28/9/17: Schauble: A Requiem For Austerity Finance

My comment for yesterday’s NY Times on Wolfgang Schäuble’s departure from the Finance Ministry post: https://nyti.ms/2k5N2Er 

24/8/2012: Perverse logic of Berlin?

An interesting article in the Irish Times today (link) quoting Germany's Fin Min on Irish debt-relief proposals, saying that Ireland's "massive" reform progress should not be compromised by the country efforts to gain relief on banks-related sovereign debts. From the Irish Times: "We cannot do anything that generates new uncertainty on the financial markets and lose trust, which Ireland is just at the point of winning back."

While we should be careful not to read too deeply into Mr Schauble's comments - which can be interpreted in a number of ways - the logic of the German Fin Min is worrisome.

Ireland has raised exceedingly expensive funds in recent bonds and T-bills auctions with explicit desire to test the markets appetite for Irish paper. In many ways, the relative success of these auctions was underwritten by external dynamics in debt markets, but also by the markets perception of Irish progress on reforms and by the markets expectation of the decline in future debt liabilities related to the banks debt deal. In other words, Ireland has paid a hefty price so far for starting the process of recovering some market access for the Sovereign. This is a net positive, albeit severely limited by the cost of funding raised.

Hence, we have a bizarre situation:

1. a member state in the Euro zone is undertaking all the right (from the markets & policymakers point of view) steps, achieving measurable progress, and generally behaving like the best pupil in the class, yet 
2. German leadership - the proxy for the Euro zone leadership - is unwilling to help that state in its efforts.

Surely, if Germany really wants stabilization and recovery in Europe's periphery, writing down €30 billion of promissory notes would be the cheapest approach to take toward reinforcing Irish efforts to deliver on the programme. Since the funds are fully linked to the ELA, this would imply absolutely no negative effect on private markets expectations. If anything, it will signal Europe's willingness to use the monetary system to support the process of resolving banking insolvency-induced stress on the sovereigns. Reduction in Ireland's debt burden in this context will be non-trivial and will help restore bonds markets confidence in both Ireland and the Euro zone system.

The bond markets operate - basically speaking - at the following level of logic:

• If an action reduces supply of debt, ceteris paribus, price of debt goes up, yields go down. Restructuring Irish Government's banks-linked debt will act to deliver exactly this effect.
• If an action reduces future potential haircuts that can expected by the private sector holders of debt in the event of prababilistic restructuring, price of debt goes up and yields go down, since future expected losses on privately held debt will be lower. Restructuring officially (Euro system) held ELA will deliver exactly this.
• If an action improves debt sustainability of the sovereign, yields will go down. Restructuring ELA will do exactly this.
• If an action does not introduce new moral hazard into future funding incentives for the sovereign, longer-term yields will be lower. By restructuring ELA - which has nothing to do with Irish exchequer past poor performance or policy choices, but has to do with rescuing risk-taking behaviour of the foreign funders of the Irish banks - the Euro zone can achieve exactly such long-term consistent repricing of Irish debt.
• If an action reduces the need for future funding, expected future bonds issuance falls and with it, the yields will fall. By removing the need to fund future repayments of promissory notes, the EU can achieve exactly this effect.
• If an action improves economic growth prospects for the nation, thus lowering risks associated with future tax revenues growth, deficits and debt financing, it will reduce yields on Government debt. This, again, is something that a restructuring of ELA/promissory notes will achieve.

Any way you spin it, aggressively restructuring the promissory notes and the ELA will deliver the benefits for the Irish exchequer. If, as Mr Schauble clearly believes, there is a case for contagion of risks across the peripheral sovereigns, such benefits will also be positively felt by other peripheral economies. In addition, such benefits will also help give some much needed credibility to the Euro zone overall policy efforts in dealing with the crisis.

20/1/2012: Non-News from a Road to the Second Bailout

This story in the Irish Times yesterday clearly requires a comment. So here it goes.

