8/7/2013: IMF on Euro Area: Repetition in the Endless Unlearning of Reality

IMF released its statement on 2013 Article IV Consultation with the Euro Area

The Statement reads (emphasis mine):
"Policy actions over the past year have addressed important tail risks and stabilized financial markets. But growth remains weak and unemployment is at a record high."

So what needs to be done, you might ask? Oh, nothing new, really. Euro area needs:
-- To take "concerted policy actions to restore financial sector health and complete the banking union". Wait… err… this was not planned to-date? Really?
-- "continued demand support in the near term and deeper structural reforms throughout the euro area remain instrumental to raise growth and create jobs". In other words: find some dish to spend on stuff and hope this will do the trick on short-term growth. Reform thereafter.

Not exactly encouraging? How about this: "…the centrifugal forces across the euro area remain serious and are pulling down growth everywhere. Financial markets are still fragmented along national borders and the cost of borrowing for the private sector is high in the periphery, particularly for smaller enterprises. Ailing banks continue to hold back the flow of credit." So the solution is - more credit? Now, what did we call credit in old days? Right… debt, so: "In the face of high private debt and continued uncertainty, households and firms are postponing spending—previously, this was mainly a problem of the periphery but uncertainty over the adequacy and timing of the policy response is now making itself felt in falling demand in the core as well." Wait a second, now: more credit… err… debt will solve the problem, but the problem is too much debt… err… credit from the past…

Ok, from IMF own publication earlier this year, what happens when credit - debt - is let loose:

Source: http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2013/03/05/a-missing-piece-in-europes-growth-puzzle/


Just in case you need more of this absurdity: "…reviving growth and employment is imperative. This requires actions on multiple fronts—repairing banks’ balance sheets, making further progress on banking union, supporting demand, and advancing structural reforms. These actions would be mutually reinforcing: measures to improve credit conditions in the periphery would boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors, which in turn would help restore competitiveness and raise growth in these economies. A piecemeal approach, on the other hand, could further undermine confidence and leave the euro area vulnerable to renewed stress." Oh, well, 5 years ago we needed

1. 'actions on repairing banks balance sheets' - five years later, we still need them;
2. actions on 'supporting demand' - aka, no tax increases and some investment stimulus - five years on, we still need them;
3. actions on 'advancing structural reforms' and five years on, we still need them too;
4. "measures to improve credit conditions in the periphery would boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors" - wait a second ten years ago we had easy credit conditions in the periphery and they failed comprehensively to 'boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors', having gone instead to fuel property and public spending bubbles… five years since the start of the crisis, we now should expect a sudden change in the economies response to easier credit supply?

IMF is more sound on banks: "bank losses need to be fully recognized, frail but viable banks recapitalized, and non-viable banks closed or restructured". But, five years, bank losses needed to be fully recognised too and we are still waiting. And when it comes to closing or restructuring non-viable banks, pardon me, but where was the IMF in the case of Ireland when the country was forced by the ECB to underwrite non-viable banks with taxpayers funds?

"A credible assessment of bank balance sheets is necessary to lift confidence in the euro area financial system." Ok, we had three assessments of euro area banks - none credible and all highly questionable in outcomes. Five years in, we are still waiting for an honest, open, transparent assessment.

Cutting past the complete waffle on the banking union and ESM, "The ECB could build on existing instruments—such as a new LTRO of longer tenor coupled with a review of current collateral policies, particularly on loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)—or undertake a targeted LTRO specifically linked to new SME lending." Ooops, I have been saying for years now that the ECB should create a long-term funding pool for most distressed banks, stretching 10-15 years. Five years into the crisis - still waiting.


On structural reforms, IMF is going now broader and further than before and I like their migration:

"For the euro area, …a targeted implementation of the Services Directive would remove barriers to protected professions, promote cross-border competition, and, ultimately, raise productivity and incomes. A new round of free trade agreements could provide a much-needed push to improve services productivity. In addition, further support for credit and investment could be achieved through EIB facilities. The securitization schemes proposed by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank could also underpin SME lending and capital market development." Do note that the last two proposals are still about debt generation (see above).

"At the national level, labor market rigidities [same-old] should be tackled to raise participation, address duality—which disproportionally hurts younger workers—and, where necessary, promote more flexible bargaining arrangements. At the same time, lowering regulatory barriers to entry and exit of firms and tackling vested interests in the product markets throughout the euro area would support competitiveness, as it would deliver a shift of resources to export sectors [ok, awkwardly put, but pretty much on the money. Except, greatest protectionism in the EU is accorded to banks and famers, and these require first and foremost restructuring]."

