Economics 09/05/2010: What sort of EU leadership?.. Part 2

Underlying the unworkable logistics of the Euro-bond that Brussels is planning to deploy to contain the spillover of the fiscal crises in PIIGS, there is a pesky issue of the past record of the currency block management of its finances.

Here are some historic comparisons from the IMF latest GFS report worth highlighting.
Now, spot the odd ones in the above chart? That's right - the non-Euro zone countries are the ones with the lowest indebtedness of households in their economy. In other words, no matter how much the Euro area leadership talks about the US being the cause of the current crisis, data simply shows that the US - despite all its problems - has had far less of a bubble in overall debt terms than Euro area. The only reasons Germany does not figure amongst the countries with the weakest households are:

1. Germany's exports oriented economy which in effect is a 'beggar thy neighbor' economy reliant on someone else assuming credit to buy German goods; and
2. Germany's costly reunification coupled with poor demographics, which assured that over the last 20 years German consumers had virtually no improvements in their standards of living.

But in assuming all this debt, were Euro area households buying productive assets (as opposed to the Americans, who, per our Europhiles' assertions were all playing a property Ponzi game)?
Oops. Not exactly. While Americans were buying homes (fueling their own bubble), Europeans were buying... homes and public sector spending goodies. But may be, just may be, Euro area members were more prudent in buying homes than the Americans, who stand accused of causing the financial crisis of 2007-2009?
It turns out that this was simply not true. Chart above shows just how far more leveraged were the Euro area states compared to the US in terms of two main parameters of house prices sustainability.

And the same is true for overall asset valuations.
Oh, and those prudent lenders - the Germans and the rest of the Euro pack banks?
It turns out the US banks were actually much better off throughout the bubble formation period in terms of their lending and profitability than... hmmm... Germany and Belgium. Who could have known, judging by Mrs Merkel's hawkish statements as of late?

Now, take a look at the total external indebtedness of the Euro area... Recall, the US and Euroarea both have relatively similar GDP...
So suppose the EU Commission issues common bonds (and assume it places them in the market) to underpin PIIGS plus Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria - the sickest puppies of the Euro area. That would require bonds issuance to the tune of 20-30% of these countries outstanding public debt. Which means that the unified bond issuance volumes will be in the region of USD1 trillion, pushing Eurozone's combined indebtedness to over USD25 trillion. Does anyone really think this is a 'solution' to contagion or a surrender?

Economics 09/05/2010: What sort of EU leadership?.. Part 1

Prepare to be afraid, ye the financial markets – those always-on-time and forever-effective super leaders of the Eurozone have concocted a Plan. A Plan to deal once and for all with the frightening levels of their own governments’ insolvency. A Plan code-named Bondzkrieg!

The troops of illiquid and insolvent PIIGS will be backed by the armies of the liquid, but pretty much nearly as insolvent the rest of EU. The attack, commencing possibly as early as on Monday next will be a two-pronged strategy: a pincers manoeuvre.

Part 1 will, per latest reports from the EU16 summit, require an issuance of Euro Commission Bonds. These will be backed by the EU16 states’ guarantees and something that is called ‘an implicit ECB guarantee’. Sounds terrifying, folks:

1. What is exactly an ‘implicit ECB guarantee’? A sort of ‘we might print mucho Euro notes, should Brussels default’ stuff? What kind of nonsense is this? The best the ECB can do is promise to monetize the EU Common bond in the same way it monetizes Greek junk bonds. Yet, the latter has not stopped contagion, only accelerated it by undermining the ECB credibility.
2. What will back these Common bonds? The solvency of the EU nations guaranteeing them? But wait – isn’t the problem the EU is facing is precisely the very lack of solvency? How is it going to work then? A severely indebted and deficit ridden pack of nations issues new debt to cover up the old debt problems? Well, that did work for the Russian Government a miracle back in 1998. Without actually resolving the problem of excessive and long-running deficits, and without either restructuring (default) or deflating (devaluation which is a de facto default) the existent pile of debt, the new EU-wide bond issue will simply transfer Greek-style problems of the PIIGS to the rest of EU. Given that we are talking about roughly a €1 trillion worth of junk, the entire pyramid scheme concocted by the EU is going to collapse unless Germany is good for underwriting the entire EU16 with its economic might. Trouble is – Germany can’t. It has little prospect of growth and its’ current economy simply cannot carry the burden of the rest of EU16 obligations.
3. What will be the seniority of these bonds? If the new bond is subordinated to the existent state bonds (as implied by a ‘guarantee’ proviso), these bonds will have no meaning. If it will be senior to existent member states’ debt, then issuing them to pay down sovereign debt will be equal to deflating seniority of sovereign issues already outstanding. Which, in common English, is called defaulting on existent debt.
4. How can these bonds be priced? Normally a bond is priced by a combination of factors. Some are exogenous – such as global liquidity and portfolio driven demand. Some are endogenous – such as analysis of what the sovereign deficit is for the issuer, what debt burden the issuer is paying and what prospects for economic growth (and other components of future default probability) does a sovereign face. Finally, expected Forex positions for sovereign currency in which the bond is denominated are taken into account. Care to guess what any of these endogenous variables might be for the EU16? Right – they are totally meaningless. Will EU bond be written against EU own debt (which is nil) or against guarantors’ debt (sovereigns already overloaded with debt)? Will the Forex rates relate to the ECB rate which the ‘sovereign’ issuing the bonds (the EU Commission) cannot control (due to ECB independence)? Will EU ability to repay these bonds rest on Euroarea economic growth? If so, what does this mean, since the EU Commission collects revenue from EU27, of which 11 member states are not a party to issuance of the bond! Will, for example, UK government assume liability to the Eurozone-issued bonds by committing its own economy to the risk of a call on the bond should, say, Belgium decide to default?

