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.

29/6/15: Greece & Grexit: In Europe, what the bank does, the kings say

Couple of interesting items on on Greek crisis:

Bloomberg prints an exercise in extrapolating Greek devaluation to Mexico peso crisis. It is an interesting exercise in so far as it does indicate (imperfectly) one side of the 'pain coin' currently spinning in the air. But it does not provide for any realistic comparatives to the other side of the same coin: the side of Greece not opting out of the euro area. Suppose the estimated path in the Bloomberg chart is correct and Greece, exiting the euro does face a devaluation 'bill' of some 300 percent-odd. As Bloomberg article says, there will be pain. Huge pain. Now, suppose Greece does not opt for direct devaluation. Then what? Then - exactly the same adjustment will have to happen via internal devaluation. Absent inflation (of any significance) in the euro area (and even given the ECB target inflation), this means all of this adjustment will be carried by Greek people. Except, with devaluation and exit, Greece will still retain internal markets for adjustment: with reforms (not guaranteed by any means), and with some pain taken on the side of capital / funding, it might ameliorate the period of post-default devaluation (the 'jump' stage in the chart below). Staying in the euro clearly implies zero adjustment on capital side, with all adjustment on households' side (employment, earnings, pensions etc). In addition, staying with euro implies no imports substitution (no price effects), exiting implies devaluation-driven imports substitution. Finally, staying with the euro implies no exports boost from devalued currency.

Source: Bloomberg

So the Bloomberg exercise is fine and interesting, but one-sided ad extremum.

Which rounds us to the latest news from the ECB. With Greeks requesting EUR6 billion increase in ELA and ECB rejecting it, Reuters reports a comment from a source on the situation:

"Commenting on the expected extension of existing emergency funding, one person said: "It doesn't make sense to stop it now. The banks are not able to pay it back anyway. So if you froze it for another two or three days, it wouldn't make any difference."" Except, of course, it does make perfect sense: if the ECB were to extend ELA, there would not have been capital controls (note: I am not suggesting the ECB should have done so - that's a different matter). However, without ECB support for ELA uplift, we have capital controls. Which sends a clear message from Frankfurt to Greek voters: this is what you will have to live with if you go against us. 

And this neatly dovetails with what Jean Claude Juncker said to the Greek voters earlier: "You should say ‘yes’ regardless of what the question is.” 

Because whether Reuters wants it or not, in Europe, what the bank does, the banks' kings say.