The Irish Economy

Mrs Merkel has been speaking in the German parliament about her latest financial proposals. In addition to defending the CDS and short-selling proposals, the Germans are apparently preparing proposals for an “orderly insolvency of euro-region states”.  In a separate story this morning, I see that former Fed Governor Rick Mishkin has been reported as follows: 

“What they should have done was to let Greece go and say we are going to ringfence the rest of the system,” Mishkin said. “Ringfence the banks, protect the other countries that have problems such as Portugal, Italy and Spain, which have not been fiscally irresponsible the way the Greeks have been.”

It’s interesting to see how far the consensus has moved. We’ve gone from the idea that no Eurozone country can be let default and the IMF can’t possibly be allowed to help to getting ready for orderly defaults.

Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser points towards this IMF Staff Report on Greece released a couple of days ago. The report is pretty honest about the scale of the challenge facing Greece under the plan if it is to avoid default.

The European Union has announced an agreement among heads of state to address the mounting sovereign debt crisis. Here’s Commission President Barroso’s statement. The meat of the announcement is the following:

First the Commission will present a concrete proposal for a European Stabilisation Mechanism to preserve financial stability in Europe. This proposal the Commission will make will be presented to the ECOFIN meeting next Sunday, the day after tomorrow (9 May).

Much of the speculation about the content of this proposal revolves around the ECB. Some media stories (such as this one) are discussing an extension of the ECB’s liquidity operations, which is fine but doesn’t go to the heart of the soverign debt problems.

Other stories (such as this Reuters story carried by the Irish Times) point to the ECB purchasing sovereign bonds.

“You have this ‘no monetary financing’, but you are allowed to buy in the secondary market, so what’s the difference?” an official involved in European banking supervision told Reuters. “Buying in the secondary market, you take the pressure, and so you push people in the primary market.”

Analysts have estimated the ECB might buy some €200 to €300 billion of bonds, about 20 to 30 per cent of estimated annual new issuance in the euro zone.

This point that the ECB can actually do this is correct. The wording of the no monetary financing clause (article 123 clause 1 of the current version of the consolidated Treaty on the functioning of the EU) is as follows:

Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Community institutions or bodies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the ECB or national central banks of debt instruments.

I suspect the direct purchase phrase was put in to make it clear that public debt instruments were fine for use in ECB repurchase agreements with banks. But the wording does not rule out secondary market purchases.

Exactly what effect this type of intervention would have would depend on how it was implemented. If it was simply a once off purchase of a load of Spanish, Portuguese or Irish debt, I can’t see how this would have much effect since the underlying stock of debt would remain the same.

If, however, the operation took the form of secondary market interventions right after primary market issues, then it would have an effect. For example, the Irish government could issue debt to some banks who could then immediately sell these bonds on to the ECB, perhaps for a small profit. the only risk for the banks being the small probability of being left with the hot potato at the moment of a default.

This would pretty much be breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. But, we’re in this territory already. The existing Greek bailout is being legally justified on the basis of this clause in Article 122:

Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned.

Note the rumoured scale of this operation. If the rule of thumb relating to ECB capital subscription is applied again, Ireland would have to supply over €4 billion to this fund.

I guess Colm has better things to be doing then putting links up on blogs but for those of you who haven’t seen it, Mr. McCarthy’s column in today’s Irish Times makes for interesting reading. Colm points out that “It would be unfortunate to celebrate the centenary of 1916 with macro-policy dictated from Brussels and Washington.” I wonder whether Martyn Turner had seen this column before producing today’s cartoon.

I have never really understood the idea that the Greek fiscal crisis is “a threat to the euro” but have generally sensed the tide running against me on this one as serious people warn darkly about the wider repercussions of a Greek default. Still, I find the arguments in this new CEPR Policy Insight paper from Jacques Melitz (“Eurozone Reform: A Proposal”) to be pretty convincing.

Melitz argues that much of the damage to the Euro caused by the Greek crisis has been due to the inaccurate focus by EU officials on the centrality of fiscal discipline. Some quotes:

The European problem is largely self-inflicted. There have been repeated affirmations by the ECB and government officials in Eurozone member countries that fiscal discipline and the Stability and Growth Pact are the very foundation stone of the Eurozone. This can only mean that Greek default is a big problem for the euro. On this view, the Eurozone is partly a victim of its own self representation …

So far as I can see, there is little reason why Eurozone should view government defaults with any greater alarm than any other central bank management in the world would view government defaults within its territory. To the contrary, the Eurozone is particularly well armed to deal with such defaults, since its own central bank has no large central government to contend with, the Maastricht Treaty guarantees the central bank’s independence and member governments are explicitly forbidden to bailout one another …

Accordingly, must not the official doctrine change? Should it not be that nothing so manageable as a Greek government default can upset Eurozone? In the event of a Greek government default, the system would assure the stability of the Greek financial sector, and concern itself with any bank runs or bank failures in the country, but not with the Greek government’s difficulties. In step with this doctrine, government bail-outs will never be contemplated. The Stability and Growth Pact will continue to serve as a code of good fiscal conduct for all members of the EU. But if any individual member government engages in irresponsible fiscal conduct, contrary to the Pact, its taxpayers and the creditors will bear the consequences.

