5/2/19: The Myth of the Euro: Economic Convergence

The last eight years of Euro's 20 years in existence have been a disaster for the thesis of economic convergence - the idea that the common currency is a necessary condition for delivering economic growth to the 'peripheral' euro area economies in the need of 'convergence' with the more advanced economies levels of economic development.

The chart below plots annual rates of GDP growth for the original Eurozone 12 economies, broken into two groups: the more advanced EA8 economies and the so-called Club Med or the 'peripheral' economies.

It is clear from the chart that in  growth terms, using annual rates or the averages over each decade, the Euro creation did not sustain significant enough convergence of the 'peripheral' economies of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain with the EA8 more advanced economies of the original euro 12 states. Worse, since the Global Financial Crisis onset, we are witnessing a massive divergence in economic activity.

To highlight the compounding effects of these annual growth rates dynamics, consider an index of real GDP levels set at 100 for 1990 levels for both the EA8 and the 'peripheral' states:

Not only the divergence is dramatic, but the euro area 'peripheral' economies have not fully recovered from the 2008-2013 crisis, with their total real GDP sitting still 3.2 percentage points below the pre-crisis peak (attained in 2007), marking 2018 as the eleventh year of the crisis for these economies.  With Italy now in a technical recession - posting two consecutive quarters of negative growth in 3Q and 4Q 2018 based on preliminary data, and that recession accelerating (from -0.1% contraction in 3Q to -0.2% drop in 4Q) we are unlikely to see any fabled 'Euro-induced convergence' between the lower income states of the so-called Euro 'periphery' and the Euro area 8 states.

4/5/16: Canaries of Growth are Off to Disneyland of Debt

Kids and kiddies, the train has arrived. Next stop: that Disneyland of Financialized Growth Model where debt is free and debt is never too high…

Courtesy of Fitch:

Source: @soberlook

The above in the week when ECB’s balancehseet reached EUR3 trillion marker and the buying is still going on. And in the month when estimates for Japan’s debt/GDP ratio will hit 249.3% of GDP by year end

Source: IMF

And now we have big investors panicking about debt: http://www.businessinsider.com/druckenmiller-thinks-fed-is-setting-world-up-for-disaster-2016-5. So Stanley Druckenmiller, head of Duquesne Capital, thinks that “leverage is far too high, saying that central banks and China have allowed for these excesses to continue and it's setting us up for danger.”

What all of the above really is missing is one simple catalyst to tie it all together. That catalysts is the realisation that not only the Central Banks are to be blamed for ‘allowing the excesses of leverage’ to run amok, but that the entire economic policy space in the advanced economies - from the central banks to fiscal policy to financial regulation - has been one-track pony hell-bent on actively increasing leverage, not just allowing it.

Take Europe. In the EU, predominant source of funding for companies and entrepreneurs is debt - especially banks debt. And predominant source of funding for Government deficits is the banking and investment system. And in the EU everyone pays lip service to the need for less debt-fuelled growth. But, in the end, it is not the words, but the deeds that matter. So take EU’s Capital Markets Union - an idea that is centred on… debt. Here we have it: a policy directive that says ‘capital markets’ in the title and literally predominantly occupies itself with how the system of banks and bond markets can issue more debt and securitise more debt to issue yet more debt.

That Europe and the U.S. are not Japan is a legacy of past policies and institutions and a matter of the proverbial ‘yet’, given the path we are taking today.

So it’s Disneyland of Debt next, folks, where in a classic junkie-style we can get more loans and more assets and more loans backed by assets to buy more assets. Public, private, financial, financialised, instrumented, digitalised, intellectual, physical, dumb, smart, new economy, old economy, new normal, old normal etc etc etc. And in this world, stashing more cash into safes (as Japanese ‘investors’ are doing increasingly) or into banks vaults (as Munich Re and other insurers and pension funds have been doing increasingly) is now the latest form of insurance against the coming debt markets Disneyland-styled ‘investments’.

