27/10/2013: Financial Repression, Economic Suppression & Budget 2014

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article for October 20, 2013.


With fanfare of media appearances and fireworks of Dail statements, Budget 2014 was pushed off the dry dock and into the turbulent waters of reality. Full of political sparkle on the outside, overloaded with hidden taxes and charges and yet-to-be-fully-detailed painful cuts on the inside, it sailed off into the future. It will take at least 9-12 months from now to see what adjustments will have to be made in 2015 to compensate for the 'savings' on cuts delivered this week. It will take us longer to find out if the Budget 2014 will have a positive or negative effect on our ability to fund our deficits in the markets.

Yet, one thing is beyond the doubt: Budget 2014 was a significant gamble by the Government that could have done better by avoiding taking any gambles at all. Minister Noonan has decided to buy some political capital in the Budget. This capital came in the form of reduced rate of overall budgetary adjustment, compensated for by the hope-based increases in public sector efficiencies, plus some symbolic handouts to middle class families. Majority, such as the free GP visits for children under the age of 5, were poorly targeted and economically inefficient – extending scarce resources not to where they are needed most (such as, for example, long-term care provision or means-tested provision of health services) but to where political expediency leads. Many fail the core Budget objectives of making our fiscal policies more robust to adverse shocks that may occur in the near-term future.

In the end, Budget 2014 delivered virtually no real departures from the past Budgets. Predictably, there were no 'new' taxes. Instead the Budget put forward a list of new 'revenue raising measures'. The State will claw out of the banks EUR150 million in levies. Given that our banking sector is being reduced to a Three Pillars oligopoly, the levies will come straight from charging customers more for the same services. Pensions funds levy - a form of expropriation of private property - is to raise additional EUR135 million. This is a tax on present income, and in the case of pensions funds levy a tax on current wealth, plus a tax on future incomes foregone due to reduced levels of pensions funds. EUR140 million will be pumped out of the banks’ customers by taxing interest on savings. All in – financial sector will take a hit of EUR425 million on a full year basis, reducing its ability to lend, invest in the economy and to deal with mortgages distress. The measures will also weaken the quality of Irish banks' deposits base by reducing incentives to save. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff aptly termed such measures ‘financial repression’. De facto, we are bailing in ordinary banks customers and savers to pay for the past sins of the banks. Cyprus redux, anyone?

Cuts side of the Budget was also predictable. At the aggregate level, departmental expenditure as the share of GDP continues to run above 1990-2007 average. Instead of real cost reductions in Health we got some EUR250-300 million worth of new charges to be levied on services to insurance holders. And reduced insurance deductibility on the revenues side should do even more to reduce insurance coverage in the market. Net effect will most likely be falling transfers from private patients to public services, and higher demand for public health.

From businesses perspective, whatever the State added on one side of the budgetary equation, the state took out on the other. Thus, for all incentives for construction and building trade, overall capital spending by the Government in 2014 is projected to fall by some EUR100 million. As we stand, in 2013, capital spending by the Government barely covers amortization and depreciation of the total stock of public capital. Next year, things are going to get worse.

Much of the business stimulus schemes are geared toward supports for the property markets, including the incentives for foreign investors to put money into Irish REITs. Aside from the property-related measures, other business stimulus polices are either extensions of the already existent ones or more promise of doing something in the future. One example is the issue of Trade Finance supports. We are now five years into talking about the need to help smaller exporters with the cost of and access to trade insurance and credit.  Still, there is no tangible delivery on this.


However, the real question, left unanswered by Budget 2014 is: what's next for Ireland? The Government is rhetorically focused on our 'exit' from the Troika-led funding programme. This objective is a policy epicycle designed to ease public attention off the realities of bad domestic governance during the crisis. Exit from the bailout, financially, fiscally and economically, means a public recognition that Ireland has run out of funds we can borrow from the IMF and the EU. It also puts forward a commitment that, unlike Greece, we will not be asking for another bailout. Being not Greece does not make us Iceland, however, since Iceland repaid its bailout loans. In contrast, we will be carrying our debts to Troika for years to come.

The Government is promising that once we exit the bailout, we will regain our control over fiscal policies. This is a gross over-exaggeration. Having ratified the Fiscal Compact, Ireland is now subjected to heavy EU oversight as long as our fiscal performance falls short of the targets set in the treaty. It will be long time before we meet all of the conditions.

The scrutiny of our targets will increase, while our performance will remain under serious pressures arising from the crisis. Most recent IMF forecasts assume full EUR5.6 billion adjustments taken over 2014-2015 period, and economic growth averaging over 2.1 percent per annum (almost 6 times the average growth in 2012-2013 period). These forecasts imply that in 2014-2015 Ireland will still face the third highest cumulative deficits in the euro area ‘periphery’. And the debt levels of Irish state are set to continue rising. In 2013, the Department of Finance projects the level of Irish Government debt to be at EUR205.9 billion. By 2018 this is projected to rise to EUR211.6 billion.

And here's another kicker. The Fiscal Compact sets the target for long-term structural deficits (in other words deficits that would prevail were the economy running at its long run sustainable growth potential) at 0.5 percent of GDP. IMF projections out through 2018 put Irish structural deficits declining from 5.1 percent of potential GDP in 2013 to 2.0 percent in 2018. In other words, in 2018 Ireland is expected to be the worst performing 'peripheral' state in terms of structural deficits and operate well outside the criteria set in the Fiscal Compact.

Worse, comes December 15, we will lose a strong supporter of our efforts to restructure legacy banking debts and the only member of the Troika that promotes structurally more important economic and markets reforms.

On foot of our weak fiscal position, the politicisation of the Irish economy is already building up, driven primarily by our European partners and – until December 15 – resisted by the IMF.

The pressure is rising on Ireland's corporate taxation regime. The Government admitted as much by promising to close the loophole that allows some MNCs to nearly completely avoid paying Irish corporate taxes.

The pressure is also growing on blocking Ireland’s chances to restructure legacy banks debts. Germany, the ECB and the Eurogroup are angling to block Ireland's potential access to the European funds set up to deal with the future banking crises.

