The European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund have passed Ireland with flying colours in their latest quarterly review. I’ll post audio of their press conference when it’s available (commenters please drop the link if you see it). The IMF press release is here.
The statement reads that bank reforms are on track, fiscal consolidation is on track, structural reforms are to come, and it’s all good. Lots of touchy-feely language. Those pesky bond markets, and the burning of senior bondholders, weren’t looked too kindly upon in questions, but overall the message seemed to be: Nothing to see here, nothing at all, no to burning senior bondholders, but guess what lads, the next review will be tougher. Stick with the programme.
On twitter, NamaWinelake reported a divergence between the EU and IMF, with Ajay Chopra of the IMF saying he expected to see a more robust approach to burden sharing, while the ECB representative said no, that wouldn’t be happening. Although much can be made of comments like this, the review exercise seems to be, on balance, a qualified success. The government did meet its agreed targets. Whether the exercise enhances our credibility to the point that Ireland can wean itself off EU and IMF funds without a second loan package is another question entirely.
The FT reports on Minister Noonan’s IMF initiative here. I would be interested in reactions to the Minister’s tactics.
The new IMF Country Report is available here. A transcript of yesterday’s conference call following the release of the report is also available (see here). Dan O’Brien provides analysis here. Update: Additional analyses from Colm McCarthy (see here) and Cliff Taylor (article; SBP editorial).
It is encouraging that both the IMF and the European Commission are impressed with the government’s implementation of the programme. The unavoidable fact remains, however, that bond markets are unconvinced on Ireland’s long-term creditworthiness. Not too surprisingly, the IMF is more willing to be critical of Europe’s approach to resolving the crisis. It is becoming increasingly evident that uncertainty about the evolving balance between bailouts and bail-ins is making investors shun Irish bonds. The critical challenge is to convince investors to provide new funds to Ireland, which is now being hampered by fears of being caught up in any future bail-ins. It is also interesting that the European Commission is more open than the IMF to a modest speeding up of the fiscal adjustment. This could be viewed as a high-return investment in reinforcing the credibility of the government’s capacity to see through the necessary adjustments, which already differentiates Ireland from Greece and probably Portugal.
The Taoiseach has emerged to defend the government’s banking proposals. He has been reported as saying:
The proposal we have brought forward is on the basis of the best international advice, including the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund, and we are doing this in consultation with the European Central Bank.
Invoking international support for their approach has been a key element in the government’s PR strategy in recent months. However, these comments seem to me to confuse the actual roles being played by the various international organisations referred to.
One of the elements of the recent IMF Article IV report that I found a bit strange were the claims that the Fund had warned the government about its fiscal policy prior to the current meltdown. For instance, the first page of the report states
Various commentators and the IMF in its Article IV consultations did warn that the seemingly-unstoppable growth masked serious imbalances, including the fragility of public finances.
In his Irish Times article on Friday, however, Jim O’Leary correctly points out that the IMF are engaging in some pretty serious revisionist history and makes some very good points about the flaws underlying estimates of structural budget deficits (weaknesses that I discussed in my recent TCD-DEW talk about potential output.)
The Opposition has claimed many times that no independent economist supports the Government’s approach to the banks. The IMF is independent, and more expert in advising on banking problems than most commentators, and it supports our approach.
So how out of line is the IMF’s position on banking with other economists who the government has consistently criticised, such as the signatories of the 20 guys Irish Times piece?
Brian weighs in on the IMF and the banking crisis in this article in today’s Irish Times.
This Rathmines internet cafe is seeking to ward off IMF intervention:
In my earlier post on the government’s criticisms of the IMF, I left out what was probably the most interesting argument because it raised a number of other issues.
Speaking on This Week on Sunday, the Minister for Finance criticised the IMF’s assessment of the cost of the liability guarantee on the grounds that the guarantee would not be called on. I’ve already noted that this is a somewhat spurious way to look at the cost of the guarantee. However, what was particularly odd about the Minister’s comments was his particular explanation of why the guarantee would not be called upon.
Government ministers have been saying some pretty silly things about the IMF’s estimates of the fiscal cost of the measures taken to solve the banking crisis.
The Irish Times lead story cites the IMF’s Global Financial Stability report as having the following sentence: “The United States, United Kingdom and Ireland face some of the largest potential costs of financial stabilisation (12 to 13 per cent of GDP) given the scale of mortgage defaults.” It turns out, however, that the IT was a little behind on a (fairly silly) controversy about this sentence.
It turns out that the IMF’s cost estimates are not new at all but actually first appeared on page 17 of this report released on March 6, which was written as a companion to this report on the outlook for public finances around the world. The March 6 paper reports a cost figure of 13.9 percent of Irish GDP, which amounts to €24 billion. Table 4 also reports the cost for the UK at 9.1 percent of GDP.
For this reason, there was a bit of a flap over this when the BBC reported the 12-13 percent figure, with the UK Treasury pointing out correctly that the sentence and its accompanying table were wrong. The version of the report on the website no long contains the parenthetical “(12 to 13 per cent of GDP)” that the Irish Times had quoted and the table has been altered—I think Ireland may have been listed in the original Table 1.8 but we are not now. In any case, you can find the original source of the calculations from the above link.
So, not the IMF’s finest hour. However, beyond the silliness, it is clear that the IMF’s assessment of the likely costs of financial sector support measures to the Irish taxpayer does not fit well with the government’s current stance that “under extreme stress scenarios” BOI only need €3.5 billion in additional capital, while AIB only need €5 billion.
The first week of April sees two big economic events: the April 7th Irish budget is preceded by the G20 summit on April 2nd. There is an interesting article by Simon Johnson on The Atlantic’s website: you can read it here.