5/9/2013: ECB Boldly Goes Nowhere... again

The longer it lasts, the uglier it gets... ECB stays put (predictably) on rates today is adding 57th month that the policy rates are deviating from the historical mean, with the 'hill' to mean reversion getting steeper:

Currently, mean-reversion implies an almost 200bps hike without overshooting. Factoring in historical overshooting, we are into 250-300bps territory. Good luck thinking that 'gentle' tapering or 'gradual' restoration or whatever else you might call it going to be painless...

Oh, and for all of this, what do we have on the rates side?

At least, for its pain, the Fed has boldly gone where no one, save for Japan, have travelled before when it comes to rates. Euro area, meanwhile, has been playing chicken with itself...

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".

22/8/2013: Slow Moving Sovereign Debt Crises: a new MIT Paper

Guido Lorenzoni and Ivan Werning (LW, 2013) new paper "Slow Moving Debt Crises" (June 30, 2013, MIT Department of Economics Working Paper 13-18. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2298813) theoretically links the environment and policies conditions that can lead to self-fulfilling increases in sovereign interest rates.

To do so, the authors use a model of the dynamics of debt and interest rates in a setting where default is driven by insolvency. "Fiscal deficits and surpluses are subject to shocks but influenced by a fiscal policy rule. Whenever possible the government issues debt to meet its current obligations and defaults otherwise."

The result is a model that has multiple equilibria where both "low and high interest rate equilibria may coexist". There are self-fulfilling risks as "higher interest rates, prompted by fears of default, lead to faster debt accumulation, validating default fears. We call such an equilibrium a slow moving crisis, in contrast to rollover crises where investor runs precipitate immediate default." In a sense, Italy, and potentially the rest of the euro area periphery, ex-Ireland, appear to be stuck in this 'slow moving debt crisis'.

In September 2012, commenting on the ECB announcement of OMT, the ECB’s president,
Mario Draghi, clearly linked the on-going sovereign debt crisis in euro area peripheral states to a self-fulfilling crisis: “…we are in a situation now where you have large parts of the Euro Area in what we call a bad equilibrium, namely an equilibrium where you have self-fulfilling expectations. You may have self-fulfilling expectations that generate, that feed upon themselves, and generate adverse, very adverse scenarios. So there is a case for intervening to, in a sense, break these expectations [...]”

According to LW (2013): "If this view is correct, a credible announcement is all it takes to rule out bad equilibria, no bond purchases need to be carried out. To date, this is exactly how it seems to have played out."

In the LW (2013) model, "the government faces a fluctuating path of fiscal surpluses or deficits, that are affected by shocks and the current debt level. Each period, it attempts to meet these obligations by visiting a credit market, issuing bonds to a large group of risk-neutral investors. The capacity to borrow is limited endogenously by the prospect of future repayment and default occurs when a government’s need for funds exceeds this borrowing capacity. In equilibrium, bond prices incorporate the probability of default."

Bonds can be issued as short-term and long-term. "In the case of short-term debt", LW (2013) show that "the equilibrium bond price function (mapping the state
of the economy into bond prices) is uniquely determined."

The main point, however, is that uniqueness of he price function "does not imply that the equilibrium is unique. Multiplicity arises from what we call a Laffer curve effect: revenue from a bond auction is non-monotone in the amount of bonds issued. If the borrower targets a given level of revenue, then there are multiple bond prices consistent with an equilibrium."

"With long-term bonds the price function is no longer uniquely determined, because a
bad equilibrium with lower bond prices in the future now feeds back into current bond
prices. In addition, the existence of a good and bad equilibrium may be temporary. For
example, if we follow the bad equilibrium path for a sufficiently long period of time,
the debt level may reach a level for which there exists a unique continuation equilibrium with high interest rates; the bad equilibrium may set in."

This is important to the current case, as it links directly high level debt starting position to the bad equilibrium outcome without the need to reference investors' withdrawal from the funding market. This is the core difference to the traditional crises and LW (2013) call this a 'slow moving debt crisis' "to capture the fact
that it develops over time through the accumulation of debt" as distinguished "from liquidity or rollover debt crises". The 'liquidity crisis' occurs when "current investors, …pull out of the market entirely, leading to a failed bond auction; complete lack of credit then triggers default, analogous to depositors running on banks".

LW (2013) model "can be used to identify a “safe” region of parameters, for which
the equilibrium is unique. In particular, the safe region corresponds to a low initial debt level and to high responsiveness of the surplus to debt in the fiscal policy rule."

Very interesting conclusion from the LW (2013) paper is that "with long term debt, a slow moving crisis, by its very nature is due to a breakdown in the coordination of investors at different dates. As a result, it cannot be averted by coordinating investors meeting in a given market at a certain moment of time. If, instead, the borrower could commit to a certain bond issuance, this would eliminate the multiplicity problem." The commitment that ends such a crisis, in theory, implies commitment to specific steady levels of borrowing - a deficit path - while maintaining certain debt bounds forward. In contrast to mainstream literature, LW (2013) "assume that the borrower cannot commit to a certain bond issuance, because it cannot adjust its spending needs. Thus, it will issue the bonds needed to finance its obligations." The reason for this assumption is that while the borrowers "can control the amount of bonds issued… during any given market transaction or offer", in the long run, the actual amounts raised in the markets will not be fully predictable. Per LW (2013): "consider a borrower showing up to market with some given amount of bonds to sell. If the price turns out to be lower than expected the borrower may quickly return to offer additional bonds for sale to make up the difference in funding [and thus] …the overall size of the bond issuance remains endogenous to the bond price."

LW (2013) conclude that "it seems difficult to dismiss the concern that a country may find itself in a self-fulfilling “bad equilibrium” with high interest rates. In our model, bad equilibria are not driven by the fear of a sudden rollover crisis, as commonly modeled in the literature following Giavazzi and Pagano (1989), Alesina et al. (1992) and Cole and Kehoe (1996) and others. Thus, the problems these “bad equilibria” present are not resolved by attempts to rule out such investor runs. Instead, high interest rates can be self fulfilling because they imply a slow but perverse debt dynamic. Our results highlight the importance of fiscal policy rules and debt maturity in determining whether the economy is safe from the threat of these slow moving crises."

2/8/2013: The Impossible Monetary Dilemma: July update

Two charts updating the Impossible Monetary Dilemma through July:

Good luck to all believing tapering will be enough to get monetary policy to mean-revert. Oh, and in case you wonder, mean reverting refers to historical mean - which is skewed downward by the period of historical lows of 2001-2005 and H2 2008- present. Even that historical mean is out of reach for any ordinary tightening.

25/6/2013: What the hell is going on in the markets?

Two charts from Pictet neatly illustrate the ongoing bonds markets correction:

My two cents on what's going on in the markets today:


Wednesday opening last week at the cusp of FOMC statements, US 10 years were  yielding ca 2.15%. and 4 trading days later, these were at 2.61% or 41 bps up. 30 years are up from the nadir of 2.83% on may 2 to 3.56% currently.

And what about the other QE-infused or enthused market? In just over 3 weeks, FTSE 100 is down 846 points, from 6,875 on 22 May.

