16/8/2012: Financial Repression - Round 2

Financial repression continues to gain speed in Ireland: link here.

Basic idea: having raided actual pensions funds, the Irish Government is to issue special annuities (priced accordingly to reflect State's 'grudging acceptance' for now of the pensions tax break) for insurance and pensions providers.

The good part of the idea is, as Fitch points in the note, added funding stream for the Government.

The bad parts are, as Fitch does not bother to note:

• Deleveraging economy means that funds will be taken out of the already diminished private investment stream, should the annuities be successful in raising such funds;
• Risks of claims exposure to Ireland for Ireland-based providers will now be amplified by more assets tied to Ireland (de-diversification);
• The new funding is debt, priced more expensively than what we can avail of from the Troika programme and subsequently from the ESM (at least access to and the cheapness of the ESM funds was the Government-own rationale for convincing the voters to back the Fiscal Compact earlier this year - something that the rating agencies have confirmed, as I recall);
• The new funding is still debt, which means that the new 'source' is not going to help restoring Irish public finances to sustainability path;
• Payments on these annuities will be subject to the same seepage out to imports (consumption of recipient households) as any other income and thus will have lower impact on our GDP, and an even worse impact on our GNP, than were the annuities structured using foreign governments' bonds;
• Share of the Irish state liabilities held by domestic investors will rise, which automatically implies riskier profile for both: Exchequer future funding and pensions;
• The latter (pensions funding risk profile deterioration) will also induce higher expected value of future unfunded liabilities (basically, as risk of pensions funding rises, probability of claims on state in the future to fund public pensions rises as well), and so on.

But, hey, why would the Irish State bother with any of these concerns when they've found another quick fix to €3-5 billion of our cash?

And on a more macro level, financial repression is back on the EU agenda too. The latest spike in French rhetoric about the need for 'own-funding' of the EU operations (link here) is just that, have no doubt. The idea is to give EU some central taxation powers so, as claim goes, it reduces the 'burden' on national governments. So far so good? Not exactly. Neither the French, nor any other Government in Europe at this stage is planning to 'rebate' (or reduce) internal tax burdens to compensate for EU new tax burden. In other words, the Governments ill simply pocket the 'savings'. Which, to put it simply, means the new 'powers' will simply be new taxes for the already heavily over-taxed and recession-weakened economies of Europe.

All in the name of deleveraging the State at the expense of the real economy. And that is exactly what the financial repression is all about.

Updated: And just in case we need more 'creative' thinking, here's an example of financial suppression: It turns out Nama (Irish State Bad Bank - don't argue that SPV thingy, please) should use public purse to suppress normal price discovery processes in Irish property markets. Right... you really can't make this up. Irish elites are now so desperate for relevance, they are fishing that Confidence Genie anytime anyone is feigning some attention to what they have to say.

20/7/2012: European Corporatism comes full circle

A very important analysis from Edmund Phelps in today's FT (link here) of the roots and core causes of the euro area crisis.

Some major points of interest:

"The difficulties of many European countries derive from their corporatism: state projects serving cronies and vast social protection programmes, both run by elites. These surged in the 1970s and 1980s. The prospect of a lifetime of such benefits – sweet contracts, soft loans, early pensions and the rest – created something new: social wealth."


On the money. And


"As increases in benefits outpaced increases in taxes, households saved some of the gains in disposable income. So households saw their private wealth rising alongside the social wealth."


Also on the money. Even more so because 1) taxes were already high so there was no room to increase them by much, and 2) lowering of taxes was used strategically to strengthen corporatist re-distribution of income & wealth from the more productive to the less productive activities (a combination of corporate and social welfare state).


"In both Italy and France, the ratio of household net private wealth to household disposable income soared, rising by one-fifth from 2000 to 2007. (The increase was one-sixth in Germany, negative in the US.)" 


Now, note: what does the European (and Irish) Left wanted and still wants? Higher income taxes. Which, of course, will mean wealth/income ratio would have been / will be even higher! This is exactly what I said during my recent appearance on TV3 Vincent Browne's show. 


