By Rok Spruk, on December 27th, 2010
The ongoing difficulties in overcoming the persistence of debt-to-GDP ratio in EU countries highlight the question whether the European Monetary Union can survive the set of shocks which prevailed since the 2008/2009 economic and financial crisis. Recently, European Commission has presented the 2010 review of public finances in EMU (link), suggesting that macroeconomic outlook for Eurozone economies has deteriorated in the light of a growing debt-to-GDP ratio.
The launch of government bailouts in various European countries has added considerable amount to the stock of public debt across the Eurozone. Since 2008/2009, general government balance in Eurozone countries has continually resulted in persistent government deficits which further added to the stock of debt. Since public debt is by definition the sum of previous deficits, the European macroeconomic outlook suffers significantly from downgraded stability of public debt.
The anatomy of sluggish economic recovery in Eurozone consists of different set of economic policies. Countries at the European periphery (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain) seem to be hit most by the sluggish economic recovery. From the viewpoint of macreconomic stability, the economic policymakers in these countries have pursued the most discretionary economic policies to mitigate the effects of decline in GDP on employment, earnings and tax revenues. In addition, highly expansionary monetary policy by the European Central Bank provided a bulk of quantitative easing, resulting flooding liquidity to supplement the interbank lending and, hence, to contain the effect of overleveraged financial sector on macroeconomic stability. In Ireland, income per capita in 2010 notably decline back to 2004 level (link). As I previously emphasized in one of my previous posts (link), the depth of the economic crisis in Ireland is largely attributed to the overleveraged banking sector, vulnerable to the interbank interest rate increases. Since the sovereign CDS spread on Ireland exceeded 500 basis points in late September this year, the Irish public finance outlook deteriorated significantly in the light of the innate ability of the Irish government to bailout Anglo-Irish Bank. Recently, the IMF estimated (link) that by 2012, Irish debt-to-GDP ratio would reach 67 percent, up from 12 percent in 2005.
A prudent reduction in debt-to-GDP would be accomplished only under restrictive fiscal policy based on the reduction in government spending and a permanent fiscal rule on budget surplus at a given target level. If Irish government set the surplus target at 3 percent of GDP in the next ten years, debt-to-GDP ratio could be considerably reduced within the range of Maastricht fiscal criteria.
The macroeconomic outlook in peripheral countries suffers from high fiscal expenditures and rigid labor market institutions. By 2012, Portugal’s debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to reach nearly 85 percent of GDP. In addition to soaring public debt, the Mediterranean part of the EMU suffers heavily from high unemployment rate. Eurostat recently reported that, by October 2010, the unemployment rate in Spain reached an astonishing 20.7 percent. Double-digit unemployment rate in Spain, Greece (12.2 percent) and Portugal (11 percent) hamper the economic recovery since, in the past, these countries exercised expansionary fiscal policy and the policy of automatic stabilizers to mitigate the effects of high unemployment on aggregate consumption decline. In the aftermath of financial crisis, these countries experienced recessionary output gap in which economic contraction is marred by unchanged inflationary pressures.
Since EMU countries withheld domestic currencies and adhered the adoption of the Euro, the macroeconomic adjustment to the recovery is possible only by a prudent fiscal policy. High unemployment rates and a persistent divergence of economic policies in EMU countries could substantially increase discretionary fiscal policies that would eventually result in the serious possibility of country default. The economic crisis in Greece resulted in 11 percent cumulative GDP decline between 2010 and 2012. In the same period, government net debt is expected to reach the 120 percent of GDP thresold. A divergence between Member States towards highly discretionary fiscal policy would probably alleviate the persistence of high unemployment but at the expense of bold increase in the rate of inflation as well as in the persistence of debt-to-GDP ratio and large government imbalances. Hence, the survival of the Eurozone would depend on the ability of EU Member States to adjust government balance by reducing fiscal expenditure and adopt the fiscal rule to pursue fiscal surplus in the coming years as to reduce the stock of public debt.
Even though a common fiscal policy could accomplish the goals of stabilization policy, the mitigation of fiscal asymmetries would be easily accomplished by labor market integration. A currency union between different countries implies integrated and assimilated labor markets under relatively homogenous preferences. It would be nearly impossible to envision the European Monetary Union without these key macroeconomic features.
 Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Claus Vistesen, on November 30th, 2010
So, the butcher’s bill on Ireland is in and stands at 85 billion Euro jointly financed by the EU (the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) and the European Financial Stability Mechanism), the IMF and bilateral loans from a number of countries including Sweden, Denmark and the UK. Of course, it only worked a couple of hours and today markets are reeling again in the face of the Eurozone crisis which seem to have no end. Worryingly, markets seem to be contend on going for all together larger game this time around with Spanish bonds bearing the brunt of the attention.
In principle and fact I agree with RBS’ Harvinder Singh (via FT Alphaville’s Neil Hume) that the only possible end game at this point is that things get so bad that some form of fiscal unity and/or a joint Eurozone pooling of risk through the issuance of an EMU bond. Illuminati’s Jim O’Neill is a little more sanguine although he ultimately also invokes the point that the core and especially Germany must go all in, in its effort and comittment to keep the Eurozone in one piece.
I know that all this may come of as scaremongerings, but the farther we move forward into this mess, the more it is beginning to look like calm and calculated analysis rather than prophecies of doom.
So, Can Germany Pay?
On that note, I thought that I would highlight an issue which has not yet been debated much in the context of the Eurozone debt crisis. In this sense, we always hear about CDS or yield spreads to Germany and still; to the extent that we are talking “EU money” we know that it is the German taxpayer who must foot the majority of the bill.