14/11/15: My Comment on Portuguese Political Crisis

Two comments from myself on the topic of Portugal's political crisis effect on country macroeconomic and fiscal positioning:
http://expresso.sapo.pt/economia/2015-11-12-Divida-espanhola-e-portuguesa-sob-pressao and http://expresso.sapo.pt/economia/2015-11-11-Juros-da-divida-portuguesa-descem.-Mas-preco-dos-cds-continua-a-aumentar.

Full comment in English:

Do you think the financial markets and the debt agencies will move its focus from Greece to Portugal now and later on for Spain near or after theDecember 20 elections?

The latest euro area ‘periphery’ political crisis - the collapse of the Centre-Right Government in Portugal - sets the stage for a potential replay of the logistics of the Greek crisis of Summer 2015 scenario.

Both the markets and European leadership are likely to present the crisis as an isolated event, linked to the lack of ‘programme ownership’ in Portugal and not indicative of the broader political and policy trends across the EU. In other words, all official players in the sovereign debt markets will attempt to paint Portuguese situation as a ‘one-off’ event with no risk of contagion to other member states. As a result, rating agencies’ downgrades can be expected only if the crisis persists or if the new Government includes the elements of what is perceived to be ‘extreme Left’. At the same time, the rhetoric surrounding political crisis will be shifted into the discussion of domestic failures and the allegedly destructive role of populist politics. The key to this approach is the clear desire by the European leaders to contain the spread of political opportunism and limit the extent to which democratic politics can transmit public anger and dissatisfaction with post-crisis recovery from one ‘peripheral’ state to another, namely from Portugal to Spain and Italy, as well as, potentially, to Ireland which is likely to face elections in the first quarter of 2016. There are strong incentives for European authorities to send a warning message to Spanish electorate and political elites before December 20th elections, albeit it is difficult to see how such a warning can be structured in the case of Portugal. In my view, we are likely to see renewed talks about Portugal’s compliance with fiscal harmonisation rules and, potentially, a warning concerning the risk of the country running excessive deficits in 2016-2017 on foot of political realignment.


How do you evaluate the present risk of Portugal regarding the debt sovereign market? Yields will go for new highs in 2015?

Currently, CDS markets are pricing in 15.5% chance of sovereign default (under ISDA2003 rules) for Portugal, up on 14.5% a week ago, compared to 3.5% for Ireland, down from 3.8% a week ago. The trend to-date suggests some increased pressure on sovereign risk position for Portugal that has been priced in since the appointment of the Centre-Right Government and this is consistent with a view that relatively sharp increases in government debt yields represent possible overshooting of risk valuations. Two critical aspects of the crisis in the context of debt sustainability view are: how long the new political impasse will last and what signals a new Cabinet will send after appointment. If the crisis continues over a relatively prolonged period of time (more than a week) and /or if the new Cabinet is slow in clearly defining its position vis-a-vis the European policy direction toward sustained fiscal and structural reforms, bond yields are likely to continue rising, putting pressure on Portugal’s access to new funding. Absent significant worsening of the political crisis, Portugal’s debt sustainability dynamics are likely to remain hostages to economic fundamentals: the rate and the nature of economic growth over 2015-2016, rather than to political risks.

Most likely, given the degrees of uncertainty relating to the political nature of the latest crisis, DBRS will take a ‘wait-and-see’ position, issuing negative watch warning on its ratings, but staying out of moving for an outright downgrade this time around. However, the risk of the downgrade remains significant and the impact of such a downgrade can also be material. Given that all major rating agencies have already downgraded Portugal Sovereign ratings, a DBRS downgrade will force the ECB to either halt purchases of Portuguese bonds in its QE programme or to issue a waver for eligibility criteria. In the former case, pressures on sovereign yields are likely to be severe making new issuance of debt much more costly proposition.


Note: DBRS did take a 'wait-and-see' position on Friday (see here)

25/10/15: Mess in Lisbon: Democracy is Complicated...

What on Earth is going on in Portugal? Here are some views:

1) By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the headline that says most of it: “Eurozone crosses Rubicon as Portugal's anti-euro Left banned from power” with a sub-head that says the rest: “Constitutional crisis looms after anti-austerity Left is denied parliamentary prerogative to form a majority government”. Key quote (emphasis is mine): “For the first time since the creation of Europe’s monetary union, a member state has taken the explicit step of forbidding eurosceptic parties from taking office on the grounds of national interest. Anibal Cavaco Silva, Portugal’s constitutional president, has refused to appoint a Left-wing coalition government even though it secured an absolute majority in the Portuguese parliament and won a mandate to smash the austerity regime bequeathed by the EU-IMF Troika.” Read the rest here.