We are going into 2014 self-funding mode with all the costs of the bailout in place, including the Dvoika (Troika less one) oversight and substantial deficit and debt overhangs. It now appears that there will be no credit line to cover any increases in the cost of borrowing that might arise in the future. There will be no precautionary fund to cushion against any risk to market demand for Irish Government bonds. There will be no system in place to deal with any future banking problems or with the legacy debts should such arise. The ECB, the IMF and our forecasters are all warning us that we still face potentially significant downside risks to growth and banks stability. The IMF has been for months raising the issues of the SMEs insolvencies and poor quality of banks capital.

In other words, we are boxing ourselves into a high-risk game with little to show for this in terms of a positive return from our 'exit' from the bailout.

History suggests that prudence, not pride should be our guide. Back in 2010 we pre-borrowed aggressively in the markets prior to the state finances collapsing under the poorly structured banks bailouts. Now, we are gunning for the 'exit' without having secured any support from our 'partners' once again. The hope is that this time it will be different: the markets will lend us at decreasing costs, while growth lifts the entire domestic economy out of stagnation. This might not be an equivalent of playing Russian roulette, but it is certainly a game of chance with high stakes on the losses side and little tabled on the potential winnings side.

Box-out:
The latest OECD research on basic skills across the advanced economies puts to a serious test our claims to having a highly educated workforce. Ireland ranked eighth in terms of the proportion of younger adults with tertiary education. In terms of problem solving proficiency, both our college graduates and adults with only secondary education rank below their respective OECD averages. In problem solving in a technology-rich environment – a proxy for skills related to internationally-traded services, the sole driver of our economy today – Ireland ranks 18th in the OECD. Our younger workers score below their OECD peers in basic literacy and in numeracy. When it comes to introduction of new processes and technologies in the workplace Ireland is ranked between such premier divisions of the global innovation league as Cyprus and Belgium. Given our poor performance in digital economy-specific skills, exposed in October 2012 report by the OECD and covered in these pages before, it is high time for us to get serious about reforming our education and training systems.

4/5/2012: Irish Examiner 26/4/2012: Is there an alternative to austerity?

This an unedited version of my article that appeared in the Irish Examiner, April 26, 2012.

However one interprets the core parameters of the fiscal discipline to be imposed under the Fiscal Compact, several facts concerning the new treaty and Ireland’s position with respect to it are indisputable. Firstly, the new treaty will restrict the scope for future exchequer deficits. Combined structural and general deficit targets to be imposed imply a maximum deficit of 2.9-3.0 percent in 2012 as opposed to the IMF-projected general government net borrowing of 8.5% of GDP. Secondly, it will impose a severe long-term debt ceiling, but that condition will not be satisfied by Ireland any time before 2030 or even later.

At the same time, the Troika programme for fiscal adjustment that Ireland is currently adhering to implies a de facto satisfaction of the Fiscal Compact deficit bound after 2015, and non-fulfilment of the structural deficit rule any time between now and 2017. In other words, no matter how we spin it, in the foreseeable future, we will remain a fiscally rouge state, client of the Troika and its successor – the ESM.

Let me run though some hard numbers – all based on IMF latest forecasts. Even under the rather optimistic scenario, Ireland’s real GDP is expected to grow by an average of 2.27% in the period from 2012 through 2017. This is the highest forecast average rate of growth for the entire euro area excluding the Accession states (the EA12 states). And yet, this growth will not be enough to lift us out of the Sovereign debt trap. Averaging just 10.3% of GDP, our total investment in the economy will be the lowest of all EA12 states, while our gross national savings are expected to average just 13.2% of GDP, the second lowest in the EA12.

In short, our real economy will be bled dry by the debt overhang – a combination of the protracted deleveraging and debt servicing costs. It is the combination of the government debt and the unsustainable levels of households’ and corporate indebtedness that is cutting deep into our growth potential, not the austerity-driven reduction in public spending.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion that increasing the national debt beyond the current levels or that increasing dramatically tax burden on the general population – the two measures that would allow us to slow down the rate of reductions in public expenditure planned under the Troika deal – can support any appreciable economic expansion. The reason for this is simple. According to the data, smaller advanced economies with the average Government expenditure burden in the economy of ca 31-35% of GDP have expected growth rates of 3.5% per annum. Countries that have Government spending accounting for 40% and more of GDP have projected rates of growth closer to 1.5% per annum. Ireland neatly falls between the two groups of states both in terms of the Government burden and the economic growth rate.

Despite the already deep austerity, Irish Exchequer will continue running excess spending throughout the adjustment period. Between 2012 and 2017, Irish government net borrowing is expected to average 4.7% of GDP per annum, the second highest in the EA12 group of countries. Put differently, calling on the Government to deploy some sort of fiscal spending stimulus today is equivalent to asking a heart attack patient to run a marathon in the Olympics. Between this year and 2017, our Government will spend some €47.4 billion more than it will collect in taxes, even if the current austerity course continues. Of these, €39 billion of expenditure will go to finance structural deficits, implying a direct cyclical stimulus of more than €8.4 billion.

The exports-driven economy of Ireland simply cannot sustain even the austerity-consistent levels of Government spending. IMF projects that between 2012 and 2017 cumulative current account surpluses in Ireland will be €40 billion. This forecast implies that 2017 current account surplus for Ireland will be €10 billion – a level that is 56 times larger than our current account surplus in 2011. If we are to take a more moderate assumption of current account surpluses running around 2012-2013 projected levels through 2017, our Government deficits are likely to be closer to €53 billion.

In short, there is really no alternative to the austerity, folks, no matter how much we wish for this not to be the case.