Equities and bonds are moving same way? Why?

Because of three factors:
1) When bonds go down, with them goes down capital. Mandated investment vehicles and banks take a bit of a shower.
2) When US or other advanced economies bonds take a shower, Emerging Markets take a bath because of liquidity pull out to cover leveraged losses elsewhere.
3) When EMs and bonds tank, capital-backed leverage falls, so liquidity falls in the advanced markets too, dragging down all risk assets.

These are the tripartite consequences of a liquidity trap, whereby intermediated short-term funding underpins investment activities. Put differently, when humans have less cash (real economy slow recovery, coupled with tax and financial repression), while banks and other institutions have more cash (including, for the latter, via access to banks leverage against Central Banks funding), markets become correlated, even where hedges existed before, correlations turn positive. Where there is contrasting access to the same asset via both financial paper and physical or real assets (e.g. gold vs gold coins), the two diverge, with financialised asset moving in synch with other financial assets, while real/physical asset moving in the opposite direction.

Thus, Brazil's 30-year bonds (dollar-denominated) are down now more than 25% in recent weeks, and instead of flowing into safe havens or rather 'safer hells', the cash is being tucked away into reduced leverage, leading to the US bonds compression down and UK gilts erasing all gains made since October 2011 (when QE2 kicked in).

The only thing that behaves predictably so far is VIX, which has gone from low-flat around 13.6-14.0 between March 24th and May 24th to over 20 average since June 20th through today. Short term VXX index is up from 18.03 on May 17th to 22.81 today.

Not quite panic, but pressure… and pressure is a trigger. And FOMC, and the rest of the Impossible Monetary Dilemma, are triggers too. The point is, given the recent drama in bond markets and equities and EMs, triggers are dangerous in trigger-happy times. When you have lots of capital tied up in 'safe assets' and lots of leverage tied up on top of that capital, pulling the rug from underneath capital quality leads to accelerating cascades across the board.

This is bad news for strategies over the short-term, as traditional allocations based on previously stable relations between asset classes are broken down. Gold co-moves with equities and bonds and currencies. The good news: once financialisation of the long positions is unwound, leverage is reduced and repricing of 'bubble'-like assets (aka financialised assets as opposed to real assets) is finished, the stable relations will return. In the long run, we all are… well, in the long run.

20/6/2013: Stalled Irish Banks Reforms: Sunday Times, June 16, 2013

This is an unedited version of the Sunday Times article from June 16, 2013


The latest data from the Central Bank shows that in two years since the current government took office, Irish banking sector is not much closer to a return to health than in the first months of 2011.

Objectively, no one can claim that the task of reforming Irish banking sector is an easy one. However, credit and deposits dynamics in the sector point to the dysfunctional stasis still holding the banks hostage. Despite ever-shrinking competition and vast subsidies extended to them, Irish banks are not investing in new technologies, systems and models. Banks’ customers, including businesses and households, are thus being denied access to services and cost efficiencies available elsewhere. In short, the Government-supported model of Irish banking is failing both the sector and the economy at large.


In April this year, total inflation-adjusted credit advanced to the real domestic economy, as measured by loans to Irish households and non-financial corporations, stood at EUR175,419 million. Since Q1 2011, when the current Government came to power, real credit is down EUR32,302 million. This figure is equivalent to roughly twice the annual rate of gross investment in the economy in 2012. Total credit to non-financial corporations has now been in a continuous decline for 48 months.

Half of this contraction came from loans over 5 years in duration. These loans are more closely linked to newer vintage capital investment in the economy, generation of new jobs, R&D and innovation activities, as well as new exports, than loans with shorter duration. Let’s take this in a perspective. The fall in total longer duration lending since mid-2009 is equivalent to losing 70,000-90,000 direct jobs. Factoring in interest income plus employment-related taxes, the foregone credit activity has cost us close to the equivalent of the tax increases generated in Budgets 2012-2013.

It would be fallacious to attribute credit supply declines solely to the property related lending. Based on the new data reported this Thursday by the Central Bank, loans levels advanced to private enterprises have fallen, between Q1 2011 and Q1 2013 in all sub-sectors of the economy, with largest loans supply declines recorded in domestic, as opposed to exports-oriented, sub-sectors.  All loans are down 6%, while loans to companies excluding financial intermediation and property related sectors are down 5.8%.

However, on the SMEs lending side, some of the steepest loans declines came from the exports-focused enterprises, such as ICT sector, where credit has fallen 9.7% on Q1 2011, or in computer, electronic and optical products manufacturing where loans are down 6.5%. Even booming agriculture saw credit to SMEs falling 5.7% over the last two years, while credit for scientific research and development is down 13.3%.

The picture is, in general, more complex for the levels of credit outstanding in the SMEs sector. On the demand side, in Ireland and across the euro area, there has been a noticeable worsening in the quality of loans applications filed with the banks during the crisis. In a research paper based on the ECB SAFE enterprise level survey data for euro area SMEs, myself and several co-authors have identified the problem of selection biases in companies’ willingness to apply for credit. In simple terms, SMEs more desperate for funding due to deteriorating balancesheets are more likely to apply for credit today. In contrast, healthier firms are more likely to avoid applying for bank credit.

ECB data also shows that Ireland’s problem of discouraged borrowers is much worse, than the euro area average. For example, in Ireland, 21% of all SMEs that did not apply for credit stated that they did so for fear of rejection, almost 3 times the rate of the euro area average and nearly double the second worst performing economy – Greece.


On the funding side, Irish banks have been and remain the beneficiaries of an unprecedented level of funding support compared to their euro area counterparts.

A recent research paper from the Dutch think tank CPB, titled "The private value of too-big-to-fail guarantees" showed that through mid-2012, the pillar banks in Ireland have availed of the largest subsidy transfers from the sovereign and Eurosystem of all banking systems in Europe. Funding advantages, accorded to the largest Irish banks, alone amounted, back in June 2012, to more than double the share of the country GDP compared to Portugal, and more than seven times those in Spain and Italy.

Removal of the explicit Guarantees was supposed to serve as a major step in the right direction. Alas, Irish pillar banks continue to depend for some EUR39.5 billion worth of funding on Eurosystem.  The latest Fitch report on the pillar banks shows that this reliance is likely to persist as loan/deposit ratios remain relatively high. Latest figures put Bank of Ireland, AIB and PTSB loan/deposit ratios at around 120%, 130%, and over 200%, respectively.

And there are further issues with funding in the system. By mid-2014, AIB is required to raise EUR3.5 billion to redeem the preference shares held by the National Pension Reserve Fund. Bank of Ireland will have to find EUR1.8 billion for the same purposes. In both cases there are questions as to how these funds can be secured in the current markets without either further reducing money available for lending or tapping into taxpayers’ funds.


Subsidies to the ‘reformed’ Irish pillar banks go hand-in-had with the regulatory protectionism, which completes the picture of massive transfers of income from the productive economy to the zombified banking sector.