2) By Chris Hanretty (University of East Anglia) sums up the facts about the President Silva decision that contrast with the common narrative that the President has forbidden Eurosceptic parties from gaining power. Read his points here.

3) And a view from Portugal’s president which clearly postulates the primary reason for his decision to re-appoint Prime Minister, Dr. Pedro Passos Coelho was the objective of ensuring continuity with Portugal’s commitments to the Troika and stability of policy formation. The considerations of democratic traditions and rules were instrumental to that primary objective.

4) So perhaps the better summary of the events unfolding in Lisbon is the more balanced report from Simon Nixon for the WSJ. “Undoubtedly, Mr. Cavaco Silva helped fan such talk with what even some of his own party concede was an ill-judged televised address in which he cited the need to maintain the confidence of markets and adhere to the country’s European destiny among the reasons for his decision. Yet the reality is that Mr. Cavaco Silva has acted fully in accordance with the constitution, which gives the directly elected president wide discretion in the appointment of the prime minister.”

And another fact that is beyond any doubt: Portugal’s electorate is split. Very seriously split. And there is little hope of consensus emerging any time soon.

Source: http://visualoop.com/infographics/legislative-2015-all-numbers-wondering-about-elections

18/10/15: Is Ireland a Euro Periphery Outlier? Some Historical Data

How unique is Ireland within the club of euro peripheral countries? Well, historically, rather unique. Alas, sometimes for the reasons not entirely in our favour.

The following are excerpts from the recent ECB paper titled “Fiscal policy adjustments in the
euro area stressed countries: new evidence from non-linear models with state-varying thresholds”.

Quote: “Fiscal policy authorities of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain are shown to have, on average, historically followed a "spend-and-tax" model of fiscal adjustment, where government spending is decided by the political process, and the burden of correcting fiscal disequilibria is entirely left to the tax instrument.”

Of course, ‘historically’ here means over the period 1960-2013 for all countries, with exception of Spain (1970-2013).

But before then, what were the pre-conditions (thresholds) for taking action? “During the 1960-2013 period for Greece, Ireland and Portugal and during the 1970-2013 period for Spain, we find that the threshold estimate for the budget deficit-to-GDP ratio, which led to different fiscal correction regimes, was on average 4.90% for Greece, 5.10% for Ireland, 3.22% for Portugal and 3.12% for Spain.”

In other words, Ireland had the greatest tolerance - over the entire period - for deficits, opting to wait until average deficit as % of GDP would hit above 5.1%, well above Greece (4.9%) and the rest of the peripheral states.

So now, let’s tackle the more recent period, from the start of the Euro: “When considering the period after 1999, this overall picture worsens for Greece and Portugal and improves for Ireland. Moreover, the results for Ireland and Spain are driven by the financial crisis period. In particular for Ireland, the decoupling dynamics of the government spending reflects the support to the financial sector. In fact, when considering the pre-crisis EMU period between 1999 and 2007, the threshold for fiscal adjustment in Ireland and Spain are estimated to be positive; namely, the regime change took place when the budget balance was in surplus. Conversely, the fiscal deficit-to-GDP thresholds estimated at 5.32% for Greece and 4.08% for Portugal remained rather high.”

The above basically boils down to the following: since 1999, growing economies of Ireland and Spain allowed two countries to substantially reverse pro-cyclicality of deficits and significantly reduce thresholds for budgetary actions. This did not happen in Greece and Portugal. While Ireland gets a pat on the back for pre 2007 period, it is hardly unique in this achievement.

But despite the gains of the 1999-2007, things did not change all that much within the structure of deficits and adjustments. So per ECB paper “Looking at the effects of the economic cycle, we find that fiscal deficit-to-GDP ratio was not reduced in Greece, Ireland and Portugal with the improvement in economic activity. Consequently, during the contractionary times, fiscal corrections became more costly, as tax adjustments became a priority in an attempt to restore fiscal discipline.”