Melitz argues that rather than institutionalising bailouts, there should be EU-level financial supervision of banks under the auspices of the ECB to allow for more efficient containment of the effects of fiscal default on financial stability.

Greece has agreed a deal with the IMF and the EU involving the provision of funds of €110 billion over the next three years. This IMF website has links to the various statements. It summarises the deal as follows:

Negotiators over the weekend wrapped up details of the package, involving budget cuts, a freeze in wages and pensions for three years, and tax increases to address Greece’s fiscal and debt problems, along with deep reforms designed to strengthen Greece’s competitiveness and revive stalled economic growth.

Whether this deal really avoids a Greek default will ultimately depend on whether the fiscal adjustments that are undertaken can, in fact, alter the underlying arithmetic to the point where the Greek debt burden becomes sustainable. Whether the existence of this deal eases further pressure on other European countries with debt problems is, as of yet, unclear.

On today’s RTE radio News at One, Sean Whelan reported that Irish banks have exposure of about €7 billion to Greek debt, that restructuring of Greek sovereign debt could lead to a fifty percent write-down of Greek debt and that because the Irish government are supporting the banks, the contribution of €450 million by the Irish government to the Greek bailout needed to be placed against the possibility of a potential loss of €3.5 billion for the banks.

Much of this is correct but it is perhaps worth clarifying what we know about Irish bank holdings of Greek debt. First, I’m guessing that Sean Whelan is quoting from figures released from the BIS which show that Irish banks hold $8.6 billion in Greek debt.  At an exchange rate of €1 = $1.31, this translates into €6.6 billion, so Sean Whelan’s figure is about right.

However, a few caveats about this are required. First, it appears that these figures relate to all Greek debt not just government debt.

Second, I believe the definition of Irish banks here include Irish outlets of non-Irish banks (such as various IFSC institutions) which are not receiving assistance from the Irish government.

Third, the figures available for the major Irish bank holdings of government bonds show that it is essentially impossible that these banks are holding such large quantities of Greek government debt. Greece’s rating was downgraded to BBB+ on December 16, this rules out AIB holding much Greek debt. The banks report their holdings of government bonds by ratings and they hold almost no government bonds with low rating (e.g. AIB only €109 million of these holdings were below A rating, Anglo have only €132 million).

So, to conclude, financial institutions in Ireland hold about €7 billion in Greek debt but we don’t know how much of this is Greek sovereign debt. We do know that the banks that are receiving assistance from the Irish government do not hold much Greek sovereign debt. For these reasons, the direct cost to the banks receiving assistance of a Greek restructuring would be a lot less than the €450 million figure cited for our direct contribution.

Keeping in mind that the caveats above are not accounted for, this post from the Peterson Institute is still worth reading.

Update: The Minister for Finance has now confirmed that Irish bank exposure to Greek sovereign debt is negligible relative to the size of their balance sheets–less than €40 million apparently.

So finally we see the terms of Greece’s impending bailout. €30 billion to be made available from EU countries (€500 million potentially from Ireland) at an interest rate of about 5%. Apparently, a further €15 billion is available from the IMF. To my mind, the interest rate is a bit lower than might be expected for an emergency bailout that should be acting as a serious incentive to get the Greek fiscal house in order. The operation certainly seems to be slanted towards carrot rather than stick.

What next? Peter Boone and Simon Johnson discuss this issue and are not confident that Greece can emerge from the crisis with access to private debt markets. They worry about Portugal being next. We worry about something else.

It appears that a deal involving the EU and Greece is imminent. Greek bond yields hit their peak level in the current crisis, the ECB has altered its rules for collateral and the media are reporting that a deal is in place (here and here.)

The FT reports on the negotiations over the terms of the deal:

Officials added that Germany was sticking to its demand that the eurozone portion of the loans would have to be made at or near Greek market rates of 6 per cent or more, though this could lead to different rates being charged by other countries.

One said the agreement “reflects high rates … it is not a ‘subsidy’ and thus not a climbdown. Not even the Germans regard most recent rates as market rates”.

The FT also editorialises on this, blaming the Germans for failing to calm the bond markets sufficiently:

Berlin is also adamant liquidity support be given at market rates. This makes no sense: a rescue is needed precisely when debt markets cease to function and refuse to refinance Greece at sustainable rates. Insisting that a rescue takes place at “market rates” is to insist no rescue takes place at all. Market yields reflect this contradiction, and show that Europe has not yet put its money where its mouth is.

I have a tendency to question agreed wisdom so let me play the role of academic devil’s advocate here for a second. Ultimately, Greek fiscal stability will require a combination of lower spending and higher taxes. Yes, bond yields at current levels—if sustained—would be unlikely to be consistent with long-run fiscal stability.