Instead, what we do have is the choice of austerity policies to pursue. We can either continue to tax away incomes of the middle and upper-middle classes, or we cut deeper into public expenditure. The former will mean accelerating loss of productivity due to skills and talent outflows from the country, reduced entrepreneurship and starving the younger companies of investment, rising pressure on wages in skills-intensive occupations, while destroying future capacity of the middle-aged families to support themselves through retirement. The latter is the choice to continue reducing our imports-intensive domestic consumption and cutting the spending power of the public sector employees, while enacting deep structural reforms to increase value-for-money outputs in the state sectors. Both choices are painful and short-term recessionary, but only the latter one leads to future growth. The former choice is only consistent with giving vitamins to a cancer-ridden patient – sooner or later, the placebo effect of the ‘stimulus’ will fade, and the cancer of debt overhang will take over once again, with even greater vengeance.

27/7/15: IMF Euro Area Report: The Darker Skies of Risks

The IMF today released its Article IV assessment of the Euro area, so as usual, I will be blogging on the issues raised in the latest report throughout the day. The first post looked at debt overhang, while the second post presented IMF views and data on the euro area banking sector woes. The third post covered IMF projections for growth.

So let's take a look at the risks to the IMF's 'growth returns to Euro zone' scenario.


Per IMF: "Risks are now more balanced than in recent years when vulnerabilities dominated. On the upside, low oil prices, QE, a weaker euro, and rising confidence could bring larger than anticipated benefits. Downside risks include lingering weakness and low inflation, a potential
slowdown in emerging markets, geopolitical tensions, and financial market volatility, whether due to asymmetric monetary policies or contagion from events in Greece."

Now, let me translate this into human language:

1) Eurozone has no real drivers for current growth uptick (which is weak to begin with). Instead, all it got to brag about are: QE (extraordinary monetary policies); QE-induced weaker euro (beggar thy neighbours trade policies), some rising confidence (hopping mad global asset markets bidding everything up on foot of global QEs - extraordinary policies); and lastly - lower oil prices (that sign of global economy on a downward slide). Congratulations to all - hard work and enterprising are not required for this sort of growth.

2) Eurozone's abysmal growth is at a risk from:

• 'lingering weakness' (aka structural non-reforms that Europe worked so hard to achieve since 2008, we are all in tears… so lots of sweat, not much of gain here) and 
• 'low inflation' (a euphemism for consumers and investors on strike in this promised Land of Plenty); and 
• 'potential slowdown in emerging markets' (that thingy that makes oil cheaper - take you pick, Euro area: get crushed by higher oil prices in presence of EMs growth or get squeezed by lack of EMs growth in presence of low oil prices), 
• 'geopolitical tensions' (aka: Russkies not playing the ball with Good Europeans by refusing to buy their apples), and 
• 'financial market volatility' (wait: what on earth have we been doing since 2007 other than fight the said financial markets volatility? Looks like lots of successes here, if the said volatility is still a risk), 'whether due to asymmetric monetary policies' (in other words, if the Fed hikes rates too early too fast) or 'contagion from events in Greece' (would that be the same Greece that has been ring fenced and repaired? most recently this month?).

You have to wonder: IMF effectively says all risks that were in the euro area in ca 2011 are still in the euro area in ca 2015…

Now, recall that some time ago I said that the next step for Europe will be a fiscal / political union with less democracy for all and more technocracy for the few? (link here). And IMF does not disappoint on this too.

"Beyond the near term, there should be a concerted effort to accelerate steps to strengthen the monetary union and European firewalls. Fully severing bank-sovereign links would require a common deposit insurance scheme with a fiscal backstop, a larger and fully funded Single Resolution Fund, and easier access to direct bank recapitalization from the ESM. The greater risk-sharing implied by these measures should be underpinned by a strengthened fiscal and structural governance framework which could require possible Treaty changes. These reforms are desirable in any case, but accelerated progress could help bolster market confidence in the face of recent events."

What have we learned from the above? Why, of course that the frequent claims by the EU officials that Europe now has fully severed contagion links between banks and taxpayers are… err… a lie. And that common claims by the European officials that we now have a genuine monetary union infrastructure is also a lie. And that to make these two claims not to be a lie we will need something/rather that requires 'possible Treaty changes'… which is of course a political and fiscal union. So kiss that national sovereignty and self-determination bye-bye… assuming you still believe such exist in the Euro Land.

Here is full IMF risks assessment matrix:

Now, do some counting: out of 7 key risks, four have either high probability of occurring or bear high impact if they should occur or both.

Now, all of the above still generates a positive outlook under the IMF forecasts - positive, meaning GDP growth over 1.2-1.4 percent, never mind GDP growth anywhere near that of the U.S.

But then the IMF goes slightly gloomier and paints a "Downside Scenario of Stagnation in the Euro Area". Here we are getting some traction with highly probable reality by the highly diplomatic Fund.

"Subdued medium-term prospects leave the euro area susceptible to negative shocks. A modest shock to confidence—for example, from lower expected future growth, or heightened geopolitical tensions—that lowers private investment could affect households via labor income and wealth. Expectations of lower inflation at the zero lower bound would keep real interest rates high. For countries with high public debt, risk premia could rise, amplifying the shock and raising the risk of a debt-deflation spiral. Policy space would be limited with short-term interest rates at the zero lower bound and public debt high in countries with large output gaps (Bullard, 2013)."

What the above really means is that, given we are already in the environment of zero policy rates and unprecedented money printing by the ECB, any further shocks will have nothing offsetting them on policy side as

• Monetary policy has fired almost all its bullets already, and
• Fiscal policy has no bullets because of already high levels of debt, whilst
• Currency devaluation policy is not an option in the monetary union dominated by Germany.

Welcome to Hope Street where things can only go as smoothly as today, forever.

"An illustrative downside scenario, assuming lower investment for all euro area countries and increased risk premia for high debt countries, suggests that euro area output could be nearly 2 percent lower by 2020." Guess what: 2020 forecast growth is 1.5% (link here) which means that IMF is saying it will be -0.5% aka another recession.

"The main channels would be through higher real interest rates depressing investment and consumption as well as lower inflation and wage growth constraining adjustment within the euro area." Which means IMF is now fully buying into the Secular Stagnation (Demand Side) scenario I wrote about here.