In short - little new imagination, loads of old statements replays and little irony in recognising that much of this has been said before… five years before, four years before, three years before, two years before, a year before… you get my point.

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.

18/6/2013: The Size of the Eurotanic's Bad Assets Iceberg?

Europe's Non-Performing and Doddgy Banking Assets are a Mount Everest-sized iceberg that no analyst in the Commission or the IMF or the BIS or the ECB or any National Central Bank or... ok, keep inserting official sources, is capable of recognising or estimating.

Thankfully, here's a handy range:

1) Courtesy of the ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/europes-eur-500-billion-ticking-npltime-bomb the Eurotanic is heading straight into a EUR500bn chunk of ice.
2) Courtesy of Les Echos, it's EUR1,000bn: http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/finance-marches/actu/0202834793278-une-bombe-de-1-000-milliards-d-euros-pour-les-contribuables-europeens-576506.php and that's just for 'bad banks'.
3) My own view - the number is well ahead of both. This is a consistent view expressed as early back as, for example, http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2010/05/economics-16052010-eu-on-brink.html and even earlier. Euro area will require some EUR3 trillion in monetary 'assistance' of permanent (or very long-term) nature. The drivers for this are: (a) legacy bad and poor quality assets, (b) stagnation-induced corrections yet to come, and (c) interest rates and ECB exit-induced household and corporate insolvencies crunch looming on the horizon.

23/4/2013: Updating the cost of banking crisis data

Nice update from the ECB on the cumulated cost of the banking crisis in Europe, now available through 2012. The net effect, summing up all assumed sovereign liabilities relating to the crisis, including contingent liabilities, and subtracting asset values associated with these liabilities are shown (by country) in the chart below:

Note the special place of Ireland in the above.

For the euro area as a whole, net liabilities relating to the crisis back in 2007 stood at EUR 0.00 (EUR36.72 billion for EU27). By the end of 2012 these have risen to EUR 740.15 billion (EUR 734.23 billion for EU27).

Net revenue losses for Government arising from the banking sector rescues, per ECB are:

23/4/2013: Ignore Europe's Debt Crisis at Your Own Peril

In recent days it became quite 'normal' to bash 'austerity' and talk about debt overhang as the contrived issue with no grounding in reality. Aside from the arguments of those worked up about Reinhrat & Rogoff (2010) paper (ignoring all other research showing qualitatively, and even quantitatively similar results to theirs), there is a pesky little problem:

• Debt has physical manifestation (albeit an imperfect one) in the form of banks (lenders) balancesheets. 

As the result of this pesky problem, we can indeed gauge (again, an imperfect translation, but better than none) the effect of repairing these balancesheets on the supply of credit, thus on investment, and thus on real economic activity.

Here are 2012 IMF estimates of the effects of the euro area banks deleveraging on the real economy:

'Weak policies' in the above are what we currently pursuing - with monetary and fiscal policies mismatch. And the negative effect of the declines runs past 2017 in the case of the heavily-indebted peripheral states. Cumulated decline estimated, relative to baseline GDP forecasts, is almost 12% over 5 years. Which over 20 years (average duration of the debt crises episodes) runs closer to 0.7% of GDP loss per annum due to banks deleveraging, aka due to banks managing debt levels on their own balancesheets.

The above chart is based on banking sector lending alone, excluding effects from deleveraging by other investors and financial intermediaries, and excluding effects of non-EU banks deleveraging or effects of the non-EU banks exits from the euro area. With these in place, the adverse effects can probably reach beyond 1% mark.

22/4/2013: Who funds growth in Europe?..

There are charts and then there are Charts. One example of the latter is via IMF CR1371

The above shows a number of really interesting differences between the euro area and the US, as well as within euro area:

• Look at the share of overall funding accruing to the traditional (deposits) banks in the US (tiny) and the euro area (massive) - debt is the preferred form of funding for Europe
• Look at the share of equity in the US funding and in euro area, ex-Luxembourg - equity is not a preferred way for funding growth in Europe.
• Why the above matter? Simply put, debt - especially banks debt - is not challenging existent ownership of the firm raising funding. Which means that patriarchal structures of family-owned firms, with their inefficient and paternalistic hiring and promotions and management systems can be sustained more easily in the case of debt-funded firms than in the case of equity funded ones.
• Look at the role played in the US by the credit supplied by 'other financial institutions' - non-banks. Again, these would be more 'activist'-styled funding streams exerting more pressure on management and ownership structures.