In other words, we were not unique in the way we handled the underlying structure of public spending imbalances, despite having substantially reduced the fiscal action thresholds.

But may be during the peak of the crisis we widened up? Indeed, ECB offers some positive evidence in this direction, but it also argues that the same took place in Spain and Portugal. “The results also suggest that during a financial crisis the fiscal deficit-to-GDP threshold was relaxed in Ireland and Spain, while it was reduced in Portugal. By relaxing the fiscal deficit-to-GDP threshold (in an attempt to stave off deep recessionary pressures) Ireland and Spain relied on business cycle improvements to raise tax revenues. Given the tendency by Portuguese authorities to improve the fiscal imbalances during a financial crisis, these figures make sustainability concerns for Ireland, Portugal and Spain less of an issue compared to Greece, in an historical perspective.”

Which, once more, does not really identify Ireland as a ‘unique’ case amidst the imprudent (but learning) peripherals.

“The results …suggest that during a financial crisis the fiscal deficit-to-GDP threshold was relaxed from 5.10% to 6.99% in Ireland and from 3.12% to 4.00% in Spain, while it was reduced from 3.22% to 1.92% in Portugal.” In other words, Irish Government thresholds actually worsened in the financial crisis, albeit most of that worsening is attributable to the Government decision to rescue Irish banks.

Overall, as table below illustrates, Ireland has managed to perform best during 1999-2007 period in fiscal adjustment thresholds terms, while Spain was the overall best performer in 1999-2013 period and over the entire sample.

My handy addition to the chart are red boxes (highlighting worst performers) and green boxes (best performers) when it comes to budgetary adjustment thresholds.

This completes the arguments about Ireland’s alleged uniqueness as an outlier to the group of peripheral states: with exception of the period during which our property and financial sectors bubbles were inflating to unprecedented proportions, Ireland was pretty much a ‘normal’ peripheral state when it comes to fiscal management. Celtic Tiger et al…

So let's hope the latest Budget 2016 does not return us back to the historical record track...

1/4/15: H-W Sinn "Europe’s Easy-Money Endgame"

A very interesting op-ed by Professor Hans-Werner Sinn of German Ifo Institute for Project Syndicate: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/euro-demise-quantitative-easing-by-hans-werner-sinn-2015-03

The problem outlined by Professor Sinn is non-trivial.

"...for countries like Greece, Portugal, or Spain, regaining competitiveness would require them to lower the prices of their own products relative to the rest of the eurozone by about 30%, compared to the beginning of the crisis. Italy probably needs to reduce its relative prices by 10-15%. But Portugal and Italy have so far failed to deliver any such “real depreciation,” while relative prices in Greece and Spain have fallen by only 8% and 6%, respectively".

As Professor Sinn notes, there are four possible solutions:

1. "Europe could become a transfer union, with the north giving more and more credit to the south and later waiving it." 
2. "The south can deflate." 
3. "The north can inflate." 
4. "Countries that are no longer competitive can exit Europe’s monetary union and depreciate their new currency."

So here's the problem, correctly identified by Professor Sinn: "Each path is associated with serious complications. The first creates a permanent dependence on transfers, which, by sustaining relative prices, prevents the economy from regaining competitiveness. The second path drives many debtors in crisis countries into bankruptcy. The third expropriates the creditor countries of the north. And the fourth may cause contagion effects via capital markets, possibly forcing policymakers to introduce capital controls".

Now, note: Ireland has opted for the second path. Any surprise we are driving people into bankruptcy in tens of thousands (once current legal queue is taken into account), along with multiple businesses?

But back to Prof Sinn's analysis. Remember the ECB QE? Ok, says Prof Sinn, suppose it delivers on target inflation of just under 2%. What does it mean for internal devaluations in the 'peripheral' Europe?

"If, say, southern Europe kept its inflation rate at 0% and France inflated at a rate of 1%, Germany would have to inflate by a good 4%, and the rest of the eurozone at 2% annually, to reach a eurozone average of slightly less than 2%. This pattern would have to continue for about ten years to bring the eurozone back into balance. At that point, Germany’s price level would be about 50% higher than it is today."