"The impact would vary across countries with real interest rates higher in countries with weaker balance sheets. Fragmentation progress would reverse and public debt would increase more in high debt countries due to lower fiscal balances and nominal output. “Bad” internal rebalancing would follow, as current accounts in high debt countries would rise due to import compression. Lower inflation would worsen external imbalances, by forcing countries with large output gaps and imbalances to adjust through lower prices and employment."

Yeeeks!

So projections:

Double Yeeeeks!

Economics 20/05/2010: Germany's new plan for Europe

“Berlin means business” says Spiegel about the latest plans by German Government for an EU-wide revision of fiscal and financial architecture.

This Tuesday, “EU finance ministers announced efforts to both rein in hedge funds operating in Europe and to introduce a tax on financial transactions”.

Wait a second, folks – take Ireland: a sick financial system with plenty of financial services taxes, including a stamp duty on transactions, all the way down to bank cards levies. Has the presence of the Tobin tax here helped to prevent the crisis? Will it work in Europe? Not really. Why? For several reasons:

1. Tax is avoidable by offshoring trades outside the EU. The effect of this will be – higher cost of capital raising for companies, selection bias in favour of larger companies in access to the capital market (AIG advantage anyone?), lower after-tax returns to investors and higher cost of financial services to all of us. Falling listings in Europe and greater state pensions reliance. Which part of this equation makes any economic sense?
2. The tax will not fund sufficient insurance provision against the need for future bailouts. When you think of the magnitude of bailouts we’ve witnessed, the levels of taxation would have to be so high, there will be no financial markets in Europe left.
3. The tax will, however, fund general Government spending in the Eurozone. Which, of course, means more of our money (yes, yours and mine – as long as we have pensions, savings, investments or if we work for companies that have listed shares or have plcs as their clients…) will be going to noble causes of public sector retirement and wages packages, social welfare spending, politically motivated pet projects, and so on.
   
4. The tax will retard economic development in Europe. One of the reason why European banks are so sick is because European companies are heavily reliant on banks lending. European businesses are based on loans, not equity - in other words, they are based on debt. Vast amounts of debt. And when such culture of financing collides with an asset bubble drivers of exuberant expectations, banks balance sheets swell with bad loans. The new tax will only perpetuate this inherently inefficient utilization of equity financing across Europe. Which means less growth, fewer businesses and fewer jobs.

Next, of course, in the line of fire are the hedge funds. They had to be reined in because… no wait, remind me, why exactly? Hedge funds did not cause the current fiscal crisis (they have no control over the Governments’ borrowings and spending), nor did they pollute banks balance sheets or caused the property bubbles. Why are they a target then? Because for European leadership, ‘Doing right’ means ‘Doing politically easy’. Hedgies have no strong lobbyist interest behind them, unlike the banks, property developers, sovereign bondholders, sovereign bond issuers, farmers, trade unions and public 'servants' - all who inhabit the vast ques to the trough of Government subsidies. So here you are – we attack a bystander to pretend that we are tackling the criminal in sight.

After hedgies, came in other imaginary villains. On Tuesday night the EU banned naked short-selling and the trading of naked credit default swaps involving euro-zone debt. Oops.. before Tuesday night we knew what markets were betting on into the future – the short positions revealed actual expectations with the power of having real money put behind them. Now we do not. This, per EU leaders, is some sort of transparency. Socratic cave analogy comes to mind.

The EU ban target two types of trading that “have been blamed for exacerbating the financial crisis and Europe's sovereign debt crisis.” Actually, IMF explicitly said (here) in its report last week that the entire CDS markets - not just short sales in these markets - were not enough to cause the crisis. Never mind - EU leaders know how to deal with independent advice from international experts. Any hope, then, that Mrs Merkel's pipe dream of 'independent budgets oversight' (see below) can come true in this land of pure politicization of everything - from rating agencies, to traders, to investors?

It turns out, folks, that European crisis was, after all, not about absurdly high levels of public debt carried by PIIGS, nor by fraudulent (yes, fraudulent) deception by some Governments of investors about the true extent of national deficits. It was not exacerbated by the decade-long low growth recession across the Euro area, nor by a recent severe depression that afflicted Euro area economies. Nope. The cause of this, per Mrs Merkel & Co, were investors who were betting on all of these factors adding up to an unsustainable fiscal and economic situation in Europe. Off we fighting the evil windmills, then, Don Quixote from Berlin!


Worse than that, on top of the ridiculous policies decisions made over the last two days, Chancellor Merkel has also been working hard “on far-reaching changes to the treaty underpinning Europe's common currency, the euro.” Per Der Speigel, “Merkel would like to see increased monitoring of member states' annual budgets, the introduction of stiff sanctions for those in violation of euro-zone debt rules and the suspension of voting rights in the European Council. Furthermore, Germany wants to establish bankruptcy proceedings for insolvent euro-zone countries.”

Really? I wrote about the actual chances of any of this working to the desired effect in the earlier post (here). But now we have some details to the plan:

“According to the document, Germany would like to see annual budgets in euro-zone countries undergo a "strict and independent check." Berlin proposes that the job be taken over by the European Central Bank or by a collection of economic research institutes.”

Now, the problem with this part is that there are no independent organizations in Europe left. The ECB is now a full hostage to Europe’s push for retaining fiscal sovereignty while maintaining unsustainable prolificacy. ‘Institutes’ Mrs Merkel has in mind are a host of EU-funded ‘Yes, Minister’ organizations that populate the realm of economic policymaking on the continent (with a number of them operating in Ireland). By-and-large, they have no capability of delivering anything of real value, let alone anything independent. Even the likes of the OECD – a very capable organization with some degree of independence – is not free from European political interference.

"Euro-zone member states that do not conform to deficit reduction rules should temporarily be disallowed from receiving structural funds," the draft reads. In extreme cases, that funding could be permanently eliminated.”

