23/6/15: Ukraine's Debt Haircuts Saga: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Two big setbacks for Ukraine in its bid to cut the overall debt burden and achieve targets mandated by the IMF.

First, Moody issued a note today saying that Ukraine will be in a default if it haircuts principal owed to private creditors. The agency said it believes Ukraine can deliver USD15.3bn in savings without haircuts. Ukraine believes it cannot. IMF backed Ukraine on this, but it is not to IMF to either declare a default even or not. Moody further noted that any moratorium on debt redemptions will have long-term implications for Kiev access to international debt markets.

Second, the IMF has signalled that private debt open to haircuts under Kiev-led negotiations does not include debt owed to Russia which is deemed to be official sector debt. This is not surprising, and analysts have long insisted that this debt cannot be included into private sector haircuts, but Kiev staunchly resisted recognising debt to Russia as official sector debt.

Incidentally, Ukraine debt to Russia is structured as a eurobond and is registered in Ireland, as reported by Bloomberg. The bond is structured as private debt, but Russia subsequently re-declared it as official debt. Re-declaration was somewhat of a positive for Ukraine, because a default on official debt does not trigger automatic default on private debt (the reason why the bond was originally structured as private debt was precisely the threat that a default on it will trigger default on all bonds issued by Ukraine). Ironies abound: IMF is happy to declare Russian debt to be official sector debt, because it takes USD3 billion out of the pool of bonds targeted for haircuts. This implies that for Kiev to achieve USD15.3 billion in savings, Ukraine will most likely need to haircut actual principal outstanding to private sector bond holders - something IMF wants Kiev to do. So here, too, Russian side gain is also Kiev's gain.

Ultimately, in my view, Moscow should write down the entire USD3bn in debt owed by Kiev. Because it would be ethical to do, and because it would help Ukraine. But that point is outside the fine arts of finance, let alone beyond the brutal realities of geopolitics.

More background on both stories: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-22/moody-s-backs-creditor-math-in-resisting-ukraine-debt-writedown.

22/8/2013: Sovereign Default Risk & Banks in the Euro Area Setting: Harald Uhlig

Harald Uhlig's latest paper "Sovereign Default Risk and Banks in a Monetary Union" (CEPR DP9606, August 2013, http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP9606) "seeks to understand the interplay between banks, bank regulation, sovereign default risk and central bank guarantees in a monetary union".

The rationale for the paper is that the "European Monetary Union is in distress. Mechanisms that were meant to safe-guard key institutions and to assure stability have become sources of balance sheet risk for these very institutions. Liquidity provision within
the European Monetary Union rests upon repurchase agreements, by which banks guarantee the repurchase of assets deposited with the ECB. If either the bank fails or the asset fails, but not both, this mechanism safe-guards the repayment to the ECB, since it can either rely on the repurchase by the bank or sell the asset. However, when both fail as well as the bank home country fails, the ECB incurs a loss."

Abstracting away from the (important) debate about the implications of such a 'loss', the theoretical framework described by Uhlig is insightful and interesting. The author assumes "that banks can use sovereign bonds for repurchase agreements with a common central bank, and that their sovereign partially backs up any losses, should the banks not be able to repurchase the bonds."

Furthermore, "In the model, banks pursue their investment strategy voluntarily: it is up to regulators to potentially constrain them. Other explanations are conceivable, of course". This is different from the currently dominant views, as per Reinhart (2012a) as well as Claessens and Kose (2013). Specifically, it is distinct from Reinhart (2012b) argument as to why banks hold bonds of their home country. Reinhart argues that in a “financial repression” setting the regulators "make
[the banks] hold the sovereign bonds, perhaps with strong-arm tactics, perhaps in exchange for “looking the other way” concerning weak portfolios of commercial loans and mortgages, or simply as a “favor” in a long, ongoing relationship. Since the banks could potentially refuse, though at considerable cost, it still must ultimately be preferable to them to hold own-country bonds rather than invest elsewhere or to close: so, in some ways, this paper may also be understood as a model of financial repression." Another view for the system by which the banks end up holding rising exposures to domestic sovereign bonds is a political economy argument: "if sovereign bonds are held by home banks, it makes it politically harder to default on these bonds, as this will hurt domestic banks and savers. If so, then such a portfolio arrangement might serve as a commitment device for the government in trouble."

Uhlig's (2013) paper is not covering the underlying reasons for the holding of the bonds.