What about Ireland? Look at the composition of funding sources in the country:

1. Strong reliance on corporate bonds markets is probably reflective of three factors: (a) concentrated loans issued during the building boom and related to construction, development & investment in land remain the legacy of the boom and rely on collateralized bonds issuance, (b) banks funding via collateralization, (c) concentrated nature of Irish listed plcs, (d) massive M&A spree undertaken by Irish plcs and larger private companies on foot of cheap leverage available in the 2000-2007 period, etc. The volume of bonds might be large, but their quality is most likely lower due to the above points.
2. Strong - actually second strongest in the sample after Cyprus - reliance on bank lending to fund economy.
3. Weak, extremely thin equity cushion. 

Now, keep in mind: equity is the best, most stable and most suitable for absorbing crisis impact form of funding.

17/4/2013: Global Banking Sector Roadkill Alley (aka euro area)

Lets play the game of 'Spot the odd one out...' 

Fact 1: Globally, growth is concentrating in Latin America, Asia Pacific and Africa (see earlier post here) and the lowest growth centre is the Euro area.

Fact 2 (via IMF GFSR Chapter 1):

Question: Which banking system has spent almost three years now 'deleveraging' itself out of global growth centres so it can focus its immensely healthy balancesheets on pursuing growth where there is no growth in sight?

Answer on a post-card addressed to:

Mr Mario Draghi 

Kaiserstrasse 29
60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Bonus round: in the Sick Banks Club (aka euro area) which are the sickest and second sickest national banking systems?

For hint, see this post.

30/3/2013: Euro area sovereign risk rises in March 2013

Here's an interesting bit of data (pertaining to analysts' survey): per Euromoney Country Risk survey:

"As of late March 2013, the survey indicates that 13 of the 17 single currency nations have succumbed to increased transfer risk [risk of government non-payment or non-repatriation of funds] since... two-and-a-half years ago." And the worst offenders are?.. Take a look at two charts (lower scores, higher risk):

Per definition of the transfer risk: "The risk of government non-payment/non-repatriation – a measure of the risk government policies and actions pose to financial transfers – is one of 15 indicators economists and other country risk experts are asked to evaluate each quarter. It is used to compile the country’s overall sovereign risk score, in combination with data concerning access to capital, credit ratings and debt indicators."

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 is unique in its problem... oh, wait...

So you'd think Cyprus is the 'bad boy' in grossly-overweight-financial-services club? Oh... right:

Source

Now, wait, I am sure the Department of Spin is going to come after me pointing that 'Ireland's figures include IFSC'... my reply... so what? Cypriot figures include Sberbank & VTB... and, unlike the-best-in-the-class Ireland, Cyprus is just starting to deleverage its financial services sector.

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?

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 4

This is the fourth post on today's release by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report, and probably last.

The first post - summarising top-line conclusion from the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area.html

The second post dealt with the Technical Note coverage of the Non-Performing Loans issues: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area_15.html

The third part focused on the real economy side of the banking sector risks within the euro area: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area_5878.html

And related Country Risk Survey study for Q1 2013 covering euro area banking sector risks is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html .


This note is focusing on the actual report itself: European Union: Financial Sector Stability Assessment.


Top-level assessment:

Per IMF: "Much has been achieved to address the recent financial crisis in Europe, but vulnerabilities remain and intensified efforts are needed across a wide front:

• "Bank balance sheet repair. Progress toward strong capital buffers needs to be secured and disclosures enhanced. To reinforce the process, selective asset quality reviews should be conducted by national authorities, coordinated at the EU level." [In Irish context, the real review should be carried out, imo, across the quality of capital claimed to be present on banks balance sheets. Rating agencies have highlighted the Ponzi-like risk scheme whereby contingent capital measures are provided by the Sovereign supports whereby neither the Sovereign, nor the banking system can actually sustain a call on capital of any appreciable volume. Asset quality reviews are also needed, as Irish banks are carrying large exposures to unsustainable and already defaulting mortgages.]
• "Fast and sustained progress toward an effective Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the banking union (BU). This is needed to anchor financial stability in the euro area (EA) and for ongoing crisis management. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is to take up its role to directly recapitalize banks as soon as the SSM becomes effective." [It is pretty much clear now that ESM is not going to be deployed unless significant pressure rises on Italy and/or Spain. In this context, calling for 'effective' ESM is like calling for a 'real' Santa Claus. Meanwhile, neither the SSM nor BU can be expected to become functional any time soon. The institutions behind both are yet to be defined, let alone fully legislated. And from legislation line, it's a long distance still to functionality.]