Since 2008, Irish financial services continue to experience ongoing process of consolidation and, underlying this, the reduction in overall competition. Data from the ECB shows that the number of financial institutions operating in the country has fallen in 2012 to the levels below those recorded in 2000-2008. Dramatic declines in the fortunes of the third and the first largest lenders – Anglo and AIB - should have led to a drop in the combined market share held by the top 5 banks. Instead, the market share of top 5 credit institutions rose over the years of the crisis.

To a large extent, this reflects exits of a number of foreign lenders from the market. However, unlike in the case of the US and the UK, there are no new challengers to the incumbent players in the Irish asset management, investment, corporate and merchant banking, and credit unions sector. Neither the regulators, nor the banks have any incentives to encourage new players' entry.

And this has direct adverse impact on the overall health of the economy. When we studied the effects of banking sector concentration on firms’ willingness to engage with lenders, we have found that higher concentration of big banks’ power in a market is associated with lower applications for credit and higher discouragement.

As the result of the reforms undertaken in the Irish banking sector, our banking services are left to stagnate in the technological and strategic no-man's land.

Mobile and on-line banking systems remain nothing more than appendages to the existent services, with only innovation happening in the banks attempting to force more customers to on-line banking to cut internal costs.

Currently, worldwide, banking services are migrating to systems that can facilitate lower cost customer-to-customer transactions, such as direct payments, e-payments, peer-to-peer lending, and mixed types of investment based on combinations of equity and debt. All of this aims to reduce cost of capital to companies willing to invest. Irish financial services still operate on the basis of high-cost traditional intermediation and the Government policy is to keep hiking these costs up. Instead of moving up to reflect the true levels of risks inherent in Irish banks, deposit rates for non-financial corporations and households are falling. Interest on new business loans for non-financial corporations is up 105 to 197 basis points in April 2013, depending on loan size, compared to the average rates charged in Q1 2011. Over the same time, ECB policy rates have fallen by 75 basis points. This widening interest margin is funding banks deleveraging at the expense of investment and jobs.


Combination of the lack of trust in the banking system, alongside the lack of access to direct payments platforms means that many businesses in Ireland are switching into cash-only transactions to reduce risk of non-payments and invoicing delays. Currency in circulation in Ireland is up 10.3% on Q1 2011 average, while termed deposits are down 6.3%.

With big Pillar Banks unable to lend and incapable of incentivizing deposits growth, we should be witnessing and supporting the emergence of cooperative and local lending institutions. None have materialized so far. If anything, the latest noises from the Central Bank suggest that the credit unions can potentially expect to take a greater beating on the loans than the banks will take on mortgages and credit cards.

All-in, Irish banking system is far from being on a road to recovery so often spotted in the speeches of our overly-optimistic politicians and bankers. The credit squeeze on small businesses and sole traders is likely to continue unabated, and with it, the rates of business loans arrears are bound to rise.

Box-out:
In this month’s survey of economists by the Blackrock Institute some 64% of the respondents stated they expected euro area economy to get e little stronger over the next 12 months and none expected the recovery to be strong. In contrast, 74% of respondents thought German economy will get better and 81% forecast the same for the UK. In the case of Ireland, however, only 57% of respondents expected Irish economy to become a little stronger in a year through June 2014 (down on 75% in May 2013 survey). None expected this recovery to be strong. Interestingly, 69% of respondents describe Irish economy's current conditions as being consistent with an early or mid-cycle expansion - both normally consistent with above-trend rapid growth as economy recovers from a traditional recession. Thus, the survey indicates that majority of economists potentially see longer-term prospects for the Irish economy in the light of slower trend growth rates. Back in 2004-2005, I suggested that the Irish economy will, eventually, slowdown to an average rate of growth comparable to that of a mature small euro area economy. This would imply an annual real GDP growth reduction from the 1990-2012 average of 4.9% recorded by Ireland, to, say, 1.8% clocked by Belgium. Not exactly a boom-town prospect and certainly not the velocity that is required to get us to the sustainable Government debt dynamics.

26/5/2013: FTT v Sovereigns' Addiction to Debt

FT.com reports (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c3121802-c480-11e2-9ac0-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fhome_us%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2UQE68h14) that 

"The European Central Bank has offered to help the EU redesign its financial transactions tax to avoid any ‘negative impact’ on market stability, highlighting official fears about the implementation of the levy."

So far so good, as FTT indeed is likely to cut liquidity in the markets, reducing markets efficiency, and potentially increasing volatility, rather thane educing it.

Of course, the original idea the EU came up involved levying tax on trading in bonds, equities and derivatives. So one would expect the following prioritisation from the ECB concerned with markets impacts:
1) Not to distinguish between bonds and equities in tax application and rates, as the two instruments are de facto long-only instruments in either corporate (real) economy, banks (financial economy) and sovereigns (for bonds - which somewhat qualifies as a real economy as well).
2) Levy tax primarily on derivative instruments (although here, tax can be avoided much easier)
3) Recognise that in the restricted competition environment and with legacy subsidies from the crisis period still in place for incumbent financial institutions, any FTT will be at least in part passed onto retail investors and savers, and in more extreme cases - e.g. duopoly model of banking in Ireland - onto all retail users of banking services)
4) Real economy - incomes, investment, entrepreneurship, unemployment, etc - will be most impacted by the FTT levied on real assets - equities and some (not all) bonds and this effect will be stronger the stronger is the banking and investment banking sector concentration in the economy.

Alas, as is clear from the FT.com article, the ECB is not concerned with (3) and (4) whatsoever, and it is unconcerned with (1) either. It also seems to be aware of (2) pitfalls. Aside from that, ECB is concerned with the perennial task faced by all European Government - the obsession of raising as much tax revenue as possible while incentivising more debt pumped into sovereign bond markets.


Per FT.com: "The ECB believes markets should efficiently “transmit” changes in interest rates to the real economy." You might think that this means transmitting higher (lower) ECB rates into higher (lower) (a) Government bond yields and (b) higher/lower cost of private credit. Err… you would be wrong.

Per FT.com there are rumours that "…the ECB would prefer to have a limited UK-style stamp duty on equities". What can possibly go wrong, then?

ECB concern is clearly to grease the wheels of sovereign bond markets. The fact that FTT will reduce markets liquidity in real instruments & will cost retail investors in the end - well, that is hardly ECB's concern at all. ECB like the EU Governments is only worried about own coffers & give no attention to the economy.  

Equity markets volatility (FTT original raison d'être is to reduce volatility) had NOTHING to do with the current crises. The ECB focus on 'UK-styled stamp duty on equities', if confirmed, thus exposes FTT as a pure scam to raise more tax revenues, not a measure to deal with 'markets instability'. 

As FT.com quotes one of the market participants: "bond markets were a “phenomenally attractive” way of channelling savings into investment." Alas, it is not - corporate bonds are debt. Shoving more debt while disincentivising equity investment is not a great idea for long term sustainable funding.

In Europe, lending money to Governments, including to fund dodgy unfunded pensions and white elephant projects, is tax-wise deemed to be more laudable than to invest in equity of real enterprises. By corollary, lending to companies is also deemed to be more preferential than funding them via equity. One of the outcomes of this decades-long preferential treatment of debt is the current crisis: over-bloated and under-funded public spending coupled with too much private debt (including banking debt) against too little equity (the latter imbalance drove the bailouts of banks in euro area periphery).