The problem, thus, is an unresolvable dilemma, since with that sort of arithmetic, we are in a tough bind:

• Either Germany runs mild inflation, while the 'periphery' runs outright deflation, allowing - over a painfully long period of time (decade or more) to devalue the imbalances, or
• Eurozone pursues Mr Draghi's objective of 'just under' 2% inflation across the entire Euro area at the expense of Germany (and the rest of the already shrunken 'core').

Do note, I have argued before that deflation in the 'periphery' is not a bad thing, as it allows for the interest rates to remain low (servicing cost of household and corporate debts is lower) and deleveraging of the households and companies to be less painful, while sustaining some domestic demand through increased purchasing power of incomes. So I agree with Professor Sinn's criticism of the ECB QE programme. 

The problem is that this means, as Professor Sinn rightly suggests, continued suppression of demand (the 'austerity' bit).

The choice faced by Europe are ugly. All of them. And there are no guarantees for any of them to actually work. And the cause of this problem is singular: creation of a political currency union. For anyone who says that Greece, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Ireland and Spain have caused their own problems, the replies are both simple and complex: 

• The simple one: absent the euro, their problems would have been by now solved by a combination of the old-fashioned defaults and devaluations. 
• The complex one: absent monetary transfers (lower interest rates and ample bank liquidity flowing cross-borders) with the EMU from the late 1990s through 2007, the imbalances generated in the 'peripheral' economies would never have been this large. Which means that the simple reply above would have been even more easy to apply.

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…

26/12/2014: Advanced Economies: Public Debt Explosion 2008-2014

Some interesting insight into the legacy of the Great Recession that we are carrying over into 2015. From the start of 2008 through 2014:

• Average increase in gross debt of all advanced economies was 27.2 percentage points of GDP, with a range from a decrease of 21 percentage points for Norway and an increase of 88.5 percentage points for Ireland. Thus, the average annualised rate of increase in government debt over the period was around 3.47 percentage points of GDP with a range of -2.76 percentage points annualised decline for Norway and a 9.48 percentage points annualised increase in Ireland.
• Average change in the gross government debt of the group of countries where debt declined over the crisis was -12.0 percentage points of GDP. There were only 3 countries in this group.
• Average increase in gross government debt of the group of countries with benign levels of increase (levels of increase consistent roughly with offsetting GDP contraction over the crisis period) was 4.8 percentage points of GDP. There were only 5 countries in this group and only two of these were in Europe, with none (at the time of the crisis onset) being members of the euro area.
• Average increase in gross government debt within the group of countries where debt rises were moderately in excess of contraction in the economy was 16.4 percentage points of GDP.
• Average increase in gross government debt within the group of countries with debt increases significantly in excess of economic contraction was 26.6 percent of GDP.
• Average increase in the government debt within the group of countries with severe debt overhang was 60.4 percentage points of GDP, with a range of increases in this group between 41.6% for the U.S. at the lower end and 88.5% of GDP for Ireland at a higher end.

Chart above summarises these facts and also highlights the extent to which Ireland's government debt increases were out of line with experience in all other countries, including Greece and all other 'peripheral' economies.

The average rise in gross government debt across all peripheral economies 2008-2014 was 56.5 percentage points of GDP (excluding Ireland), which is more than 1/3 lower than that for Ireland. Our closest competitor to the dubious title of worst performing sovereign in terms of debt accumulation is Greece, which experienced a debt/GDP ratio increase almost 1/4 lower than Ireland.

And in case you wonder, our Government's net debt position is not much better:

1/10/2014: That Exports-Led Recovery... in Germany

And a Scary Chart of the Day prize goes to @IanTalley who produced this gem:

That's right, Germany is now officially producing more stuff that its people can't afford than China...

But its a good thing, for it means that people in countries like Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus etc who owe Germany money can buy more stuff from Germany they can't quite afford either, except for the credit supplied from Germany funded by the credit they take from Germany... Confused? Try confused.edu for some academic analysis... or just look at KfW bank latest foray into Ireland (apparently it took months of planning to get us to this absurdity http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/kfw-deal-to-fund-irish-firms-was-months-in-the-planning-29896868.html).