The second prong of the EU attack on the markets is the incessant blabber about the need to set up an EU-own rating agency. Here, the promised might is clearly unmatched by any sort of internal capability:

1. The EU itself cannot certify own annual accounts, despite having only in-house own auditors. Even these are refusing to sign off on EU accounts for over a decade now. How can the same institution produce a credible rating agency that will be entrusted with providing assessment of the EU credit worthiness?
2. Can the EU-imposed metrics be seriously treated as fundamental benchmarks for solvency? Give it a thought – the EU oversees a union of member states bound by own sovereign treaty to uphold the Maastricht Criteria targets. The EU has failed to enforce these in the case of Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards, French, Italians, Belgians and so on. In other words, the EU cannot enforce its own rules, let alone police economic and fiscal performance parameters required to issue any sort of risk assessments. In fact, this year Euroarea deficit is expected to reach 6.6% of GDP and in 2011 -6.1% - way above the 3% the block set as its own rule. Debt to GDP is heading for double digits, before we add banks supports. Letting the EU run a rating agency is equivalent to letting an alcoholic run a bar!
3. The entire idea of an EU rating agency traces back to Merkel’s and Sarkozy’s desire to shift blame for the Greek (and indeed PIIGS) debacle off the shoulders of the European governments and Brussels and onto the shoulders of ‘speculators’ and the Big-3 rating agencies. Of course, the logical inconsistency of the EU attacks on the Big-3 is painfully obvious. The Big 3 are accused for failing to properly recognize and publicize risks to the systemic solvency of financial institutions in the case of ABS/MBS and so on. Yet, the minute the rating agencies actually do their jobs – as in the case of PIIGS in recent months – they are standing accused of… well… doing the jobs only to well? Can anyone have any trust in a ‘rating agency’ set up by the very people who are simply and evidently incapable of a simple logical argument?

Mrs Merkel have stated this Friday: "Those who created the excesses on the markets will be asked to pay up -- those are in part the banks, those are the hedge funds that must be regulated ... those are the short-sellers and we agreed yesterday to implement this more quickly in Europe." Obviously, over a decade of fiscal recklessness across the PIIGS was never a problem for Mrs Merkel. And she is supposed to be the reasonable one?

All I can say, folks, forget any hope for growth in Europe with this sort of leadership.

Economics 05/05/2010: Third Force's Burn-out Bench

The news stream is getting thicker and thicker with Irish financials and sovereign / fiscal debacles stories. Reuters is reporting (hat tip to Brian) (here) that the Third Force now looks more like a Burn-out Bench and that there is little prospect for growth or profitability for BofI and AIB.

All's fine, as far as the arguments go, except, there is that silly ending to the article putting blame for the crisis on 'too much competition' in the Irish banking sector. I'd say this pure rubbish. Here is an earlier note I wrote on that subject. In simple terms, it does not matter what profit margins could have been were we to have lower competition. Irish banking crisis was caused by excessive willingness to take risks, spurred on by the Government, the Regulator, the Central Bank and ECB. May be there was too much competition amongst the incompetent cooks in that kitchen?