With this in mind, talking about 'Robin Hood' taxes on Financial Services in EU is equivalent to believing in Santa's Magic raindeer as a viable alternative for public transport.

2/5/2013: ECB's message: "don't let the bed bugs bite..."

In light of today's 'historic' decision by the ECB to lower its refinancing rate to 0.50% from 0.75%, let's just not get too excited, folks.

Consider the historical perspective:

1) ECB rates are low. By ECB-own standards. But they are not low by pretty much anyone else's standards, save for countries, like Canada and Australia, which didn't really have a Great Recession. At least not yet.

2) ECB rates are low today, but they will be higher one day:

And when they do get to those averages, oh… the bond markets valuations are going to fly out of the window (leaving big black holes in banks balance sheets and pension funds assets ledgers), while equities are going to also suffer risk-repricing away from current dizzying expectations. Meanwhile, mortgages and credit costs will rise and rise faster than the ECB rates for 2 reasons: (a) legacy margins rebuilding that is not even started yet, and (b) see 'black hole' on the bonds valuations side. So when we do start heading toward that green dashed line (and above, as ECB averages are above that green line), things are going to go South fast.

3) And the ramp up back to the mean will have to be sustained and drastic:

We are clearly in an unconventional period when it comes to mean reversion. In all previous episodes, mean reversion took at most 40 months of deviation from the mean to deliver on (red lines). This time around we are already into month 53 and counting. The longer the duration of deviation, the greater the imbalance built up as the blue line above clearly shows.

Based on average overshooting of the mean in each reversion episode, we are currently 1.79 percentage points away from the mean target and are likely to see additional 1.71 percentage points overshooting of the target on adjustment, which means that the direction we are heading toward, if previous history of ECB rates were to be our guide (very imperfect, I must add) is 0.5%+1.79%+1.71%=4.0%

Close your eyes and imagine your mortgage bill with:
1) ECB rate at 4.0% and
2) Bank margin on ECB rate of x2 at least of pre-crisis levels.

Now, good luck sleeping.

But, hey, for now, there's more room for ECB to 'ease'…

And yet… things are already bad enough… ECB is running policy at massively above the G3 average rates and there is no real relief to the euro area economy in sight.

So what is really going on? My quick comment for Express today:

"ECB's 25 bps cut in the refinancing rate is the central bank's de facto admission of the limitations to its ability to have a meaningful impact on the ground, in the real economy. Let's start from the diagnosis. With previous rate cuts failing to stimulate credit flows and private sector investment, it is now painfully obvious that the euro area economy is suffering from a structural crisis, not a cyclical or a liquidity crisis.  going into today's rates decision the ECB had really just three choices: 1) Do nothing and keep pressure on the Euro area governments to introduce and implement real structural reforms, 2) Do marginally little to sustain some outward expression of monetary activism, and 3) Do something big to attempt unfreezing both demand and supply of credit. The latter would have entailed a cut in the refinancing rate of 70 basis points and setting up an LTRO- like 3- to 5- years programme for lending against collaterilised business and household loans. It would have been risky, but it would have stood a chance of possibly shifting increasing significantly new credit creation. even more dramatic would have been a programme for indefinite financing of the weaker banks - a super-LTRO - set against explicit targets for their writing down of some SMEs and household loans.

That, in the end, ECB has opted for the second option of providing token expressions of accommodative monetary policy using largely weak tools, speaks volumes about the ECB's inherent legal dilemma. The ECB is facing the problem of a structural crisis in the economy, while being armed with a mandate that forces it to explicitly ignore the real economy. Thus, as the result of the crisis, the ECB has consistently traded-down the reputational curve by continuously deploying 'extraordinary' measures of ever-increasing complexity, which are having little real impact in the private economy. ECB's most-lauded OMT, for example, has had zero positive effect outside the Government bonds markets. In short, much of what ECB is doing is providing backstop insurance for the crisis amplification, but little actual means for dealing with the crisis itself.

As the result, ECB's monetary policy decisions of late can be best viewed in the prism of the EUR foreign exchange rates and European stockmarkets valuations. Liquidity supply into the financial channels that are trapped outside the real economy so far have meant firming up of the euro and increased speculative inflows into European equities that stand contrasted with both the fortunes of the euro area economies and the realities of the European companies earnings. Today's decision simply reinforces this trend. yet, as the recent years have shown, the divergence between financial markets valuations and the real economic activity is the sign of systemic malfunctioning in the monetary, fiscal and economic environments. This is exactly the road down which we are traveling, guided by the ECB Governing Council."

And my tongue-in-cheek top of the line conclusion? "ECB's Council throws a wet napkin at Euro area's economic Chernobyl and rests for lunch… breathless from exhaustion..."

So for all of us in the eurozone, tune in at 00:59:
http://www.anyclip.com/movies/despicable-me/beddie-bye/#!quotes/

26/4/2013: ECB's policy mismatch in 6 graphs

For those interested in the monetary drivers of the current euro area crisis, here's an interesting new paper from CESifo (WP 4178, March 31, 2013): "The Monetary Policy of the ECB: A Robin Hood Approach?" by Marcus Drometer, Thomas I. Siemsen and Sebastian Watzka.

In the paper, authors "derive four sets of counterfactual national interest rate paths for the 17 Euro Area countries for the time period 1999 to 2012. They approximate desirable national interest rates countries would have liked to implement if they could still conduct independent monetary policy. We find that prior to the financial crisis the counterfactual interest rates for Germany trace the realized EONIA rate very closely, while monetary policy has been too loose especially for the southern European countries. This situation was inverted with the onset of the financial crisis. To shed light on the underlying decision rule of the ECB, we rank different rules according to their ability to aggregate the national counterfactual paths to the EONIA rate. In addition to previous literature we find that those mechanisms which care for countries who fare economically worse than the Euro Area average perform best."

Paper is available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2244821

Here are few charts, illustrating the results. In these TR references Taylor Rule, quarterly estimated backward-looking Bundesbank rule denoted BuBa, monthly estimated Bundesbank rules with interest rates smoothing denoted BuBaS and BuBaGMM respectively for backward- and forward-looking, and realised EONIA rate.

Legend:

CHARTS

Per authors: "Two results are worth noting.

First, the counterfactual interest rate path derived from the original Taylor rule and our baseline counterfactual path (quarterly estimated backward-looking Bundesbank rule) trace each other very closely. In fact, they are hardly distinguishable. The monthly estimated Bundesbank rules with interest rate smoothing (backward- and forward-looking) deviate sometimes considerably from the quarterly paths. …all four paths yield qualitatively similar results...

Second, …all four counterfactual paths for Germany lie strikingly close to the actual realization of the EONIA rate. Especially
for the southern European countries the ECB’s monetary policy has been too loose according to all four counterfactuals."

And more: "For all four sets of counterfactual national interest rate paths the Robin Hood rules outperform the standard decision rules. Especially our "economic-needs"-rule performs exceptionally good across all four specifications. Moreover, the forward looking model performs worse than the three backward looking specifications."