Imagine Greece today, receiving €110 billion bailout today, being told, ‘Naughty! We will withhold some €5 billion in funds.” Apart from being unrealistic, this idea is potentially quite dangerous. Structural funds go to finance infrastructure and other longer term investment programmes. Many of these rely on co-funding from the Member States and/or private partners. All have private contractors. Impose this potential penalty and cost of public projects financing will have to rise due to uncertain nature of the funding stream.

Withholding these funds will either be meaningless (if the funds withheld are small, as it will cause no damage and will have no power of prevention) or it will cause an economic mayhem as bills go unpaid and workers lose jobs (in which case the sanction will be undermining the process of fiscal recovery and triggering more bailouts).

In short, the threat is either toothless or self-defeating. Either way – it is a cure that threatens to make the disease incurable.

Two more proposals are mentioned in the Spiegel.

“Earlier this month, Schäuble had mentioned the possibility of suspending member states' votes should they find themselves in violation of European debt rules, an idea which is mentioned in the draft proposal.”

This should make wonders of the EU efforts to strengthen its democratic legitimacy. And would this extend to suspending MEPs powers too? European court judges? Commissioners? Where does the buck stop? Should this come to pass, Italy, Greece… no wait – at 60% debt to GDP level, virtually the entire EU will be suspended (see table here). Who will end up voting in Europe? Germany won’t – its own debt/GDP ratio is 72.5%... Ditto for the deficits benchmark.

Finally, per plan: “Should all else fail, the draft calls for a plan to be established for euro-zone members to declare bankruptcy.”

Err… what? Hold on – bankruptcy? Given that the EU own rules to date have so spectacularly failed to contain debts and deficits from breaching EU-own rules, that would be a collective bankruptcy then… One presumes with Germany in tow?

Economics 23/06/2010: On Financial Services Tax

This is an unedited version of my article in the current issue of Business & Finance magazine.


Behind the headlines about the ongoing eurozone fiscal crisis, three significant events have taken place on both sides of the Atlantic in recent weeks.

First, in April, assets under management in hedge funds domiciled in North America reached above $1 trillion mark for the first time in 18 months. Currently, North American funds account for two thirds of the total global assets under management.

Second, both the US and Canadian governments, preparing for the upcoming G20 summit have signalled their unwillingness to join European leaders in their crusade against financial markets. In fact the US has taken a distinctly different approach to dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis, focusing on banks stability and addressing balance sheet risks in the recent finance reform packages that cleared US Congress.

Third, bloodied and bruised by the bonds markets and the voters, European politicians, led by Angela Merkel, have been gearing up for an all-out fight with so-called financial speculators.

As unconnected as these events might appear today, make no mistake, should the EU continue down the path consistent with its recent rhetoric, Toronto, New York, Chicago and Boston, alongside other major financial services centres around the world will be boom towns courtesy of the investors fleeing populist and politicized EU.


German plans for an EU-wide revision of fiscal and financial architecture range from suspending voting rights of the member states to national bankruptcy proceedings, from regulating hedge funds to introducing a tax on financial transactions.

A global or at the very least an EU-wide financial services transaction tax has been an on-and-off topic of discussion amongst the member states and Brussels for some years. Back in 2006 I was asked to review one of such proposals for a senior European decision maker from one of the continental member states. Having systematically overtaxed and overspend their economies, European sovereigns have been seeking new means of getting their hands on taxpayers cash since at least 2002-2003. Like a junkie in a desperate search of the next hit, the EU states are now searching for a convenient and politically, if not economically, easy target to mug. A Tobin-styled transaction levy on financial instruments is just that.

Transactions tax has been proposed back in 1972 as a theoretical construct to reduce the volumes of high frequency trading in foreign exchange markets. The rationale for it was a naïve belief that currencies should only be traded internationally for the purpose of physical commerce – exporting and importing. Any other trading, such as using foreign exchange as either a hedge or a flight to safety instrument against inflation, low economic growth, excessive state graft on personal income, sovereign insolvency and other fundamentals was viewed as speculative. In reality, modern currency is cash and cash is more than a facilitator of physical transactions. It is an asset.

Fallacious in application to Forex markets, Tobin tax would be even more erroneous were it to be applied to a broader set of financial instruments.

Take Ireland: a gravely sick financial system with plenty of financial services taxes, including a stamp duty on transactions. Has the presence of the Tobin tax here helped to prevent or even moderate the crisis? No. Worse than that, over the last 5 years, Irish markets have shown remarkably high volatility, despite having one of the highest stamp duty rates in the developed world. If anything, our stamp duty can be blamed for artificially reducing liquidity in the Irish stock market and, as a result, for adversely (albeit extremely modestly) contributing to the collapse of Irish shares.

Sweden toyed with transactions tax on financial markets back in 1984, imposing moderate levels of a stamp duty on stocks and derivatives. Within one week of the new law coming into effect, Swedish bond market saw an 85% collapse in volumes traded, futures trades fell 98% and options trading ceased all together. Swedes finally abandoned this self-destructive tax in 1991. Finland faced exactly the same experience. Japan was forced to abandon Tobin-style tax in 1999. Switzerland – a global financial services hub – does charge, in theory, a transaction tax, set at a fraction of the one Germany is rumoured to favour. However, in a typical example of Swiss flexibility, authorities there have power to grant exemption from this tax for specific investors.

OECD has issued the following official position on Tobin-style taxes back in 2002: “A “Tobin tax” penalises high frequency trading without discriminating between trades which may be de-stabilising and those which help to anchor markets by providing liquidity and information. Indirect evidence from other financial markets where a securities transaction tax has been in place suggests a substantial effect on trading volume but either no effect, or a small one of uncertain direction, on price volatility.”

Tobin tax will not work for Europe:

The tax is avoidable by conducting trades and structuring portfolia outside the EU. The end game will be higher cost of capital raising for European companies, selection bias in favour of larger companies in access to the capital market, selection bias in favour of larger financial assets trading platforms, to the detriment of smaller exchanges, and lower after-tax returns to investors. Which part of this equation makes any economic sense?

