/2014: BlackRock Institute Survey: N. America & W. Europe, August 2014

BlackRock Investment Institute released the latest Economic Cycle Survey results for North America and Western Europe. Here are the main points (emphasis mine):

"This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented a positive outlook on global growth, with a net of 59% of 74 economists expecting the world economy will get stronger over the next year, compared to net 81% figure in last month’s report."

Global outlook: "The consensus of economists project mid-cycle expansion over the next 6 months for the global economy. At the 12 month horizon, the positive theme continued with the consensus expecting all economies spanned by the survey to strengthen or stay the same."

Regional outlook for Euro area: "Eurozone is described to be in an expansionary phase of the cycle and expected to remain so over the next 2 quarters. Within the bloc, most respondents described Greece, Italy and France to be in a recessionary state, with the even split between contraction or recession for Portugal and Finland. Over the next 6 months, the consensus shifts toward expansion for Finland, France and Italy and an even split between contraction or recession for Greece and Portugal.

US and North America: "Over the Atlantic, the consensus view is firmly that North America as a whole is in mid-cycle expansion and is to remain so over the next 6 months."

Two charts to illustrate:

Note: Red dot denotes Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

Previous month results are here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/07/1672014-blackrock-institute-survey-n.html

Note: these views reflect opinions of survey respondents, not that of the BlackRock Investment Institute. Also note: cover of countries is relatively uneven, with some countries being assessed by a relatively small number of experts.

11/1/2014: Don't mention the 'D' word in the Eurozone, yet...

Bloomberg this week published a note analysing the GDP performance of the euro area countries during the Great Depression and the Great Recession: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-06/europe-s-prospects-looked-better-in-1930s.html. The unpleasant assessment largely draws on the voxeu. org note here: http://www.voxeu.org/article/eurozone-if-only-it-were-1930s.

Perhaps the most important (forward-looking) statement is that in the current environment "complying with the EU's debt-sustainability rules will entail severe and indefinite budget stringency, clouding the prospects for growth still further". This references the EU Fiscal Compact and 2+6 Packs legislation.

And on a related note, something I am covering in the forthcoming Sunday Times column tomorrow (italics in the text are mine and bold emphasis added):

"What are the fiscal lessons? First, avoid deflation ... at all costs. ... Beyond that, the options in theory would seem to be financial repression, debt forgiveness, debt restructuring and outright default. Financial repression, the time-honored remedy, would seem to be out of bounds... and EU governments aren't yet ready to contemplate the alternatives [debt forgiveness, restructuring and defaults]. At some point, they will have to. In the 1930s, the situation didn't look so hopeless."

But why would the default word creep into the above equation?

Update: and another economist calling for debt restructuring/default denouement: http://www.voxeu.org/article/why-fiscal-sustainability-matters#.UtJWBR7i-nh.gmail
I know, I know - everything has been fixed now, so no need to panic...

Trichet's latest interview - much hype, little substance

Here is an exclusive interview, Jean-Claude Trichet (ECB) gave to Foundation Robert Schuman. And here is my quick and dirty walk through its main points:

"Since the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999, European citizens have enjoyed a level of price stability which had been achieved in only a few countries. This price stability directly benefits all European citizens, as it protects income and savings and helps to reduce borrowing costs, thereby promoting investment, job creation and lasting prosperity. The euro has been a factor in the dynamism of the European economy. It has enhanced price transparency, it has increased trade, and it has promoted economic and financial integration, not only within the euro area, but also globally."

Not really. Price stability in the eurozone has been pretty average - not as good as in Germany and several other countries over the years before the euro, similar to that in the UK, US and pretty much the rest of the developed world in the 2000-2008 period. A picture is worth a thousand words: since the adoption of the euro through mid 2008 (before deflation), inflation in the euroarea exceeded that in the non-euro EU states...
But it is in growth, dynamism and employment where the 10 years of the euro have recorded a very poor performance. I have already posted on this topic (here, here, and here). EU's growth rates since the early 1990s on have been sluggish (lagging behind the US and UK and only notching above a recessionary Japan). Euro area's unemployment remained well above the US, UK and almost all of the rest of the OECD. Eurozone's employment growth has been better than Japan's, but worse than any other OECD economy. So while the euro did enhance price transparency marginally, it did have very little real benefit in improving the quality of life for an average European. Not surprisingly, the euro is not enjoying a strong ride in terms of its democratic legitimacy (here).

"In recent months we have seen another benefit of the euro: the financial crisis has already demonstrated that... Would Europe have been able to act as swiftly, decisively and coherently if we had not had the single currency uniting us? Would we have been able to protect many separate national currencies from the fallout of the financial crisis? European authorities, parliaments, governments and central banks have shown that Europe is capable of taking decisions, even in the most difficult circumstances."

Again, largely untrue - as of today, there is no coherent eurozone-wide response to the crisis. The EU joint response to date is to issue a €5bn in stimulus, and this is yet to be disbursed. While the euro did protect some countries from a run on their currencies, it also boxed majority of eurozone's exporters into a corner of over-valued medium of exchange. Perhaps most importantly, lack of agreement between the European governments - exemplified in a series of failed summits since Autumn 2008 through today - shows unequivocally that "European authorities, parliaments, governments and central banks" are not "capable of taking decisions, even in the most difficult circumstances". The EU itself. this week, put the total size of its recession busting plans at between 3.3 and 4% of GDP, including welfare spending and yet to be specified and agreed measures. This is still short of the US plan to devote 5.5% of GDP to recovery efforts (source: here).

I agree with Mr Trichet that much-talked-about price increases in the wake of euro adoption have been small across the eurozone, but he is plain wrong in claiming that:

"With the benefit of hindsight, it has become clear that the Governing Council of the ECB ...took the correct decisions in order to guarantee price stability in the euro area in line with our mandate and as required by the Treaty establishing the European Community."

This statement is bordering on being offensive and arrogant. Mr Trichet is fully aware that his action of raising interest rates at the very end of the bubble has done too little too late to cool the markets. Similarly, his reckless increases in the interest rates in July-October 2008, as well as keeping the rates high in the first half of 2008 have spelled a disaster for the eurozone economies and also led to an overvaluation of the euro. His failure to act in July-August 2007 to lower rates was an act of mad denial of the unfolding credit crisis. Between July 2007 and September 2008, Mr Trichet stubbornly insisted that the credit crisis was not a problem for the eurozone.

"According to the ECB staff macroeconomic projections published on 5 March 2009, annual real GDP growth in the euro area is projected to be between -3.2% and -2.2% in 2009, and between -0.7% and +0.7% in 2010."

This is a much more gloomy (and much more realistic) outlook than the EU Commission -1.9% forecast for GDP growth in 2009. But note 2010 figures -0.7 to +0.7 or a central point of 0%. An optimist at heart.

"Since the outbreak of the financial turbulence in August 2007, the Governing Council of the ECB has taken unprecedented action in a timely and decisive manner."

Chart below illustrates...
So nothing short of a failure above.

But what about rescuing troubled countries (APIIGS)? "...My response to questions of the type "What would happen if...?" is that I never comment on absurd hypotheses. I have confidence that the Member States will face up to their responsibilities, including with regard to fiscal policy." In other words, is the answer yes or is it no? Is this answer consistent with what Mr Lenihan told reporters about ECB's readiness to rescue Irish banking system (here)?

Overall, a pretty vacuous interview from a man who obviously has no way of re-assuring anyone that he can handle the current economic crisis in the eurozone. A bit more competent than our Brian^2+Mary partial-indifferential-equation, but a lot less competent than, say, the US Fed&Treasury gang.