Oh, and Nouriel Roubini puts a clear number on the fear of European contagion: "European banks hold claims of US$193 billion on Greece and more than US$1 trillion of further claims on Portugal, Ireland and Spain. It cannot be ruled out that the ECB will eventually have to resort to more aggressive measures such as buying government bonds in the secondary market in order to stop the contagion."

So the next stage of contagion can cost Germany (and make no mistake - Germany will be paying for this in the end) upwards of 5 times what the Greek bailout will cost.

Economics 04/05/2010: Why Anglo case is irreparable

A funny way of arguing financial returns that some of our senior 'bankers' have has been highlighted in the latest comments of the Politician-turns-Banker Mr Alan Dukes reported in today's Irish Times (comments and emphasis are mine):

“The [EU] commission came back with a whole series of questions [concerning Anglo's 'business plan' - whether a zombie can have a business plan is a matter for another debate] and we are now rejigging the restructuring plan to deal with the issues the commission has raised. One of the things we are looking at is what would be the situation if we liquidated the bank immediately? Total disaster. A total non-runner. [ Am I the only person concerned with the fact that apparently the 'new plan' will be a re-jigging of the old version or that Mr Dukes has already decided that, while the bank is still looking into liquidation option, he is sure that it will be a total disaster and a non-runner?]

“...The best prospect of getting some value out of it and reducing the total cost to the taxpayer is keeping the good bank of it, because eventually it could be sold on to the benefit of the taxpayer. If you just do a wind-down, it is losses all the way. Whereas if you can make a good bank of it, which should be a quarter of the size of the whole bank, at least you have got something viable and that can be sold off to the private sector in the fullness of time.”

Our senior banker is clearly confusing gross return with net return here. Let me illustrate:

Suppose Anglo separation into two banks - bad and good -

• Yields the value of the 'Good' Anglo at €A at the time of disposal t-years from now
  
• Winding down 'Bad' Anglo costs €B by the time of disposal t-years from now
  
• In the mean time (between now and disposal) the cost of running 'Good' Anglo will be €C
• While the current value of the 'Good' Anglo, without a workout (a fire sale, if you may prefer to call it, or a shorter winding up over 5 years as I would prefer to label it) implies the value of it of €D today.
  
• Also suppose that if we wind down Anglo today (or in the near future), the cost of winding down is €E.
• Assume that present value adjustment (bringing the value of the bank and the level of costs incurred back to today from the date of disposal) is PVadj<1. pvadj="F(Interest">

Mr Dukes says that: since €A>0 then taxpayers win from the option of splitting the bank into 2 parts.

I say that:

• if (€A-€C-€B)*PVAadj>€D-€E then taxpayer loses from the rapid winding down and gains from the breaking up of the bank (Mr Dukes preferred solution)
  
• otherwise, taxpayers gain from the opposite action of completely winding down the bank as soon as possible

Mr Dukes' vision of 'positive return' is also severely skewed by his failure to consider risks (interest rate risk, asset valuation risk, liquidity risk etc) in his assessment. A rather worrying problem since mis-pricing of risks is what got Anglo into trouble in the first place.

In other words, Mr Dukes should really have read up on

1. PDV methodology of computing real returns; and
2. Net Present Value framework for carrying out comparative valuations.

These are really basic building blocks of finance... really!

Economics 03/05/2010: World Debt Wish 6

Final part of the series presents two tables, which are largely self-explanatory.

The first table compares Irish Gross External Debt Liabilities to those of other 36 Most Indebted Countries, reporting these countries' GED as % of Irish GED. No adjustments for GDP etc are taken:
You can judge by yourself if Ireland is really economically mightier than Australia, or Argentina, or Brazil and so on...

The second table does two things:
First I reproduce the raw numbers for Ireland and for the group of 36 Most Indebted Countries across three categories of debt, total debt and GDP/GNP. I then compute the relative weight of Ireland in every one of these categories. Column 4 in the top part of the table shows the results as percentages. Thus, Ireland's General Government Debt accounts for 0.96% of the total General Gov Debt incurred by all 36 countries. Ireland's banks' debt accounts for almost 4% of the total banking sector debt for all 36 countries - a hefty weight for the country that has GDP share of the Group of 36 that is only 0.37% or GNP share that is just 0.30%. You can judge for yourselves if the private sector (other than banks) in Ireland is really that healthy to carry us out of the recession, but the figure of 5.88% representing the share of Irish real economy debt as a percentage of the real economy debt for all 36 countries is scary! Especially realizing that this makes our economy leveraged to the tune of 1960% compared to the rest of the world. Imagine having that level of LTV on your house?!