The role of banks and debt in all of this charade? To cover the widening gap in wealth/income ratio and public deficits, "So it was a relief that the Basel I agreement, which went into effect in 1990, lowered to zero banks’ capital requirement on sovereign debt – no matter how risky." In other words, European sovereigns financed their corrupt corporatist regimes via leveraging private deposits to fund government bonds purchases by the banks - privatizing public waste first. 


So two lessons or questions from above are:

1. Does transfer of private banks debts to public purses in Europe constitute the return of previously privatized public debts? And if it does, the effect is that the state has twice colluded with the banks to defraud the people of Europe - first as savers and consumers, second as taxpayers.
2. Does the ongoing process of increasing government bonds holdings in domestic banks and investment and pensions funds actively promoted by the European and national authorities (see for example ECB LTROs and Irish NTMA latest plans) not constitute exactly the replay of the road to the crisis? 

19/7/2012: Minister Noonan's 'valuations' & NTMA's latest scheme

An interesting - and potentially revealing - contribution from Minister Noonan on the prospective ESM involvement in purchasing Irish banks assets held by the Government - see full link here (H/T to Owen Callan of Danske Markets).

Here are some interesting bits (from my pov - note, emphasis in quotes is mine):

"...if Europe's new rescue fund takes over the government's stakes in its banks, it would need to do so at prices significantly above their current low valuations."

So what should be the prices benchmark to be paid by ESM for Irish banks?

We know what Minister Noonan thinks what they should not be:
"We wouldn't think we were being assisted or treated fairly if we were only offered the terms we could get from a willing hedge fund who wanted to purchase the stake the Irish government has in the banks," Noonan told a news conference"

Ok, a willing hedge fund is mentioned as a benchmark floor. What willing hedge fund? 1) Have there been approaches that set out some valuation? 2) Have these approaches involved sufficient depth of discussion to show the actual price the fund was willing to pay, other than the low-ball first bid? 3) Have these approaches been systematic or random?

Now, suppose there has been a series of approaches and the hedge funds' willing price is €X million. Suppose Minister Noonan insists on ESM paying a minimum price of €Y million that is above €X million, which means there is a positive premium to be paid by ESM.

What principle should guide this premium valuation? "The valuation will be an issue for negotiation but before we could agree, they would need to be significantly in advance of those figures," Noonan added, referring to figures showing that investments by the country's National Pension Reserve Fund (NPRF) in its top two banks were now worth 8.1 billion euros."

Is Minister Noonan seriously suggesting ESM should pay Irish Government more than €8.1 billion? Since NPRF valuations of the banks stakes are make-believe stuff with absolutely no proven testability in the actual markets, will ESM be buying into a loss then? Ex ante?!



Another interesting comment in the article cited above is the following one:

"The NTMA also confirmed plans to diversify its sources of funding later this year with its first sovereign issuance of annuity bonds to Irish-based pension funds and inflation-linked bonds also aimed at domestic investors.

Corrigan said it was not inconceivable that it could raise 3 to 5 billion euros over the next 18 months from the two new instruments.

"International investors don't owe us a living, they don't have to buy our paper, and if the local investors don't have the confidence to invest in the market and aren't seen to have that confidence, it's going to be very difficult to get international investors back," he said."

Which, of course is all reasonably fine but for two matters:

1. Domestic pension funds will be acting against normal practice and investing in low-rated (high risk) government securities within the very same economy in which they face future liabilities (reducing risk diversification). In other words, Irish insurance funds will have to be compelled to undertake such investment in violation of acceptable international standards. Have the Government now also taken over the pensions industry to add to their banking sector portfolio?
2. If foreign investors 'won't owe Irish Government a living' why should domestic investors owe Irish Government anything? By treating two investors differently rhetorically, does Mr Corrigan explicitly differentiate treatment of domestic investors from foreign investors? It appears to be exactly so because the products he references are not going to be offered to foreign investors. Which begs the third question:
3. Will NTMA create sub-category of seniority for Irish pension funds and 'domestic investors' to effectively load even more risk onto them compared to foreign investors? After all, he seems to suggest domestic investor owe him something that foreign investors don't?