26/9/2014: Those Fabled Euro Area Structural Reforms: Greece, Spain, Portugal & Italy

EU Commission has published some interesting research on structural reforms in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece (strangely, no Ireland or Cyprus).

The full paper is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee5_en.pdf

But here is an interesting set of charts, showing the effect of the said 'reforms' on the economies of these 'peripheral' states.

First chart shows employment growth against productivity growth in 2001-2008 and 2008-2013:

Above clearly shows that in two 'peripheral' countries covered, namely Portugal and Spain, productivity (as measured by value added per hour worked) rose during the crisis period, while the same fell in Greece and Italy. Productivity growth accelerated over the crisis period in Portugal and Spain and de-accelerated in Italy and literally fell off the cliff in Greece. And in all four economies, hours worked collapsed.

This all means two things:

• Firstly, jobs destruction failed to sustain growth in productivity in Italy and Greece (in other words, the two economies suffered jobs losses dispersed across all sectors of activity), while jobs destruction did sustain improved productivity for the remaining active workforce in Spain and Portugal (where jobs destruction was more concentrated in several domestic sectors, such as retail and construction). 
• Secondly, given that all four economies developed broadly similar 'structural reforms' packages, albeit with varying degree of implementation, the above suggests that the said reforms had zero-to-negative effect on economic performance in Italy and Greece, and potentially positive effect in Spain and Portugal. This is basically equivalent to saying that reforms overall effectiveness is not anchored in the structure of reforms, but is rather being driven by something else, something more idiosyncratic. Or, alternatively, that the reforms had no discernible effect whatsoever and instead nature of jobs destruction is driving differences in productivity growth.

The second chart shows annual trajectory in hours worked against productivity growth from 2008 through 2013.

Again, the above chart shows that in all four economies, relationship between productivity growth and employment is broadly negative. The diagonal line shows two segments of the chart: above the line, jobs destruction / creation effects are dominated by productivity growth effects. Below the line, the opposite takes place. So in a summary, the chart shows that the dominant driver in every economy as jobs destruction, not productivity growth. If structural reforms are of any significant help in driving productivity of workers, one would expect at least one of the economies to perform above the diagonal line. None do.

Quite surprisingly (or may be not) EU Commission offers an entirely opposite arguments on reforms efficacy. Even in the case of Greece - a country where both employment and productivity collapsed, the Commission paper argues that "Greece made a substantial adjustment in terms of employment while productivity stopped falling down". The folks in Commission believe that once the economy is completely exhausted on the downside, the lack of further declines is a sign of 'reforms-driven improvements'. This is about as crazy as cheering the fact that a lifeless body at the bottom of the empty pool is no longer falling.

Here is the Commission own guide to the above charts:

Do tell me which of the four countries locates in 'jobless growth' (early stage of reforms and structural changes working) area? Do note that other area of "Repositioning (growth less restructuring)" - which sounds exactly what it is: mindless demolition of jobs in hope that such a move can improve the remaining average. This is the best the 'periphery' has been able to achieve so far under the watchful eye of the EU Commission boffins.

23/8/2014: Labour Costs and Euro area's myth of 'productivity' gains

Looking back at July 2014 IMF Article 4 paper on Euro area (most of which I covered back when it was published), here is an interesting chart mapping changes in the euro area countries' unit labour costs.

The chart is complex, so let me point out few things in it:

Firstly: improvements in the unit labour costs (ULCs) is reflected in the vertical distance between the black dot (accumulated change in ULCs over 2000-2007 period: higher level of the dot reflects lower competitiveness or higher ULCs compared to EA17 levels) and the black bar (accumulated change in ULCs over 2008-Q3 2013 period).

1. This shows that Ireland has delivered (a) the highest ULCs deterioration of the sample of countries reported over 2000-2007 period, and (b) since 2008, Ireland has delivered the largest improvement in competitiveness (ULCs drop) of the sample. 
2. Second largest improvement in ULCs was recorded in Greece and it is comparable to, but modestly shallower than in Ireland; third and virtually indistinguishable from the second - in Spain and fourth in Portugal.
3. The above two facts suggest that improvements in the ULCs are indeed related to the rates of increases in  unemployment: all countries with significant improvements have seen dramatic rises in unemployment. Jobs destruction 'helps' competitiveness.