"Restoring financial stability in the EU has been a major challenge. The initial policy response to the crisis was handicapped by the absence of robust national, EU-wide and EA-wide crisis management frameworks. In a low-growth environment,
several EU countries are still struggling to regain competitiveness, fiscal sustainability, and sound private sector balance sheets. Their financial systems are facing funding pressures as a result of excessive leverage, risky business models, and an adverse feedback loop with sovereigns and the real economy."
[This is significant across a number of points. Firstly, in contrast to the European leadership claimed wisdom, the IMF clearly links banking crisis not just to sovereign crisis, but to the real economy, and these links follow not just balance sheet line, but the line of private sector debts. Secondly, the IMF clearly believes that private sector debt overhang is a core structural problem and has contagion implications across the entire system. EU leaders, even in countries heavily impacted by debt overhang, like Ireland, are solely obsessed with banks balance sheets (less) and sovereign finances (more).]

"Much has been done to address these challenges… Nevertheless, financial stability has not been assured. Recent Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) assessments of individual EU member states have noted remaining vulnerabilities to:

• stresses and dislocations in wholesale funding markets; 
• a loss of market confidence in sovereign debt; 
• further downward movements in asset prices; and 
• downward shocks to growth." 

"These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by

• the high degree of concentration in the banking sector; 
• regulatory and policy uncertainty; and 
• the major gaps in the policy framework that still need to be filled."

"The SSM—while critically important––represents only one of a number of crucial steps that need to be taken to fill key gaps in the EU’s financial oversight framework.

• "As crisis tensions abate, it is important that the implicit unlimited sovereign guarantees in place for the last several years be effectively removed through affirmation and implementation of the principle that institutions with solvency problems must be resolved." [Note: in Ireland's case once again there is a departure from this principle - we are, simply put, not resolving insolvent institutions presence in the market. Instead, we are continuing to deleverage and consolidate the insolvent banking sector at the expense of its future viability and current borrowers and non-financial companies requiring credit. Resolving insolvency - especially after 4.5 years of supports - requires shutting down insolvent banks. That would de facto mean survival of the Bank of Ireland and significantly slimmed down AIB. And that's all. None else. We are far, far away from the Government even considering such an action, which means that the zombified banking sector will continue extract excessive rents out of stressed borrowers and businesses in this country for years to come all to dress up the banking sector 'stabilisation' whilst achieving no structural resolution of the crisis.]
• "The Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) should become operational at around the same time as the SSM becomes effective. Resolution should aim to minimize costs to taxpayers, as well as to deposit insurance and resolution funds, without disrupting financial stability." [The sheer nonsense of this statement is exposed by the core EU authorities insistence that ESM will not apply retrospectively. In other words, the ESM will be a promise of a miracle cure to the dying patient contingent of the patient surviving for a number of years required to devise the cure. And the same applies to the last two points below.]
• "This should be accompanied by agreement on a time-bound roadmap to set up a single resolution authority, and common deposit guarantee scheme (DGS), with common backstops." 
• "Guidelines for the ESM to directly recapitalize banks need to be clarified as soon as possible, so that it becomes operational as soon as the SSM is effective."

So here you go, folks, per IMF, there's an ambulance to help the injured, but currently it exists only on the paper and even as such it is still pretty much unworkable. Good luck with setting up that triage, mates.

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 3

This is the third post on today's release by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report.


The first post - summarising top-line conclusion from the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area.html

The second post dealt with the Technical Note coverage of the Non-Performing Loans issues: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area_15.html

And related Euromoney Country Risk Survey study for Q1 2013 covering euro area banking sector risks is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html .

This note is focusing on the Technical Note on Financial Integration and Fragmentation in the European Union.