Overall, "the issue of sovereign default risk, bank portfolios and the role of the central bank has received considerable attention in the recent literature. Acharya and Steffen (2013) is a careful empirical analysis of the “carry trade” by banks, which fund themselves in the wholesale market and invest in risky sovereign bonds. They document, that “over time, there is an increase in ’home bias’ – greater exposure of domestic banks to its sovereigns bonds – which is partly explained by the ECB funding of these positions"… Relatedly, Corradin and Rodriguez-Moreno (2013) show that USD-denominated sovereign bonds of Euro zone countries became substantially cheaper (i.e., delivering a higher yield) than Euro-denominated bonds during the Euro zone crisis, and ascribe it to the usefulness to banks of Euro-denominated bonds as collateral vis-a-vis the ECB, while USD-denominated bonds do not offer this advantage." In addition, "Drechsler et. al. (2013) document “a strong divergence among banks’ take-up of” Lender-of-Last-Resort assistance “during the financial crisis in the euro area, as banks which borrowed heavily also used increasingly risky collateral”. They test several hypothesis and argue that their “results strongly support the riskshifting explanation”…"

The above supports the Uhlig (2013) model that concludes that:
-- "…Regulators in risky countries have an incentive to allow their banks to hold home risky bonds and risk defaults, while regulators in other “safe” countries will impose tighter regulation."
-- "…Governments in risky countries get to borrow more cheaply, effectively shifting the risk of some of the potential sovereign default losses on the common central bank."
-- "As a result, the monetary union has become a system engineered to deliver underpriced loans from country banks to their sovereigns, and to implicitly shift sovereign default risk onto the balance sheet of the ECB and the rest of the Eurosystem."

The last sentence is the key to it all: the euro system is now "engineered to deliver underpriced" credit "from country banks to their sovereigns", while shifting "sovereign default risk onto… the ECB and the rest of the Eurosystem".

16/6/2013: De ATMs, De Sacred ATMs... Co-Op Bank Haircuts?

So how, oh how on earth an the UK now sustain its ATMs working, wonders (most likely) half of the Irish Cabinet… Per Guardian report: http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/16/co-op-bank-deal-regulators?CMP=twt_fd the Cooperative Bank is planning on plugging a GBP1.5 billion hole in its capital reserves by soaking it bondholders with a 30% haircut.

Of course, there is little new here, as investors expected the haircut for some time now: http://citywire.co.uk/money/co-op-sells-tranche-of-loan-book-as-investors-fear-haircut/a683473

Per citywide: "Britannia building society, which Co-op acquired in 2009, is seen as the root of the bank’s problems, specifically the poor grade corporate loans it acquired."

Obviously, there will be tears when Co-op busts the bondholders bubble, but the tears might be less significant now, given the fact that the bonds have been trading at discounts for some time and that many of the few retail investors have probably sold out of the bonds by now, leaving behind the usual speculative risk-takers. Still, this is a significant test for the small, but very strategic institution that came to challenge the usual banking establishment.

2/4/2012: Banks bailouts and bonds eligibility

Two important documents relating to banks bonds, Sovereign Guarantees and the bondholders' haircuts.

First, the ECB decision of March 21 that was rumored to have been implemented by the Bundesbank last week - allowing the NCBs not to accept as collateral Government-guaranteed bank bonds from the countries currently in the EU-IMF financial assistance programmes (aka Greece, Ireland and Portugal). Here's the link. Key quote (emphasis mine):
"Acceptance of certain government-guaranteed bank bonds: On 21 March 2012 the Governing Council adopted Decision ECB/2012/4 amending Decision ECB/2011/25 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral. According to that Decision, National Central Banks (NCBs) are not obliged to accept as collateral for Eurosystem credit operations eligible bank bonds guaranteed by a Member State under an EU-IMF financial assistance programme, or by a Member State whose credit assessment does not comply with the Eurosystem’s benchmark for establishing its minimum requirement for high credit standards. The Decision is available on the ECB’s website."

Hat tip for the link to @OwenCallan of Danske Markets.

However, the latest information is that Bundesbank clarified that it will continue accepting all EA17 Government bonds. See link here. Confusion continues as to what Bundesbank will and will not accept.

Second, today's release by the EU Commission of the consultation paper on dealing with future banks crises and bailouts. Titled "Discussion paper on the debt write-down tool – bail-in". The paper clearly states (emphasis is mine, again):

"Rather than relying on taxpayers, a mechanism is needed to stop the contagion to other banks

and cut the possible domino effect. It should allow public authorities to spread unmanageable

losses on banks' shareholders and creditors."

The proposals advanced by the EU are not new: "In most countries, bank and non-bank companies

in financial difficulties are subject to "insolvency" proceedings. These proceedings allow either

for the reorganization of the company (which implies a reduction, agreed with the creditors, of its

debt burden) or its liquidation and allocation of the losses to the creditors, or both. In all the

cases creditors and shareholders do not get paid in full."

Per EU: "An effective resolution regime should:

• Achieve, for banks, similar results to those of normal insolvency proceedings, in terms of allocation of losses to shareholders and creditors
• Shield as much as possible any negative effect on financial stability and limit the recourse to taxpayers' money
• Ensure legal certainty, transparency and predictability as to the treatment that shareholders and creditors will receive, so as to provide clarity to investors to enable them to assess the risk associated with their investments and make informed investment decisions prior to insolvency."

There is no point at this stage to explain that in Ireland's case, NONE of the above points were delivered in the crisis resolution measures supported by the EU and actively imposed onto Ireland by the ECB.

It is, however, worth noting that the Option 1 advanced by the EU includes imposing losses on senior bondholders and that the tool kit for doing this includes debt-equity swaps. Readers of this blog would be well familiar with the fact that I supported exactly these measures.