Secondly, coloured bars show composition of gains over two periods. Here, the following points arise:

1. Labour costs declines have been responsible for the lion's share of ULCs gains in Greece, followed by Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
2. Labour costs declines are dramatic in the case of only two countries: Greece and Ireland.
3. The above two facts suggests that jobs destruction impacted dramatically in the sectors that were employment/labour-intensive, allowing for substantial moderation of labour costs across the remaining economy on average. So 'concentrated' jobs destruction 'helps' improve competitiveness a lot.
4. Meanwhile, productivity gains in economy were significant contributors to improved competitiveness in Spain, followed - by some margin of difference - by Ireland, and Portugal.
5. Points 1-2 and 4 together strongly suggest that in Ireland and Spain (and to a lesser extent Portugal) gains in competitiveness came about not because the remaining working population suddenly became more productive, but because the new jobless were working in sectors that were less productive, plus because remaining workers got paid less on average.

One more point: of course, our (and other euro area 'peripherals') gains here are measured not in absolute terms, but against EA17 aggregate levels of competitiveness, so to a large extent, our gains in the chart above are also down to their (other euro area countries') losses in competitiveness. This is exactly what the above figure shows for Austria, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

That's happy times of productivity growth in the euro area 'periphery', then... down to throwing people off the employment bus and bragging about fabled improved productivity for the remaining passengers...

16/8/2014: Three Charts of Euro Area's Abysmal Growth Performance

Few charts to summarise the continued problems with growth in euro area and the 'peripheral' states:

First, consider changes in real GDP on pre-crisis peak:

Next, the weakest link in the euro area: Italy. This is really woeful - since hitting absolute lows, Italian economy continued to decline, steadily and with little sign of improvement.

The above also shows the miserable state of the euro area as a whole.

Another chart, to show changes on crisis-period absolute lows:

Note: the first 2 charts reference index to 2005=100, the last one references index to Q4 2006=100.

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).

9/8/2014: Europe's bank risks back under the spotlight: ECR

Euromoney Country Risk report this week is covering rising risks in the European banking systems, with a brief comment from myself:

And unloved European banks chart, showing risk scores (higher score, lower risk):

19/7/2014: Global Innovation Index 2014: Ireland vs 'Periphery'

In the previous post I gave detailed breakdown of Ireland's performance in Global Innovation Index 2014. I used small open economies and Switzerland (the world's highest ranked economy) as a reference group.

Here, primarily for the reason of convention, are the comparatives of Ireland's performance relative to the Euro area 'peripheral' states:

Clearly, Ireland is a much stronger performer in Innovation than all other 'peripheral' states. This is neither surprising nor unexpected. Crucially, the gap is wider today than in 2007-2008 and the gap is rather persistent over time. Average ex-Ireland 'peripheral' state rank was 34st in 2014 against Ireland's 11th, this is a very significant gap. This gap increased from 16-19 points on average for 2007-2010 period to 32 points in 2012 and 23 points in 2014.

Furthermore, it appears that even if we are to abstract away from the metrics very heavily influenced by the tax optimising MNCs, Ireland (under such a metric closer to 20th-23rd position in the World rankings) would still post a stronger performance than any other 'peripheral' state (best - Spain at 27th).

13/7/2014: Up, Down the Current Account Ladder

For quite some years now, Irish Governments have been keen promoting Ireland's 'unique' external balances performance that, allegedly, made us so distinct from other 'peripheral' countries. Our external balances were booming, we were told by the Government. Ireland's external surpluses are its unique strength, said the boffins at the Brussels think tanks. We are not like Portugal or Greece or Spain when it comes to the 'real' 'competitive' economy.

The hiccup of course, is that this rhetoric was ignoring few little pesky facts, such as the source of our external trade 'competitiveness' or the shifting composition of our trade. Nonetheless, it had some teeth: we started with a much higher base of exports in the economy and stronger external balances than other 'peripheral' states.