Let's start with a fascinating chart showing the sources of financing for the real economy in the EU compared to the US:

The scary bit here is the overall significant imbalances built in the system of financing in the EA17, compared to Denmark, and to the US:

• Thin bond markets across ALL euro area states
• Inexistent private credit markets
• Imbalanced over-reliance on bank credit
• In the case of Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Germany, Malta, Finland and Greece - mature markets were characterised with exceptionally thin or thin equity markets

And as chart below shows, euro area is also suffering from extreme over-concentration of the banking credit markets in the hands of the 'globally systemically important banks' (G-SIBs):

Per IMF: "The main EU banking systems are dominated by a set of globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs). These European G-SIBs have grown in size and importance and are highly interconnected with the rest of the global financial system (see Annex 1). Their assets more than tripled since 2000, amounting to US $27 trillion in 2010. As key players in global derivatives and cross-border interbank markets, they are also among the most interconnected GSIBs. European G-SIBs tend to be larger and more leveraged than their peers. In particular, they are very large relative to home country GDP, and in many EU countries, their size may dwarf the capacity of the home government to raise revenues."

Per footnote, this over-concentration is driven by the legacy models of banking in the euro area: "In part this is because European banks tend to follow the universal banking model, which combines a range of retail, corporate, and investment banking activities under one roof. There are some accounting differences that would make the balance sheets of the IFRS-reporting banks appear more “inflated” than the balance sheets of banks reporting under the U.S. GAAP (e.g., netting of derivative and other trading items is only rarely possible under IFRS, but netting is applied whenever counterparty netting agreements are in place under U.S. GAAP)."

Not surprisingly, banking sector stress directly links to the real economy and even more so to the sovereign positions:

And, within the real economy, the crisis is hitting the hardest the SMEs: "The deleveraging process raises concerns about a credit crunch that would particularly affect SMEs. SMEs in peripheral Europe are particularly hard hit by the deleveraging process, as deposit outflows and capital shortages at banks limit the availability and raise the cost of bank loans. Data from the European Commission and European Central Bank Survey on the Access to Finance of SMEs show that the availability of external finance from banks has decreased since 2009 while the demand for external finance has increased.

"However, there is much cross-country variation, with the availability of external finance having deteriorated markedly since 2009 in Greece and Ireland and having remained fairly stable in countries like Finland and Germany. Regression analysis suggests that the deterioration in the supply of credit to SMEs is partly driven by the financial dis-integration process, as measured by the decline in cross-border BIS claims."

Which, of course, is not surprising - Big Banks Dominance = Closer Links to the Governments and Big Business via the Social Partnership / Corporatist models for governance.

So, great stuff, Messr Kenny & Noonan - Irish banks (duopoly-modeled super-concentration with above average links to sovereigns and some of the most aggressive delveraging plans on the books within the EA17) offer as much hope of restarting lending to SMEs as that of sustaining viable rice growing industry in Sahara.


The next post will continue with my analysis of the IMF report and technical notes. Stay tuned for more later tonight.

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 2

This is the second post on today's release by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report.

The first post - summarising top-line conclusion from the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe is available here:


And related Euromoney Country Risk Survey study for Q1 2013 covering euro area banking sector risks is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html .

Some beef on the Non-Performing Loans (NPLs):

"NPLs in EU banks continue to rise, outpacing loan growth (Figure 4). Since 2007, loans to the economy have decreased by 3 percent while NPLs increased by almost 150 percent, i.e., €308 billion in absolute terms. And, this trend shows no sign of reversal, reflecting the continued macro deterioration in parts of the EU and the absence of restructuring."

"When NPLs remain on balance sheets, they absorb management capacity, and continued losses can weaken banks’ profitability. They can also foster forbearance, thereby deterring new investors by impairing transparency. In several countries, independent asset quality reviews and stress tests have facilitated a diagnosis of the quality of banks’ assets, supporting prospects for private recapitalization."

Per IMF note: NPLs have jumped from 2.6 percent in December 2007 to 8.4 percent of total loans in June 2012

Euro area periphery is worst-hit, for obvious reasons: "NPLs across EU banks differ largely, with those in the “peripheral” countries (Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) witnessing the largest increases. For instance, from December 2007 to June 2012, the NPL ratio for Italy increased by 2.5 times, while in Spain, the increase was seven times (Figure 5). Ireland stands out with average NPLs of around 30 percent, followed by Hungary and Greece. However, definitions in this area remain non-harmonized and impair comparability across the EU".