The tax will not fund sufficient insurance cover for future crises. Given the magnitude of bailouts witnessed in the last two years, the levels of taxation would have to be so high – well in excess of benign rate of 0.1-0.2% currently levied in some countries – that there will be no European financial markets left.

This tax on financial transactions will retard economic development in Europe for decades to come.

One of the reasons why European banks are so sick right now is European companies’ disproportionate, by international standards, over-reliance on debt financing. This contrasts the US corporates, which use more equity financing to raise capital. When the debt financing meets an asset bubble, banks balance sheets swell with bad loans. There is no equity cushion on European corporate balancesheets to underwrite the resulting losses. Instead, taxpayers get thrown to the wolves to rescue banks. Mrs Merkel & Co latest plans for ‘reforms’ will, therefore, mean even greater risks of bailouts in the future, and less growth and fewer jobs.


Next, of course, in Berlin’s line of fire were the hedge funds. Per populist rhetoric in European capitals, they had to be reined in because… well, no one actually knows, why. Hedge funds did not cause the current fiscal crisis (they had no control over the EU governments’ borrowing and spending excesses), nor did they cause the crash of our financial systems (hedgies did not pollute banks balance sheets and account for no more than 5% of the global financial assets). The hedge funds are not responsible for the property bubble or for exuberant stock markets overvaluations achieved in 2007-2008 worldwide.

The sole reason for this ‘reform’ is that for European leadership, ‘Doing right’ means ‘Doing politically easy’. Hedgies have no strong political lobby backing them, unlike banks, property developers, sovereign bondholders and issuers, or civil servants. So the EU prefers to attack a bystander in order to pretend that we are tackling the criminal. While taxpayers are being skinned alive to rescue reckless governments and banks, hedge funds are being presented as villain supremo. Farce? No – it’s politics.

After hedgies, came in even more sci-fi villains. Following Mrs Merkel’s ‘reforms’ talk, Germany banned naked short-selling and the trading of naked credit default swaps in euro zone debt. It turns out that European crisis was, after all, not about absurdly high levels of public debt carried by the PIIGS, nor by fraudulent (yes, fraudulent) deception by some countries of European authorities and investors about the true extent of national deficits. It was not exacerbated by the decade-long recessions turning into bubbles of exuberant lending and borrowing by companies and households, nor by a resultant severe depression that afflicted Euro area since 2008. The cause of these were the investors who were betting on all of these factors adding up to an unsustainable fiscal and economic situation in Europe. Farcical, really!

Worse than that, on top of the ridiculous financial services policies decisions Chancellor Merkel has also been working hard “on far-reaching changes to the treaty underpinning Europe's common currency”. German government would like to increase monitoring of member states' annual budgets, the introduction of stiff sanctions for those in violation of euro-zone debt rules and the suspension of voting rights in the European Council. Furthermore, Germany wants to establish “bankruptcy proceedings for insolvent euro-zone countries.”

The problem with the first part of Mrs Merkel’s fiscal policy proposal is that there are no independent organizations in Europe left that could oversee member states’ budgets. The ECB is a full hostage to Europe’s whims on monetary policy, engaging in the most reckless forms of monetary interventionism known to mankind – direct purchases of risky states’ debt. Outside the ECB ‘Yes, Minister’-styled ‘independent’ states-sponsored institutes populate the realm of European economic policymaking. By-and-large, they have no capability of delivering any independent analysis. Even the likes of the OECD – a very capable organization with some degree of independence – is subject to direct political and bureaucratic interference from its own members.

As far as German proposals for euro zone rules enforcement go, member states that do not conform to deficit reduction rules will be temporarily cut off from receiving structural funds. The galling dis-proportionality and lack of realism in this proposition does not even occur to the EU leaders supporting the idea.

Greece today is recipient of €110 billion bailout. Will suspending a few billion worth of discretionary structural funds commitment be a significant deterrent to a state like that?

This idea is potentially quite dangerous economically. Structural funds go to finance long term infrastructure investment programmes which often rely on co-funding from the Member States and/or private partners. All have private sub-contractors. Withholding EU funds will either destabilise these investments (if the measures to have any punitive powers), thus preventing economic growth necessary for fiscal stabilization or will do nothing. In short, Mrs Merkel’s proposal is a cure that threatens to make the disease incurable.

Earlier in May, German officials also mentioned the possibility of suspending member states' votes should they find themselves in violation of European debt rules. Of course, should this come to pass, Italy, Greece… no wait virtually the entire Eurozone, including Germany will have to be suspended from voting.


In short, in contrast to the US Congressional blueprints for financial sector reforms, European proposals to date can be described as a bizarre amalgamation of the impossible, the improbable, and the outright reckless. Their likeliest outcomes would be a large scale capital flight out of Europe and perpetuation of the status quo of continued sovereign and banks bailouts across the continent. Already struggling under the unsustainable burden of European taxation, the real economy – exportable and non-traded services and manufacturing – will be left holding the bag for these politically driven ‘reforms’. In addition to having an acute solvency problem, the EU will be saddled with a crippling lack of liquidity that only financial markets can provide.

13/12/2011: European Summit and Markets Efficiency

One thing that clearly must be disheartening for the perfect markets efficiency theory buffs (supposedly there are loads of them around, judging by the arguments from the 'State Knows Best' camp, though I personally know not a single one who thinks that markets are perfectly efficient) is the speed with which the markets produced an assessment of the Euro zone's latest 'Grand Plan'.

Frankly speaking, the ink was still drying on the last week's summit paper pads and it was already clear that the new 'Solution' is not a solution at all and that the Euro zone crisis is not about to be repaired by vacuous promises of the serial sinners not to sin in the future.

This blog highlighted back on the 10th of December (here) the simple fact that Euro zone is highly unlikely to deliver on its newly re-set old SGP criteria targets, no matter what enforcement (short of Panzer divisions) Merkozy deploy. And in a comment to Portuguese L'Expresso (see excerpts here and full text here) and elsewhere I have said that instead of resolving the debt crisis, European leaders decided to create a political crisis.