Still, in the world of crisis-related 'adjustments', the rate of change matters as much as the starting levels. And judging by IMF data, our rate of improvement in external balances is not that unique:

Per chart above, trade-attributed current account adjustments (the pink bar) for Ireland are higher than for any other peripheral economy. But net adjustments (accounting for income and transfers) are only third highest. This, in part, is due to the fact that vast majority of our exports are supplied by companies that increasingly ship more profits out of Ireland (and this is even worse if we are to account for profits temporarily retained in Ireland by the MNCs).

Still, good news: our trade balance is doing well. Better than any other 'peripheral' in the sample...

11/7/2014: My comment on Greek and Portuguese bonds pressures

Portugal's Expresso on Greek and Portuguese bond yields with my comment: here.

My full comment in English:

In my view, we are seeing a strong reaction by the markets to adverse news relating to some peripheral euro area countries. 

In the Greek case, much of the rise in bond yields can be attributed first to the persistent uncertainty over the deficit adjustments and the progression of the reforms. The most recent suggestions by some analysts that Greece may require additional EUR2-3 billion over 2015-2016 relating to the news that the country pension fund is now facing an annual EUR2 billion funding gap have triggered some pressure on the country sovereign debt. This was compounded by thin and nervous markets for today's issuance of EUR1.5 billion bond which originally attracted just over 2.0x cover, but saw final demand slump somewhat on generally negative sentiment in the markets. Today's bond was priced at a yield of 3.5% with guidance between 3.5% and 3.625% issued two days ago on Tuesday. This is below the April 2014 5-year bond issue - the issue that attracted EUR20 billion worth of bids and was priced at 4.95%. However, shortly after the issue, secondary markets yields on April bond shot up to 5.10%.

In Portugal's case, the core risk trigger so far has been building up of pressures in the banking sector, and in particular in relation to Espirito Santo International announcement on Tuesday. This pushed Portuguese yields above 4% for 10 year bonds in today's trading. 

Portuguese risks have also put a stop to Banco Popular Espanol contingent convertible bond issue, as well as Spanish construction company ACS plans for an issue.

All in, Greek 10 year bonds closed at 502.0 spread to 10 year German bund up 20.4 bps on yesterday, Portugal's at 276.2 up 22.3 bps, Spanish at 161.8 up 9.2 bps, Italian at 174.1 up 9.3 bps, and Irish at 112.7, up 4.4 bps.

Spreads on 10 year German Bund:

The markets instability is a reminder that while current monetary and investment climates remain supportive of lower yields, markets are starting to show increasing propensity to react strongly to negative newsflows. Investors' view of the 'peripheral' states as being strongly correlated in their performance remains in place, especially for Spanish, Portuguese and Greek sovereigns and corporate issuers. 

The markets are jittery and are getting trigger-happy on sell signals as strong rises in bond prices in recent months have resulted in sovereign and corporate debt being over-bought by the investors. These investors are now staring into the prospect of gradual uplift in US and UK interest rates, weakening of the euro and thus rising cost of carry trades into the European sovereign bonds. At some point in time, these pressures are likely to translate into earlier investors in 'peripheral' bonds starting to exit their positions. 

We are not there yet, but market nervousness suggests that we are getting close to that inflection point.

29/6/2014: What a Difference a Year of ECB Activism Makes...

Mapping decline in CDS and implied probabilities of default for Euro area 'peripherals' over the last 12 months:

Largest declines: Greece, followed by Portugal, Spain, Italy and lastly Ireland. Timing of declines and divergent macrofundamentals of these countries suggest that drop in CDS has little to do with internal policies and performance of individual states - the 'periphery' is still being priced jointly. The decline in risk assessments of the 'peripherals' is primarily down to common policy, aka: the ECB.

On the other hand, if we are to distinguish within the 'peripherals', we can identify 3 sub-groups of countries:

• Weakest and stand-alone: Greece
• Mid-range weakness, also stand-alone: Portugal
• Stronger 'peripherals': Ireland, Spain and Italy

28/6/2014: Is S&P Behind the Curve on Portugal and Spain?

Euromoney Country Risk report is profiling S&P ratings on Portugal and Spain, with a comment from myself: here.

If you can't access the article, here is the article (click on each image to enlarge):

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.