Now, note that 'turned-the-corner' Ireland is in the league of its own when it comes to NPLs ratio to total loans. Taken to the average ratio of total loans to GDP, Irish NPLs must be absolutely stratospheric.


And now, onto IMF view of the NPL resolution processes in the euro area (again, italics are mine and all quotes are directly from the IMF note):

"Borrower restructuring needs to be facilitated, with legal hurdles lifted. The legal framework should facilitate the restructuring of NPLs and maximize asset recovery. In several EU countries, including Italy, Greece and Portugal, the IMF is involved in bankruptcy/insolvency law reform, including by introducing fast track restructuring tools and out-of-court restructuring process. For instance, repossession of the collateral backing a retail mortgage may take several years in Italy versus few months in Scandinavia and United Kingdom. The asset recovery process is also very prolonged in many EEE countries."

[Do note absence of IMF input in the case of Ireland and that is a general gist of the Note - it simply passes no assessment of the Irish personal insolvency regime 'reforms', which is strange given the prominence of these reforms and the fact that these are the first comprehensive reforms in the euro area periphery. Personally, I read this lack of analysis as the IMF reluctance to endorse the Irish Government approach to the NPLs resolution when it relates to mortgages.]

"An efficient framework for handling NPLs is key to rehabilitate viable borrowers and provide the exit of non-viable borrowers."

[Note the IMF emphasis on rehabilitating viable borrowers AND providing the exit for non-viable borrowers. These twin objectives strike contrast with the Irish Government approach to resolving the personal insolvencies and mortgages crises. Instead of rehabilitating viable borrowers, the Irish Government is pursuing an approach of giving the banks full power to avoid any writedowns of the loans, even when such writedowns can define the difference between rehabilitation and insolvency. When it comes to providing exit for non-viable borrowers, the Irish Government has adopted the approach of reforming the personal insolvency regime from 12 years bankruptcy duration to 3 years, but then extended the process of availing of the bankruptcy from few months to up to 3 years. The pre-bankruptcy period of up to 3 years under the new regime is a period during which the banks have full power to extract all resources out of the households with little protection for the household, in contrast with the previous bankruptcy regime. Thus, in terms of life-cycle financial health, Irish households going through the new reformed personal insolvency process are unlikely to gain any meaningful relief compared to the previous regime.]

"Active management of NPLs is needed. In principle, NPLs can either be:

1. retained and managed by banks themselves at appropriately written-down values, while the banks receive financial assistance from the government for recapitalization; or
2. relocated or sold to one or more decentralized “bad banks,” loan recovery companies, or Asset Management Companies (AMCs) that specialize in the management of impaired assets; 
3. sold to a centralized AMC set up for public policy purposes (possibly when the size of NPLs reaches systemic proportions)."

IMF also notes that: "The European Banking Coordination “Vienna” Initiative (2012) in a working group focused on NPL issues in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Recommendations, among others, focused on establishing a conducive legal framework for NPL resolution, removing tax impediments and regulatory obstacles, as well as enabling out-of-court settlements."


Stay tuned for the third and subsequent posts covering other technical notes released by the IMF.

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 1

Today's releases of the horror flicks starring Irish financial sector are up and running, folks.

As noted in the previous note - premiering Q1 2013 article on euro area banking sector analysis from Euromoney Country Risk surveys (link: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html) - the IMF has released today 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report.


This is the first blog post on the report and associated technical papers, and it covers the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe.


From the top-line conclusions by the IMF (all quotes marked, italics within quotes are mine):

1. "The European Union (EU) banking system restructuring is under way, but is far from complete. Some bank restructuring has started, and the level Tier 1 capital ratios of EU banks have been substantially increased."
2. "But system-wide, capital ratios have been met partly by deleveraging or recalibrations of the risk weights on activities."
3. "Consolidation in the banking sector has been slow, with banks rarely closed."
4. "Nonperforming loans are building up in banks’ balance sheets, and addiction to central bank liquidity remains high especially for banks in peripheral countries."
5. "Despite the EBA recapitalization exercise having led to €200 billion of new capital or reduction of capital needs by European banks, fresh capital is difficult to attract in an environment where prospects for profitability are uncertain."
6. "Several hurdles impair restructuring and resolution in Europe, and urgent progress needs to be made:

• "First, EU bank resolution tools need to be strengthened, aligning them with the Financial Stability Board Key Attributes for Effective Resolution. Fast adoption of the EU resolution directive is welcome, but enhancements are warranted. Swift transposition should follow." [We are still ages away from having any effective resolution tools and any sort of functional regulatory consolidation, let alone functional and effective supervisory consolidation.]
• "Second, restructuring of nonperforming loans (NPLs) should be facilitated [more on this below]. The legal framework should not slow down restructuring and maximize asset recovery. In several EU countries, such as Italy, Greece and in Eastern Europe, bankruptcy reforms lag behind in that, for instance, current practice does not allow the seizure of collateral in a reasonable timeframe. Banks should also manage more actively their NPLs, possibly allowing a market for distress assets to emerge in Europe." [Note the absence of Ireland in the list of laggards above. It is generally strange that the IMF is avoiding passing any judgement on the only case of actual reforms that has impacted only one of the peripheral countries.] 
• "Third, further evolution of the General Directorate for Competition’s (DG COMP) practices will be needed in systemic cases to ensure consistency with a country’s macro-financial framework and support viability of weak banks, recovery of market access, and credit provision. Increased transparency would give added credibility and accountability." [Again, we are ages away from delivering on these.]
• "Fourth, disclosure should be significantly enhanced and harmonized by the EBA, to restore market confidence. In particular, interpretable metrics regarding the quality of banks’ assets, in terms of NPLs, collateral, probability of defaults (PD) and loan recovery rates (LGD) are key for assessing the strength of banks and restoring confidence in the banking system." [see comment above]

Summary: what needs to be done is, largely, nowhere to be seen, yet...

Update:


And when it comes to much of hope of the forthcoming regulatory changes altering the status quo of the dysfunctional regulatory system, don't hold your breath, folks.

The Big Hope is on the forthcoming EU resolution directive aiming to create coordinated system of responses to any future structural financial crises. Here's IMF view on that one:

• First, polite stuff: "A critical new EU resolution directive is in preparation. As a national approach to resolution may well not be appropriate in the EU given the importance of cross-border banking, and the failure of existing cross-country coordination mechanisms, the European Commission (EC) has taken steps to harmonize and strengthen domestic resolution regimes. This should help avoid regulatory arbitrage and make orderly resolution effective and efficient for cross-border banks. In June 2012, the Commission issued a draft directive for harmonized crisis management and resolution framework in all EU countries. The Irish Presidency will make the adoption of the resolution framework a top priority and plans to adopt it during the first part of 2013. The new national resolution regimes endow EU countries with strong early intervention powers and resolution tools. The transposition of the directive into national laws should be accelerated relative to the current deadlines (01/2015, and 01/2018 for bail-ins)."

I wrote about this Directive recently (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/02/2422013-eus-banking-union-plan-can.html) and was not too enthusiastic. Alas, here's IMF's less pleasing assessment, although dressed up in polite language of 'suggestions':

• "Box 1. Proposed Resolution Directive––Risks and Areas for Enhancements

1. Resolution of banks is undermined by the absence of a more effective EU-wide framework to fund resolution. Binding mediation powers for the EBA and mutual borrowing arrangements between national funds face inherent constraints (in particular, the EBA cannot impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of EU member states).
2. Passage of the directive will substantially enhance the range of tools available to resolution agencies in the EU. But the scope of the directive should be widened to include systemic insurance companies and financial market infrastructures. The European Commission launched a consultation at the end of 2012 on this issue. All banks should be subject to the regime, without the possibility of ordinary corporate insolvency proceedings.
3. The breadth and timing of the triggers for resolution should be enhanced by providing the authority with sufficient flexibility to determine the non-viability of the financial institution (including breaches of liquidity requirements and other serious regulatory failings, not just capital/asset shortfalls). There should be provision for mandatory intervention in the event a specified solvency trigger is crossed.
4. The directive affords less flexibility for using certain resolution powers than the key attributes. For instance, it does not permit exercising the mandatory recapitalization power and the asset separation tool on a standalone basis. Also, bail-in safeguards should not prevent departure from pari passu treatment where necessary on grounds of financial stability or to maximize value for creditors as a whole.
5. Depositor preference should be established for insured depositors2, with the right of subrogation for the DGS."

Thus, to sum up the best-hope response of the EU - it is useless, largely toothless and predominantly weak. And to add to this - it will only be fully functions in 2018! You might as well think we live in a Natural History museum, where urgency of response is differentiated by months, rather than minutes.




Next post will cover the issue of Non-Performing Loans.