Here's the best time-line and explanation as to Minister Noonan's 'efforts' to secure 'savings' on the Promissory Notes.

Now, consider the following from the Irish Times today:

"We think there’s a less expensive way of doing [restructuring of the Promissory Notes] by financial engineering, and we’re not talking about private-sector involvement or restructuring,” said Mr Noonan in Berlin "...it is about pointing out to the troika that there are difficulties and that it could be less expensive – and everyone still gets their money.”


"A senior German official said Berlin could envisage extra programme funding being used for the Irish banking sector not currently earmarked for this purpose."

The above might mean many things:

1. Ireland still has some funds due under the original 'bailout' that were earmarked for banking measures, but were not yet used in the last recapitalizations round in July 2011. This will not in itself constitute any new measures materially impacting Ireland's Government debt projections. It will not constitute a second bailout (as the funds are already earmarked under the first bailout), but by reducing funding available for fiscal and other banking requirements it will increase the probability of such a bailout in the future.
2. Ireland can be allowed to borrow more from the EFSF/ESM, swapping the Notes for marginally cheaper funding. This too will not constitute any material impact on Ireland's Government debt projections. But it will constitue a second bailout.

Neither option involves any possibility for 'private sector involvement' and at any rate, Minister Noonan's reference to PSI is a red herring - there can be no PSI in relation to the Promissory Notes as these do not involve private investors or lenders at all.

However, both (1) and (2) have material impact in terms of Ireland requiring a second bailout - both increase materially the probability of such an eventuality.

Lastly, there is a catch. The problem of capital adequacy, highlighted by Minister Noonan, means that 'financial engineering' can only involve temporary relief in terms of payments timing, not material relief in terms of NPV of the debt assumed by the state under the Promissory Notes. We will be allowed to borrow more time. At a cost of longer loans, and more repayments in the end. Which, of course, does nothing to achieve sustainability of the 'solution' from the point of view of us, taxpayers, who Minister Noonan expects to pay for all of this. But it probably does give him a chance of holding a 'triumphant' pressie announcing some sort of a 'deal'.

So in the nutshell, the Irish Times story is... errr... a non-story. A sort of traditional Spin that comes out of the Government every time they are caught... errr... fantacising the reality. As NamaWineLake put is so excellently:
"...it has been four months since Minister Noonan’s meeting with the ECB and others in Wroclaw where he, to use his own words “had a ball to kick around” and has proposals. It is two months since Enda Kenny discussed the matter with Angela Merkel. It is more than two months since Minister Noonan said that “technical discussions” were ongoing. And yet the Troika yesterday downplayed any progress in the matter saying that Minister Noonan had merely “requested discussions”."


Or maybe, just speculating here, Minister Noonan is bringing up the Promissory Notes once again this week because next week we are about to repay another tranche of Anglo bonds? Last month, around the time of the repayment, there was much-a-do-about-nothing going on in referencing the very same Promissory Notes?

However, there is, in the end, something openly honest about Minister Noonan's windy trip down the 'Imagine the Superhero, ya Villain' lane.

"[Minister Noonan] said he hoped that the ECB would extend its programme of low-interest loans beyond next month to improve euro zone bank liquidity in the hope it would stimulate the market in longer-term sovereign debt papers."

Point 1: LTRO-2 was already announced, so Minister Noonan is either uninformed, or pretends to be uninformed to posit himself as a a heroic 'rescuer' proposing a real 'solution'.

Point 2: Minister Noonan clearly shows that his sole concern is how to raise more debt for Ireland. Not how to balance the books (in which case he shouldn't need banks to pawn their assets as ECB to buy Government bonds with this fake cash), or reform the economy (in which case growth would resume and the State shall not require the said scheme, again) and not with restoring functional banking system to health (since functional healthy banking system lends to the real economy, not to Minister Noonan).

At last, truth revealed?