In other words, ECB policy rules were completely mis-matching the reality in all countries, save Germany, with (per charts above) mismatch most dramatic in… right… Ireland.

26/4/2013: Meanwhile, Patients Still Run the Euro Policy Asylum...

Headlines (via Eurointelligence.com):

• Angela Merkel: "The European Central Bank would really have to increase the interest rates for Germany";
• Angela Merkel also said that for other countries, the ECB would have to provide more liquidity for companies;
• German economics minister Phillip Rosler issued a statement to confirm that the ECB was still an independent central bank;
• ECB officials, meanwhile, played down expectations that a rate cut would have much of an effect;
• Joerg Asmussen did not rule out an interest rate cut, but was playing down expectations. He said lower interest rates could work in ways not intended by the ECB, and added that they had virtually no effect in the periphery due to the broken transmission mechanisms;
• Benoit Coeure as saying that the ECB had done what it can. It was now up to all the European institutions to find ways to solve the problem;
• Wolfgang Schauble said Italy’s problems were a lack of reforms, and that it would be wrong to blame others for their own misfortune. "... in the eurozone everybody had to solve their own problems. And that is is what Italy needed to do as well. There was no point in asking Germany to take on more debt. Everybody had to run their government in a responsible way";
• Schauble also said that it would be wrong for member states to depart from austerity path, saying the eurozone problems had nothing to do with strict budget rules, and that "somebody should tell Barroso that".

Conclusion: rest assured - the screw up known as "Euro area policy" will go on unabated no matter what JMBarosso & Co are saying.

ECB rate cut might come or it might not, but it will be minor (25bps) and one-off (with rates unchanged throughout the rest of the year) and it will do no difference whatsoever, other than fuel anti-inflationary rhetoric in pre-election Germany.

Fiscal policy will remain largely unchanged with some states (France, Italy, even Spain?) adopting an Irish-government approach to 'stimulus': find one-off non-tax, like pensions funds expropriation, to fund 'jobs creation programme', while leaving net fiscal adjustments intact. Which will, of course, amount to short-term reallocation of productive funds to unproductive GDP supports, with medium-term negative impact of tax increases and reduced confidence in economic institutions.

16/4/2013: One question, Mr Market, please...

A uncomfortable question:

Faith seems to have no bounds once sentiment shifts. The Market seemed to have maintained confidence in EU's crisis-fighting 'measures' despite the fact that Cyprus case revealed an obvious lack of any real crisis-fighting 'measures' to-date.

The entire periphery-fixing policy tool kit in Europe - now into the sixth year running - still boils down to

1. Rolling out unfulfilled promises (ESM banks-sovereigns break, OMT, a banking union, fiscal policies coordination, fiscal supports for growth - do recall that EU keeps talking about the need to 'support' growth and yet does nothing about providing such supports), 
2. Dogmatic ECB stuck in a rates and money supply policies that neither ease currency and interest rates pressures, nor provide a break from the failed transmission mechanism, and 
3. Internal devaluations of the worst kind (ad hoc loading of debt on economies already carrying too much debt & lack of reforms in the real economy - keep in mind, setting deficit targets ≠ reform). 

So would The Market please run this by me: What HAS changed between Ireland 2008 (the beginning of the euro crisis) and Cyprus 2013 (it's latest iteration) other than the channels by which more debt is being piled onto over-indebted economies hit by crisis?

Well, not much. Yesterday, IMF has issued a statement on Greece (that's right - the second country that was 'repaired' by the EU approach to crisis, ...and then repaired again... and again) claiming that with the fourth round of 'reforms' promised, Greece is now (still?) on a sustainable debt path. Never mind that the 'sustainable debt paths' so far for Greece have meant debt/GDP ratios bounds for sustainability rising from 'under 120%' within Programme 1 to 'under 200%' within Programme 4.

31/3/2013: Draghi calling President Napolitano: a nasty precedent

Here's one of the best examples of the total departure of the EU institutions from the normal democratic constraints on their mandate vis-a-vis national affairs:

The story link is: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/31/us-italy-vote-draghi-idUSBRE92U01W20130331?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

For a reply:

That is correct (assuming the reported call did take place): the ECB represents a sub-section of the executive pillar of power in the EU (and via the national central banks - in the member states), just as the US Fed. Neither the Fed nor the ECB have any business in influencing or restricting the legislative pillar (in the case of the above incident - the electoral process) or the entire executive pillar (in the above case - pertaining to the Presidency to which monetary policy institutions are accountable or co-accountable whenever oversight over monetary policy institutions co-rests with legislature) or the judiciary (presumably, Mr Draghi might call on European or national judges too, should their workings approach the issues related to OMT or other aspects of the monetary policy).

To see this, simply replace ECB's Draghi with, say, General X of the Common Security & Defence Policy calling President Napolitano to express concerns about Italian elections. How fast will 'military interference in political affairs' rise to media headlines?

Europe is now clearly on a dangerous path that can lead to subversion or manipulation of democratic institutions and processes. 

28/3/2013: Cyprus: too-small-to-fail, too-small-to-bail

This is an unedited version of my article for Sunday Times, March 24.


This week, euro area leaders have added yet another term to the already rich vocabulary engendered by the financial crisis. If only a few days ago the world was divided into too-big-to-fail (e.g. Irish pillar banks and Spain) and too-big-to-bail (e.g. Italy) institutions and economies, today we also have too-small-to-fail and too-small-to-bail economy, Cyprus.

Worth just 0.2% of the euro area GDP, with the insolvent banking sector and the liquidity strained sovereign, Cyprus is a tiny minnow in terms of both the required external assistance and its direct impact on the euro area economy. The country overall GDP amounts to about ½ of the cost of bailing out Anglo Irish Bank, and its banking and fiscal troubles need just EUR15.8 billion of funding to plug the gap left by the EU mishandling of the Greek bailout back in 2011-2012. With the reputational costs to the euro area of letting this nation go into an unassisted default, Cyprus is simply too-small-to-fail.

Despite this, the end game now being played in Nicosia, Moscow, Frankfurt and Berlin shows that Cyprus, perhaps, is also too-small-to-bail. The problem is that granting sufficient funding to Cyprus via Troika loans risks pushing the Cypriot Government debt/GDP ratio to 170% even with the haircut on depositors. Were the EU adhere to the conditions of the bailout that also envision Cypriot banking and financial services sectors shrinking to euro area average in size, the government debt to GDP ratio can reach above 210 percent. Yet, altering the terms of the bailout to provide funds that are not debt-based, such as directly funding the banks writedowns of Greek Government bonds, risks triggering calls for similar actions across the rest of the euro area periphery. Pretty quickly, Cypriot EUR10 billion bill can swell to EUR200-250 billion call on the ECB.

These dilemmas, yet to be fully articulated by the policymakers publicly, are nonetheless informing the mess behind the recent events. In the view of euro area leadership, dealing with Cyprus either requires bankrupting its economy and its people, or risking destroying the monetary system infrastructure that rests on the ECB’s pursuit of singular, deeply flawed, yet legally unalterable mandate. A familiar conundrum that has been played out in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain by the incompetent crisis management from Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin.