However, a program that

(a) Made it clear that Greece would be able to roll over private sector debt because the EU will intervene to provide the funds

(b) Credibly lead to the adjustments in Greece’s structural deficit.

should stabilise the fiscal situation in Greece and lead to a return to lower borrowing rates for Greece. That the EU should charge a high interest rate for providing the funds for (a) and overseeing the program for (b) is, it could be argued, not unreasonable. Indeed, if the rates associated with (a) are not high enough to be painful then it may be difficult to get much traction going on (b).

Of course, the Greek government is going to look to get the interest rates on its assistant loans set as low as possible. But that doesn’t mean that a percent here or there on these loans is the key issue right now.

The other major unknown here is how any deal will affect the sovereign bond market’s attitude to Ireland.

The yield on Greek government bonds has now crept up to more or less where it was prior to all the EU meetings of the past few months (see here.) I’m not sure why the various annoucements haven’t helped and newspaper reports like this one and this one don’t explain as much as I’d like.

If the high bond yields are a sign of doubts about whether a rescue is actually going to happen, and thus the debt may be defaulted on, then the eventual arrival of the cavalry (in the form of the EU) to keep the debt rolling over would end up bring the yields down to more sustainable levels and hopefully stabilise the situation. A less sanguine interpretation of current events offered to me by a colleague is that the terms of the deal being offered by the EU—in which any lending would be at current market rates—doesn’t really offer Greece a route out of insolvency because bond yields at this level are not consistent with stabilisation of the public finances.

I’m more inclined to believe the former intepretation and that the EU will prevent Greece defaulting. Whether it should is a different matter.

I read time and again, for instance here, that Greece’s debt crisis “threatens the euro”. Indeed, there are lots of right-minded people around Europe who worry deeply about this threat and have determined that a Greek default has to be avoided to save the euro. I’m having trouble, however, figuring out what that this is supposed to mean.

There seem to be different interpretations of what the “threat to the euro” is. The more dramatic interpretations invoke the idea of an existential threat. Others view it as involving reputational harm. I’ll take each of these ideas in turn.

(more…)

Not wanting to be outdone by Martin Feldstein, Laurence Kotlikoff (recently based known for his Limited Purpose Banking proposals) is the latest US-based economist to bring his analytical skills to bear on the Greece’s problems to diagnose an instant solution:

Is there some way that Greece can devalue without devaluing?

There is, indeed. The government can implement wage and price controls for, say, the next three months, with these controls covering not just the growth in wages and prices over the next three months, but also their initial levels. Specifically, the Greek government would decree that all firms must lower their nominal wages and prices by 30 per cent, effective immediately, and not change them for three months. After three months, everyone would be free to put prices and wages back up.

This is an interesting proposal. Indeed, if this decree-based approach proves to be successful, it could then be applied to other areas. For instance, in the sphere of justice, the Greek government could decree that people should obey the ten commandments. And, if it works in Greece, we should try the decree approach here. After all, we’re all in favour of evidence-based policy formulation.

I’ve been following the news stories on the proposed potential Greek bailout. However, reading articles like this, I’m struggling to find a good rationale for the agreement that’s been reached. The following questions come to mind:

1. Greece needs to address its huge fiscal problems. To do this will require putting through highly unpopular measures. How does the EU’s offer of a potential bailout help get this achieved? How does the Greek government convince its people that harsh measures are required to reduce its deficit and keep open its access to sovereign debt markets when they now know that the EU tooth fairy is waiting by to help?
2. Even if the senior figures in the leading EU countries have ultimately decided to intervene to prevent the disruptions associated with a Greek failure to roll over its debt, why not wait until that failure has happened?
3. Why would the EU wish to be associated in the Greek public’s minds with the harsh expenditure cuts and tax increases that would still have to follow even after a bailout deal?
4. Do those who advocate this policy really believe that the current Greek crisis is sui generis or are they planning to put in place a safety net for the whole Euro zone? If the latter, can such a policy really be credible?
5. Is the long-run macroeconomic stability of the Euro area better served by avoiding the dislocations associated with one its constituent members going through a sovereign debt default or should we be more concerned about the problems created by the new bailout mechanism that lets governments know that the EU will intervene if they choose not to tackle their fiscal crises?

I feel that in asking these questions, I’ve clearly been missing something. Hopefully those who thrashed out this deal have thought these issues through. My concern is that in the somewhat fevered quasi-crisis atmosphere of this week, precedents may be getting set that we will live to regret.

Update: To be honest, I probably should have linked to this hand-wringing Times editorial as a better illustration of what I’m confused about. The editorial worries about “depressing the value of the euro” (which would in fact be a good thing for the Euro area economy) and discusses how this “raises major doubts about the future of the single currency” without explaining why this is the case.  The piece ends with the dramatic note of “The European Union remains on alert and on financial standby.”  It does make one wonder a little whether this issue is being hijacked somewhat by those who see “Europe” as the solution to most ills.

The FT Analysis page is today devoted to the Greek situation: you can read it here.

In addition, there are two opinion pieces  —-

Wolfgang Munchau advocates a eurozone solution here.

Charles Wyplosz cautions against a bailout here.