The second part of the table above shows Irish debt levels as percentage of Irish GDP and GNP. Our headline figure here is the level of absolute (not relative to other nations) level of leverage - that of 1,326% or x13.26 times if we are to continue imagining that MNCs-dominated sectors really do carry all activities billed through Ireland here in Ireland (in other words, if we are to use our GDP as income measure). Alas, were we to step down to earth and use our GNP as a metric for income, our level of leverage is reaching a frightening 1,617% or x16.17 times annual income. Compared to that, world's most indebted 36 nations have leverage of just 119%!

Still feel like sending some foreign aid to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs)? Or, for that matter, to Greece?

Economics 03/05/2010: World Debt Wish 5

This is the fifth post in the series covering world debt issues. In the previous posts I provided analysis of the aggregate debt levels for 36 largest debtor nations (here) and for the Government debt (here), the banks debt (here) and the country level data (here). This post puts things into comparative perspective.

Before we begin, however, let me quote from today's Financial Times: "On my estimate, the total size of a liquidity backstop for Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and possibly Italy could add up to somewhere between €500bn ($665bn, £435bn) and €1,000bn. All those countries are facing increases in interest rates at a time when they are either in recession or just limping out of one. The private sector in some of those countries is simply not viable at those higher rates."

Notice the numbers Wolfgang Munchau quotes above, and the countries he includes in the end-game rescue package. Ireland, figures in marginally - the last in line. Yet, what you are about to witness puts a different order on the potential default scenario within the PIIGS.

First the so-called 'good news' - per our Government's repeated boasting, Ireland is a country with sound public sector debt levels. Oh, really?
Chart above shows General Government Debt as percentage of GDP. Note, I decided to play 'fair' with Brian Lenihan here - he seemingly cannot understand the GDP/GNP gap, so let us not challenge him too much in his job and use GDP as a benchmark. Per chart above, as of Q4 2009 we had a 62% ratio of GGD to GDP. This puts us into a 'sound' fifth position in the group of world's most indebted 36 nations, behind such 'sound' public finance countries as

• Greece (93%)
• Belgium (74%)
• Italy (65% - getting dangerously close to Ireland)
• France (63% - virtually indistinguishable to Ireland)

Note, this is GGD nomenclature of the IMF/BIS/World Bank framework, which is slightly different from the Stability & Growth Pact methodology deployed by the EU, but unlike the EU's methodology, this one is comparative across the world.

Nothing to brag about here, folks. Fifth. And rising faster than France's or Italy's or Belgium's...
Chart above puts us into comparison in terms of banks' debt - need any explanation here? Oh, yes, we are the most indebted nation in the world by that metric. Worse than this. Suppose we chop off the IFSC (roughly 60% of the banks & 'other' credit institutions' debt). We end up being - the 3rd most indebted banking system in the world.

Of course, in the end it will be the real economy of Ireland - including our corporates and households - who will be paying for Brian Cowen's policies (GGD) and for the banks (Gross Banks Debt), so perhaps here Ireland is doing well? There has to be hope somewhere?
Oops, not really. In terms of private (non-banks and non-Exchequer) sectors debt Ireland Inc is actually in worse shape than it is in terms of banks and the Exchequer (which of course begs a questions - what are we doing rescuing banks while the real economy sinks?). Notice that we occupied this dubious first place in the world back in the days of 2003 as well, and part of this is IFSC as well - pension funds and investment funds. But the amount of debt we piled on since then is purely spectacular.

And so now, down to the main figure - the combined external debt liability of Ireland relative to other most indebted nations:
I bet the unions who are calling for more borrowing to finance more growth (the irony of ironies is, of course, that they were so loudly opposing 'growth for growth sake' during the Tiger years) want Mister Lenihan to pull out the state cheque book...

Now let me slightly digress from Ireland and focus on the US. Per above data:

• US public sector debt is only a notch above the 36 countries average;
• US Gross bank's debt is by leagues and bound lower than the 36 countries average;
• US private sector debt is just above the average for the 36 most indebted countries, which implies that
• US total economy debt is below the average for the 36 countries.
  

Now, for all Messrs Lenihan and Cowen talk about how the US caused Irish crisis, somehow the real data shows nothing of the sorts... Instead - the real data paints a picture of Ireland deeply sick by all fiscal and financial standards back in Q4 2003. If you go back to those days, really, there were only few economists who warned about some aspects of this problem - myself, Morgan Kelly inclusive. But there was only one economist who consistently argued back then that the entire picture of the Irish economy was wrong. It was David McWilliams. It turns out - he was right!