Alas, what is still missing in the Cypriot Dilemma debates is the consideration of the longer-term impact of this latest iteration in the euro area crisis on broader European economy.

In this context, Cyprus is neither too-small-to-bail, nor too-small-to-fail. Instead, it is a systemically important focal point of the euro area financial crisis.

The Cypriot crisis orderly resolution requires funding from some non-debt sources to plug the gap between EUR17 billion in funds needed and EUR10 billion that can be committed in the form of loans. The EU has opted to bridge this gap with a levy on the deposits, thus triggering a wholesale expropriation of private property without any legal basis for doing so.  This expropriation, termed in the language resembling Orwell’s “1984” “an upfront one-off stability levy”, also cuts through the allegedly inviolable State Guarantee on all deposits under EUR100,000.

As the result, since last weekend all European and foreign depositors in the EU banks are no longer treated either pari passu or senior to risk investors, such as bondholders, but subordinated to them. Safety of deposits is no longer assured by the banking system or by the Sovereign guarantees. One of the cornerstones of the yet-to-be-established European Banking Union - the joint system of deposits insurance protection – is no more a credible mechanism of protection of ordinary savers.

In the short run, as highlighted in the media during the week, this means potential for bank runs in Greece (where depositors are already facing substantial potential losses through their savings in Cypriot banks and the state finances are in a much worse state than they are in Cyprus), Spain (with the Government desperate to fund its fiscal adjustments amidst rising tide of discontent with austerity measures) or even Italy (where savings in form of bank deposits are the main pillar of pensions provision for the aging population). In Cyprus itself, the debacle of the European leadership crisis management approach is now leading to the growing risk of the country being forced to exit the euro area.

In my view, these are low probability, but high impact risks that must be considered simply for the devastating effect they would have on the rest of the euro system.

Even if the above short-term nightmare scenarios do not play out, the Cypriot Dilemma is not going away.

Throughout the crisis, the EU has adopted a ‘muddle-through’ approach to dealing with the problems. This has meant that instead of using aggressive monetary policy, as the US and the UK, in addressing the crisis, the EU used debt tools to plug the financing gaps in the banking and fiscal sectors. The result of this was a dramatic uplift in overall debt burdens.  While euro area General Government deficit is expected to reach a relatively benign 2.56% in 2013 with a primary balance (excluding debt financing costs) forecast to post a surplus of 0.25%, close to the pre-crisis 2008 levels, euro area government debt is expected to rise from 70% of GDP in 2008 to 95% this year. Deficits are down, debt is up, public and private investment and deleveraging running at negative or zero rates. These dynamics clearly show the true cost of the EU leadership crisis.

In the long run, Cyprus blunder is going to yield dramatic economic and social costs.

Firstly, any resolution of the Cypriot crisis will involve unsustainable debt for the Government and the wholesale destruction of the Cypriot economy. With EU-demanded scaling back of the banking sector on the island to the ‘euro area average’, Nicosia is facing an outright contraction in the nation GDP of some 15-17% on pre-crisis levels. Second-order effects of this measure and the increase in the island corporation tax rate also demanded by Brussels will take economic losses closer to a quarter of the national income. There are no potential sources for plugging this economic hole. Even the promises of the off-shore gas reserves will not deliver economic recovery to the society with effectively no oil and gas expertise, skills or firms present in the economy.

The EU is de facto sealing the fate of one of its members as the second-class state within the Union just as it did with the rest of the ‘periphery’.

Long-term impact of debt accumulation as the sole mechanism for dealing with the crisis will also hit the entire euro area.  Per IMF relatively benign projections, euro area combined debt to GDP ratio will now exceed or equal 90% bound for at least six years in a row. This means that the euro area is facing a debt overhang crisis of the size where Government debt levels impose a long-term drag on overall economic growth. Any adverse headwinds to economic growth and fiscal performance in years to come will have to be faced without a cushion allowing for fiscal policy accommodation.

Undermining of the sovereign guarantees and depositors’ protection principles in the Cypriot case, even if reversed in the final agreement, will also have a long-term effect on euro area growth potential. With savings no longer secured from expropriation, euro area is facing long-term realignment of the household investment portfolios. This realignment will reduce bank deposits, especially the more stable termed deposits, and lower euro area assets held by the households. The end result will be higher cost of bank credit and equity in Europe, smaller supply of loanable and investable funds and, thus, lower long-term investment activity.

Violation of the property rights and trampling upon the principles of the common market in structuring of the original Cyprus ‘rescue’ plan means that overall risk-return valuations by investors will be re-adjusted to reflect the state of policymaking in Europe that puts bondholders over all other financial system participants, including, now, the depositors.

Currently, euro area economic activity and investment are funded primarily via bank credit, reliant on deposits and bank capital. Shares and equity account for around 14.3% of the total household portoflios in Europe as contrasted by 32.9% in the US. In order to rebalance the euro area investment markets away from reliance on more expensive and risk-prone bank lending, the EU must incentivize equity holdings over debt and shift more of the banks funding activity toward more stable deposits, reducing the amount of leverage allowed within the system.  Cypriot precedent makes structural change away from debt financing much harder to achieve.

Lastly, the Cypriot crisis has contributed to the continued process of deligitimisation of the EU authorities in the eyes of European people who witnessed an entirely new and ever more egregious level of the first-tier Europe (the so-called ‘core’) diktat over the social and economic policies in the peripheral state.

Prior to last week, Cyprus might have been too-small-to-fail or too-small-to-bail from Frankfurt’s or Berlin’s perspective, however the way the EU has dealt with this crisis exposes systemic flaws in the political economy of the euro area that cannot be easily repaired and will end up costing dearly to the entire EU economy.

Box-out: 
The revenue commissioners annual statistics data for 2011 throws some interesting comparisons. Back in 2010, prior to the more recent increases in income-related levies and charges, gross taxable personal income in Ireland amounted to EUR77.7 billion against the taxable corporate income of EUR70.8 billion. The amounts of income and corporate taxes paid on these were, respectively EUR9.82 billion and EUR4.25 billion, yielding effective economy-wide rates of tax of 12.6% for personal income and 6.0% for corporate tax. Thus, excluding USC, PRSI, most of Vat, and a host of other taxes and charges applicable uniquely to households, Irish Government policy is explicitly to tax personal income at an effective rate of more than twice the rate of corporate income. Of course, this disparity in taxation is inversely correlated with the disparity in representation: when was the last time you heard our leaders talk about not increasing tax burden on people as a sacrosanct principle of the state in the same way they talk about protecting our corporation tax regime?

25/3/2013: Cyprus 'deal' - notes from the impact crater

What are the true 'innovations' of the Cypriot 'bailout' deal?