Many other observers had a similar assessment of the latest Euro Land Fiasco pantomime that was the Summit. And yet, despite the factual nature of analysis provided, I was immediately attacked as a token Euro skeptic and an Anglophile.

Now, more confirmation - this time from the EU Commission itself (presumably this too has evolved into a Euro skeptic and an Anglophile institution overnight) - that the propposed Merkozy Pact is (1) extra-judicial and (2) largely irrelevant to the problem at hand. Today's Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that the new Pact will be - per EU Commission opinion - part of an inter-governmental treaty, which is subordinate - in international law - to any European treaty. This, in turn, means that a country in breach of the 'quasi-automatic fiscal rules - 3%-0.5%-60% formula - can simply claim adherence to existent weaker rules established under the fully functioning European treaties. This, in turn, will mean that there can be no application of the new Pact rules.

Thus, the new Merkozy Pact is subordinated to the weaker fiscal rules under the SGP and any extra-SGP enforcement of these rules is subordinated to the SGP procedures. Can anyone explain how, say Italy, can be compelled to implement the new Pact, then?

Meanwhile, of the other 'agreements' reached at the Summit, the EFSF agreement represents the weakening, not the strengthening of the previous Euro area position. In fact, post Summit, the EFSF is about to lose its AAA status (as France is preparing to lose its own AAA rating). S&P has the EFSF AAA-backers on negative watch and under a review, Moody announced yesterday that it will be reviewing AAA ratings across the Euro zone and Fitch labeled the Summit a failure. And amidst all of this EFSF is going to remain about 1/3 of the size required to start making a dent in the Euro zone problems. That, of course, assuming it can get up to that level - a big question, given pending downgrade and previous difficulties with raising funds.

The third pillar of the Euro zone 'strategy' for dealing with the crisis - the permanent ESM - also emerged from the summit in the shape of a party balloon with a hole in its side. Rapid deflation of the ESM hopes means that even with 'leverage' option, the ESM will not be able to underwrite liquidity to Italy and GIP, let alone Spain & Belgium. Furthermore, there is a question yet to be asked of the European leaders. Fancying ESM at €500 billion might be a wonderful exercise in fictional narrative, but where on earth will they get these funds from?

The fourth pillar of the 'strategy' was the IMF merry-go-round loans carrusel. Now, recall that brilliant scheme. The IMF has strict (kind of strict - see here) rules on volumes of lending it can carry out. But Euro zone problems are so vast, the IMF limits represent a huge constraint on the funding it can provide to the common currency debt junkies. So the EU came up with an 'Cunning Plan'. The EU will lend IMF €200 billion (which EU doesn't really have) and the IMF can then re-lend EU between €800 billion (under old rules on IMF lending) or up to €2 trillion (under that new 'leverage scheme'). Note: IMF doesn't really have this sort of money either.

So a junkie will borrow somewhere some cash, lend it to his dealer-supplier, who will then issue junkie a credit line several times greater than the loan, so the junkie can have access to few more years of quick fixes. Lovely. When you think of it, the irony of the EU passing a new 'Discipline Pact' with one stroke of pen, while leveraging everything it got and even leveraging the IMF to get itself more debt with the next stroke of pen takes some beating in the land of absurdity.

But fear not. The IMF is not likely to engage in this sort of financial engineering. Not because its new leader, Christine Lagarde - who comes from the European tradition of creating massive fudge out of monetary and fiscal policies - objects to it. It is unlikely to do so because its other funders - the US and Japan and BRICs etc are saying 'No way, man' to the Euro zone's plans. The US expressed serious concerns that Euro zone's plan will lead to US losses on IMF funds, while Japan's Fin Min Jun Asumi said that Europe must create a functional firewall first, before any IMF involvement can be approved. He also stated Japan's support for US position.

And so we have it. Post-Summit:

• There is no effective new 'Treaty' or enforceable new rules
• There is no enhanced EFSF and the old one is about to lose all its firepower
• There is no feasible ESM
• There is no Euro-leveraging of the IMF

Oh, and the ECB is becoming increasingly non-cooperative too.

And amidst all of this, the newsflow gets only worse and worse for Europe's battered economies. Greece is now projecting GDP decline of 6% in 2011 and 3% in 2012. The new deficit projections for 2011 are at 9% of GDP or €2.6 billion worse than the annual budgetary forecast of 8.5% deficit. Ditto for Belgium, where 2011 deficit is heading for 4.2% of GDP - 0.6 percentage points above the budgetary target (€2.2 billion shortfall). And, of course, there is that post-boy of austerity - aka Ireland - where Government tax revenues are collapsing as data through November shows (see details here).

So reality bites, folks. Markets are clearly not perfectly efficient. But once they discover the truth about the Euro Summit, fireworks will begin.

8/3/2012: Economy on a flat-line: Sunday Times 4/3/2012

This is an unedited version of my article in Sunday Times March 4, 2012.

This week, the conflicting news from the world’s largest economy – the US, have shown once again the problems inherent in economic forecasting. Even a giant economy is capable of succumbing to volatility while searching to establish a new or confirm an old trend. The US economy is currently undergoing this process that, it is hoped, is pointing to the reversal in the growth trend to the upside in the near future. The crucial point, however, when it comes to our own economy, is that even in the US economy the time around re-testing of the previously set trend makes short-term data a highly imperfect indicator of the economic direction.

In contrast to the US economy, however, Irish data currently bears little indication that we are turning the proverbial corner on growth. It is, however, starting to show the volatility that can be consistent with some economic soul-searching in months ahead. Majority of Irish economic indicators have now been bouncing for 6 to 12 months along the relatively flat or only gently declining trend. Some commentators suggest that this is a sign of the upcoming turnaround in our economic fortunes. Others have pointed to the uniform downward revisions of the forecasts for Irish growth for 2012 by international and domestic economists as a sign that the flattening trend might break into a renewed slowdown. In reality, all of these conjectures are at the very best educated guesswork, for our economy is simply too volatile and the current times are too uncertain to provide grounds for a more ‘scientific’ approach to forecasting.