1. At this junction one must face the realisation that European 'leadership' vacuum has reached alarming proportions. Cyprus was pushed to the brink, literally hours away from ELA cut-off, with a deliberate and mechanical precision. This is hardly consistent with any spirit of subsidiarity and/or cooperation that the EU was allegedly built on. In a further affirmation of the mess that is EU policy-making, the markets must now be aware that the EU has no defined approach to dealing with debtors and creditors, nor with issues of assets or liabilities. In other words, five years into the crisis and numerous 'white papers' later, with acronym soup of various 'solutions' and new 'institutions' thicker than pasta fagioli - there is still no clarity, no legal or institutional commitment, no formula, no predictability, but rather politically-motivated swinging from one extreme (no bail-ins in Ireland) to the other (all bailed-in in Cyprus).
2. We now have bailed in uninsured bank deposits within the so-called 'open' economy with 'common currency' and 'common market' based on rules and laws. In other words, unlike in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, the EU has crossed another line.
3. We now have bailed in senior bank bondholders (and the sky did not fall)
4. We now have capital controls within 'common currency' area and within the 'common market' - kind of equivalent to Louisiana declaring its dollars purely domestic to Louisiana. 
5. Bail-ins under the Cypriot deal are non-transparent and not defined, showing that the entire package was put together is a half-brained fashion at the last minute. Surely this, if not the first but very much the most exemplary indicator of the complete mess in policymaking. It further reinforces the view of PSI measures - both in Greece and in Cyprus - as being politically motivated, rather than systemically and legally structured.
6. The fact that the Cypriot banking system will now be completely shut out of the funding markets reinforces my view that unwinding the 'emergency' measures deployed by the ECB during the crisis will be: a) risky, b) costly and c) protracted. As the result, the monetary policy risks missing the window for optimal interest rates reaction and either over-reaching on the inflationary side or over-tightening to the detriment to future growth. either way, peripheral countries will be the likely victims.

Overall, from the EU-wide point of view, Cypriot 'deal':

• Does not reduce the risk of contagion or re-amplification of the crisis in other peripheral states;
• Does not create or even enable a break between sovereign and bank crises; 
• Adds to the overall quantum of policy uncertainty; 
• Raises even more doubts as to the functionality of the cornerstone crisis-related institutions (ESM and OMT); and
• Acts to strengthen the hand of eurosceptic, nationalist and populist political movements and parties in the Euro area 'periphery'.

25/3/2013: Debt, Demand & Deposits: Cyprus 2013

Der Spiegel has a handy graphic detailing the extent and the depth of the Financial Services sector in Cyprus...

[link]

The above lumps together couple of things that should, really, be addressed:

1. Cyprus' financing needs only cover banks recapitalisations to the deposits base as provided by the end-of-January 2013 figures. Since then at least EUR3-5 billion and more likely even more fled the country. And selection bias suggests that larger depositors (potentially with more political connections) were more likely to avail of 'systemic' exemptions to withdrawals in recent days.
2. As termed deposits mature, more will leave, unless the Government imposes involuntary lock-in for depositors with termed contracts.
3. Cyprus' financing needs above do not include non-CB and non-deposit funding for the banks that is going to mature in months to come and has to be replaced by some other source of funds (presumably we can assume that ECB / ELA will step in, but I don't see how that arrangement in the medium term can be pleasing to the ECB).
4. The deposits above do not break out MFI deposits, corporate deposits and personal deposits. It is one thing to bail-in personal accounts and yet altogether another matter to bail-in corporations and other banks (the former are subject to more strict capital controls than the latter two).

These are material risks to the sustainability of the Cypriot 'bailout' programme.

25/3/2013: Bankrupted Cyprus, aka 'The Rescue'

While European 'leaders' celebrate the breakthrough 'bailout' agreement with Cyprus, let's get back to Planet Reality, folks. The 'deal' is based on a EUR10bn loan to the Cypriot Government for which the taxpayers will be on the hook.

EUR10bn = 56.2% of the country 2013 forecast GDP.

And now, let's begin counting the proverbial chickens:

1. IMF forecast for GDP - used above - is based on nominal GDP growth over the fiscal year 2013 of 0.33%. Even by IMF 'rosy' standards this is way off the mark, as other (EU Commission and Cypriot own) forecasts envisioned GDP contracting between 0.5% and 1.3% in 2013.
2. IMF forecast is based on pre-bailout assumptions with the banking sector returns to the economy being at the levels consistent with full functioning of the Cypriot financial services sector.
3. Even outside the above points, IMF forecast through 2017 saw Government debt/GDP ratio in Cyprus rising to 106.11%, prior to the current 'deal' on foot of forecast GDP growth of 2.87% per annum on average between 2013 and 2017.

Now, with the deal:

1. Shrinkage of the financial services sector will be immediate and deep;
2. Deficit financing of any capital investment by the Cypriot Government will cease;
3. New debt is going to be loaded onto the country;
4. Reduced savings and exits by larger depositors will mean reduced revenues for the economy, etc

Much of this was outlined in my previous post on debt sustainability in Cyprus (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/2432013-are-cypriot-debt-dynamics-worse.html)

Now, let's do simple exercise. Add EUR10bn to Cypriot debt pile and get scenario of Cyprus (post-crisis with no growth effects).

Then, adjust GDP growth from 2013 through 2017 to yield average rate of economic growth of -0.18% annually (note, this is much more benign than Greek forecasts for the first 5 years of the crisis which are equal to -2.94% annually on average). This yields scenario of Cyprus (post-crisis with growth effects).

The above two scenarios are compared in the chart below against Greek forecasts by the IMF and the pre-'bailout' forecast by the IMF for Cyprus:

This is what the EU leadership is currently celebrating - a wholesale, outright bankrupting of the entire country. Well done, lads!

24/3/2013: Few Cypriot Myths & Few Billions in Losses

Ever wondered why would the IMF (and reportedly the EU Commission) reject the proposed (Plan B) Cypriot Government raid on state pensions funds? Oh... ok... IMF review from November 2011:

Naughty, naughty little Cyprus...

And the very same IMF note also sheds some light on those 'oligarchs' deposits that are so vast, the entire EU is apparently chocking on chicken breasts at Herman von Frompuy's dinners:

"First, non-resident deposits (NRD) in Cypriot banks (excluding deposits raised  abroad by foreign affiliates) are €23 billion (125 percent of GDP), most of which are  short-term at low interest rates [note: ECB official data does not exclude foreign affiliates deposits, which are normally out of touch in levy imposition. Also note: much of bulls**t about Russian oligarchs deposits was about high interest rates allegedly collected by them on Cyprus deposits. Guess that wasn't really the case as chart below confirms: deposit rates decline sharply by nationality grouping for both corporates and individuals... so who was exactly earning 'high returns' on Cypriot deposits? oh, well... Cypriots...].

"These could prove unstable in the event of  further confidence shocks. [In other words, Cyprus requires very stringent capital controls if it is to avoid instantaneous bankruptcy even with ELA continuing]

"This risk is partly mitigated by the 70 percent liquid asset requirement against the €12 billion in NRD in foreign currency), and the 20 percent requirement for the €11 billion in euro-denominated NRD). [Wow, so apparently 'oligarchs' deposits carry massive safety cushions, whilst 'ordinary' depositors are not...]

"Second, €17 billion in deposits collected in the Greek branches of the three largest Cypriot-owned banks could be subject to outflows in response to difficult conditions in Greece. Outflows in the first half of 2011 were close to €3 billion (nearly 15 percent of the total), although a portion of these returned to the Cypriot parents as NRD. [Now, there was more of Greek money than 'oligarchs'?]