Which means that to discern the potential direction for the economy in months ahead, we are left with nothing better than look at the signals from the more transparent, real economy-linked activities such as monthly changes in prices, retail sales and house price indices, and longer-range trade flows statistics, unemployment and workforce participation data.

This week we saw the release of two of the above indicators: residential property price index and retail sales. The former registered another massive decline, with residential property prices falling 17.4% year on year in January 2012, after posting a 16.7% annual decline in December 2011 and 15.6% decline in November 2011. With Dublin once again leading the trend compared to the rest of the country, there appears to be absolutely no ‘soul-searching’ as house prices continue to drop. House prices, of course, provide a clear signal as to the direction of the domestic investment – and despite all the noises about the vast FDI inflows and foreign buyers ‘kicking tyres’ around empty buildings and sites – this direction is down.

More interesting are the volatile readings from the retail sales data.

The headline indices of retail sales volumes and values for January 2012, released this week were just short of horrific. Year on year, retail sales declined 0.34% in value terms and 0.76% in volume terms. Monthly declines were 3.7% across both value and volume. Relative to peak, overall retail sales are now down 25% in value terms and 21% in volume. January monthly declines in value and volume were the worst since January 2010. Stripping out motor trade, on the annual basis, core retail sales fell 1.94% in value terms and 2.74% in volume terms, although there was a month-on-month rise of 0.3% in value index. Monthly performance in volume of sales was the worst since February 2011.

Looking at the detailed decomposition of sales, out of twelve core Retail Businesses categories reported by CSO, ten have posted annual contractions in January in terms of value of sales. The two categories that posted increases were Fuel (up 5%) and Non-Specialised Stores (ex-Department Stores) (up 1.7%). The former posted a rise due to oil inflation, while the latter represents a small proportion of total retail sales – neither is likely to yield any positive impact on business environment in Ireland. In volume terms, increases in sales were recorded also in just two categories. Non-Specialised Stores sales rose 1.0%, while Pharmaceuticals Medical and Cosmetic Articles rose 1.5% year on year. Overall, only one out of 12 categories of sales posted increases in both value and volume of sales. All discretionary consumption items, including white goods and household maintenance items posted significant, above average declines in a further sign that households are continuing to tighten their belts, cutting out small-scale household investment and durables. The trend direction is broadly in line with November 2011-January 2012 3-months averages, but showing much sharper rates of contraction in demand in January.

The above confirm the broader downward trend in domestic demand that is relatively constant since Q1 2010 and is evident in value and volume indices as well as in total retail sales and core sales. More importantly, all indications are that the trend is likely to persist.

One of the core co-predictors – on average – of the retail sector activity is consumer confidence. Despite a significant jump in January 2012, ESRI consumer confidence indicator continues to bounce along the flat line, with current 6 months average at 56.5 virtually identical to the previous 6 months average and behind 2010-2011 average of 57.3. Based on the latest reading for consumer confidence, the forecast for the next 3 months forward for retail sales is not encouraging with volumes sales staying at the average levels of the previous 6 months and the value of sales being supported at the current levels solely by energy costs inflation.

Lastly, since 2010 I have been publishing an Index of Retail Sector Activity that acts as a strong predictor of the future (3 months ahead) retail sales and is based both on CSO data and ESRI consumer confidence measures, adjusted for income and earnings dynamics. The Index current reading for February-April is indicating that retail sales sector will remain in doldrums for the foreseeable future, posting volume and value activity at below last 6 months and 12 months trends.

Which means that the sector is likely to contribute negatively to unemployment and further undermining already fragile household income dynamics for some of the most at-risk families. During the first half of the crisis, most of jobs destruction in both absolute and relative terms took place in the construction sector, dominated by men. Thus, for example, in 2009 number of women in employment fell 4.2%, while total employment declined 8.1%. By 2010, numbers of women in employment were down 2.8% against 4.2% overall drop in employment. Last year, based on the latest available data, female employment was down 2% while total employment fell 2.5%. In other words, more and more jobs destruction is taking place amongst women, as further confirmed by the latest Live Register statistics also released this week, showing that in February 2012, number of female claimants rose by 3,479 year on year, while the number of male claimants dropped 8,356 over the same period.

The misfortunes of the retail sector are certainly at play in these. Per CSO, female employment in the Wholesale and Retail Trade sector has fallen at more than double the rate of overall retail sector employment declines in 2010 and 2011. Relative to the peak, total female employment is now down 10.2%, while female employment in retail sector is down 17.9%.

Traditionally, acceleration of jobs destruction amongst women is associated with increasing incidences of dual unemployment households. This is further likely to be reinforced by the increasing losses of female jobs in the retail sector, due to overlapping demographics and relative income distributions. Such development, in turn, will put even more pressure on both consumption and investment in the domestic economy.

CHART

Source: CSO and author own calculations

Box-out:

The forthcoming Referendum on the EU Fiscal Compact will undoubtedly open a floodgate of debates concerning the economic, social and political implications of the vote. Yet, it is the economic merits of the treaty that require most of the attention. A recent research paper by Alessandro Piergallini and Giorgio Rodano from the Centre for Economic and International Studies, University of Rome, makes a very strong argument that in the world of distortionary (or in other words progressive) taxation, passive fiscal policies (policies that target constitutionally or legislatively-mandated levels of public debt relative to GDP) are not feasible in the presence of the active monetary polices (policies that focus solely on inflation targeting). In other words, in the real world we live in, the very idea of Fiscal Compact might be incompatible with the idea of pure inflation targeting by the ECB. Which is, of course, rather intuitive. If a country or a currency block were to pre-commit itself to a fixed debt/GDP ratio, then inflation must be allowed to compensate for the fiscal imbalances created in the short run, since levying higher taxation will ultimately lead to economic distortions via household decisions on spending and labour supply. Given that ECB abhors inflation, the Fiscal Compact must either be associated with increasingly less distortionary (less progressive) taxation or with the ECB becoming less of an inflation hawk.