Now, couple more revealing charts:

Clearly, structuring PSI the EU authorities & IMF knew the above factoid, right? Just as they knew the following (which clearly highlights the fact that any substantial hit on Cypriot banks would have immediately spelled insolvency of the entire economy):

24/3/2013: Are Cypriot Debt Dynamics Worse than Greek?

A nice chart via Pictet (link) on the size of the banking sector in Cyprus and its dynamics since 2006:

Now, do notice, reducing the above to 300-330% of GDP as required by the Troika in Plan A (and so far not disputed by the Cypriot Government) will imply lowering liabilities by EUR66.6 billion. Overall, banking margins in Cyprus are running at around 1.2% net of funding costs, we can roughly raise that to double to include wages and other costs spillovers, which implies that EUR66.6bn deleveraging of liabilities should take out of the Cypriot GDP somewhere around EUR1.5bn annually or 9% of GDP. Auxilliary services, e.g. legal, accounting and associated expatriate community benefits that arise in relation to international banking services being offered from Cyprus will also have to be scaled back. Assuming that these account for 50% of the margin returns to the economy, overall hit on Cypriot economy from deleveraging can be closer to EUR2.2bn annually or 12.7% of GDP.

Now, consider the loans package of EUR10 billion that Cyprus is set to receive if it manages to close the EUR5.8 billion gap. Absent banking sector deleveraging, this will push Cypriot Government debt/GDP ratio to over 140% of GDP. However, with reduction in GDP, the debt/GDP ratio (assuming to avoid timing considerations assumptions a one-off hit to GDP) will rise to 161%.

Now, recall that IMF and Troika 'sustainability' bound for debt/GDP ratio used to be 120%. We are now clearly beyond that absolutely abstract number even without the banking sector deleveraging. And let's take the path of debt/GDP ratio forecast by the IMF which would have seen - absent the 'rescue' package - debt/GDP ratio in Cyprus rising 106.1% of GDP by 2017. With the 'rescue' package and banking sector deleveraging, this can now be expected to rise to 174% of GDP in 2017 against Greek debt of 153% of GDP.

In short, the EU 'rescue' is going to simply wipe Cyprus off the map in economic terms. All debt 'sustainability' consideration are now out of the window.

Here's the chart:

Of course, the above analysis is crude as it ignores:

1. Potential positive effects of replacement activity and the fabled 'gas revenues' etc - which presumably were already reflected in GDP growth figures in the IMF forecasts
2. Potential negative effects of tourism, real estate sales and other services declines due to the reduced activity in the banking sector, which can raise the above adverse impact of the banking sector deleveraging to 15% of GDP. Corporation tax increases can yield further losses.
3. Timing issues for the deleveraging which is not expected to happen overnight.

Nonetheless, all in, there have to be some severe doubts as to viability of the Cypriot debt path under the Troika Plan A, let alone under the Cypriot Plan B.

22/3/2013: Cypriot Plan B - any better than Plan A?

So the reports are that Cyprus has a Plan B. And the outlines of the Plan - filtering through yesterday - are quite delusional.

The Plan consists of 3 main bits:

1. Split Laiki bank (see below) into a good and a bad bank. The 'bad' bank will take on deposits of over 100K and deposits under 100K (guaranteed by the State) will be shifted into 'good' bank. Other banks will be recapitalised but there are no specific as to how, when or to what levels of capital. This stage of the Plan aims to reduce the recapitalisation costs by about €2.3bn. The problems with this stage are massive, however. First: smaller depositors are more likely to run on the bank as they are less likely to have termed deposits and as their withdrawals (even under capital controls to be imposed - see below) will be less restricted than for larger depositors. In other words, the Plan B is likely to reduce stability of deposits and funding in the resulting 'good' bank. Second: while Cypriot banking system losses are currently crystallised, reducing uncertainty for any recapitalization, there is no guarantee that depositors flight will not undermine their balance sheets beyond capital injections repair. Thirdly: the new 'good' bank will have a balance sheet (again, see table below) saddled with massive exposure to ELA & ECB funding at ca 40% of the total liabilities. If associated assets move along with larger depositors, it is likely that ECB funding ratio to Assets is going to be close to 50%. How on earth can this be called a 'good' bank beats me.

2. Step two in the delirious process of Plan B repairs of the Cypriot banking system will be the creation of a sovereign wealth fund backed by state, church, central bank and pension funds 'assets'. Even 'future gas revenues' are thrown into the pot. Put simply, the fund will be a direct raid on state pension funds, state properties and enterprises and gold reserves. It will also contain a direct link to the collective psychosis induced by the crisis - the pipe dream of Cypriot 'Saudi Arabia of the Mediterranean' Republic. Honestly, folks, this crisis has taught us one thing: the quantity of hope-for oil & gas reserves in the country is directly proportional to the degree of economic / financial / fiscal insolvency of the nation. So, having set up a bogus and bizarre fund (with hodgepodge of assets and a rich dose of 'dreamin in the night' claims to assets) the state will issue 6-year bonds against these 'assets' to raise some €2.5bn. Now, what idiot is going to voluntarily buy into this fund is quite unclear at this stage, but presumably, with bond yields set at crippling levels, the fund will find some ready buyers.

3. Step 3: the remaining shortfall of €1bn is to be covered through a small deposit levy on deposits above 100K.


Laiki bank latest balance sheet summary is provided (via Global Macro Monitor) here:

It is a whooper… with Assets at EUR30.375bn the bank is over 178% of Cypriot GDP. Deposits are at 105% of GDP.

The question is whether this plan, even if acceptable to the EU and ECB, will prevent or even restrict the deposits flight once the Cypriot banking system opens up. The EU Commission is working with Cypriot Government on developing capital controls to stem outflow of funds. But there are serious questions as to whether such capital controls can be imposed in the country that is part of the common market.

Another pesky problem is whether the bonds issued by the fund in Step 2 above will count toward Government debt. Presumably, EU can allow any sort of fudge to be created (e.g. Nama SPV in Ireland) to avoid such recognition. If not, then whole Plan B is a random flop of a dead whale beached on Cypriot shores…

Third pesky issue is what happens if the Fund goes bust. With pension funds committed to it, will the Cypriot state simply default on all of its pensions obligations? deport its pensioners to Northern Cyprus? whack the remaining (I doubt there will be any) Russian 'oligarchs' once again? or invade Switzerland? The Cypriot Government attempted to dress up the Plan B as the means to avoiding hitting small savers and ordinary people with the bank levy. It so far seems like risky leveraging of ordinary retirees and future retirees to plug the very same hole that would have been created in their budgets by the deposits levy.


Meanwhile, here's the question for those reading this blog in Ireland: According to the ESCB Statures Article 14.3, the Governing Council of ECB can make a determination to shut off liquidity assistance to the national banking system only on foot of a 2/3rd majority vote. The ECB Council did announce such a move for Cyprus comes Monday. This implies that at least one peripheral state National Central Bank governor casted the vote against Cyprus. Would that have been our Patrick Honohan, one wonders, given the frequent propensity of Irish officials to kick other peripheral states in order to gain small favours from the EU/ECB?