So, can Germany really pay all this?
The recent economic narrative on Germany suggests that it can. In fact, Germany has been hailed as the rock onto which all other shipwrecked European economies must turn to in the hour of need with GDP growth rates in Q2 and Q3 (2010) exceeding expectations. And with the German export machine back in full swing, there seems to be nothing standing in the way of Germany saving the world, let alone Europe.
Now, this is not entirely true of course and one major part of the difficulties encountered in the course of the past months has been the obvious (and natural) resistance of the German taxpayer in simply accepting to pay for the mistakes and overspending of others. And one would assume that the reluctance to do so stems not only from a feeling of unfairness, but also from a genuine fear that Germany simply won’t be able to pay even if the good intentions can be mustered in the first place. As such the following point emphasized today by a friend of mine is important;
Spain’s external debts, have exploded without a significant offset of external assets. On net, Spain owes the world about 80% (closer to 90% today) of GDP more than it has external assets. As a frame of reference, the degree of net external debt Spain has piled up in a currency it cannot print has few historical precedents among significant countries and is akin to the level of reparations imposed on Germany after World War I. We don’t know of precedents for these types of external imbalances being paid back in real terms.
So, when Merkel notes that bondholders must also share the losses she is naturally referring to the fact that Germany cannot be expected to bailout all the Eurozone’s periphery’s international investors. However, what she is perhaps forgetting is that Germany itself holds a non-neglieble amount of those very same net external assets that Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal have built up.
However, even considering this point, the reality is still that as the economic conditions of the periphery has deteriorated and morphed into a calamity so it seems that the well known structural problems of the so-called core have been forgotten. Beauty, wealth and economic travails are as most other things a relative entity it seems.
On that note, allow me turn the tables on the discourse a little. Consequently, the Economist recently ran a special report on Japan essentially focusing almost entirely on the fact that Japan is the most rapidly ageing economy in the world and this represents the main challenge for Japan as an economy and as a society. I am a demographic fan boy, I know, but still the analysis in the Economist makes sense. Deal with the demographic challenge or else …
So, which economy might then be the second most rapidly ageing economy in the world? Right, you guessed it; Germany.
(click on pictures for better viewing)
I should think that these charts are rather self-explanatory and note in this context that the German debt/GDP has gone from about 63% of GDP in 2007 to 84% in 2010. Further, according to the IMF this will increase to just hy of 90% in 2014. Naturally, none of these calculations factor in any extra liabilities Germany will have to assume to keep the Eurozone together in that period, so your guess is as good as mine as to the final figure in 2015.
The question which seems to whisper in the wind (and which may sooner rather than later turn into a roar) is then just how Germany is going to be able to shoulder all those bailouts when the real bailout it needs to think is the one of its own welfare state as the weight of population ageing sets in. Of course, Germany could in principle sacrifice any build up of assets in Asia, Latin America and the rest of the emerging world and devote its entire surplus powers to financing excess investment and consumption in the Eurozone periphery and Eastern Europe ad infinitum. But somehow, this does not strike me as a viable long term solution since this has already been tried and well, it got us into this mess in the first place.
I guess, the contrarian Masters of the Universe might immediately see this as a case for buying German CDS in a punt on the event that the benchmark itself came under pressure. I think this would be premature, but there is definitely a narrative and discourse missing in the current Eurozone debacle not about whether Germany is willing to pay, but indeed, whether she will be able too.
By Eldon Mast, on November 29th, 2010
On Monday, markets will likely applaud the 85 billion euro bail-out of the Irish economy from the International Monetary Fund and European Union financing.
Over the weekend, the rescue package was approved at a meeting of European Union finance ministers in Brussels.
The overall financing includes up to 35 billion euro to support the Irish banking system – 10 billion euro of which will likely be needed immediately.
The Irish government applied for the loan last Sunday when it conceded the bank crisis was too big for the country to handle on its own.
IMF managers and directors say the Irish authorities propose “a clear and realistic package of policies to restore Ireland’s banking system to health.” The program and funding will put its public finances on a sound footing, “and bring Ireland’s economy back on track.”
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Claus Vistesen, on November 25th, 2010
With apologies to John Paul Young …
Bailout in the air
Everywhere I look around
Bailout in the air
Every sight and every sound
And I don’t know if it’s just the Irish
Don’t know if we can afford it
But it’s something that I must believe in
And it’s there when I look in your eyes
Bailout in the air
And the Euro’s going up
Bailout in the air
In the Union that we got
And I don’t know if Porto is next
Don’t know if Proell will pay
But it’s something that I must believe in
And we hope that they do what they say
Bailout in the air
Bailout in the air
oh, oh, oh…
Bailout in the air
In the rising of the debt
Bailout in the air
Now the scores must be set
And I don’t know the Euro will make it
Don’t know if Spain wiill fold
But it’s something that I must believe in
And I hope that the debt will be sold
And I don’t know if it’s just the Irish
Don’t know if we can afford it
But it’s something that I must believe in
And it’s there when I look in your eyes
Bailout in the air
Bailout in the air
oh, oh, oh…
Love is in the air
Everywhere I look around
Love is in the air
Every sight and every sound
And I don't know if I'm being foolish
Don't know if I'm being wise
But it's something that I must believe in
And it's there when I look in your eyes
Love is in the air
In the whisper of the trees
Love is in the air
In the thunder of the sea
And I don't know if I'm just dreaming
Don't know if I feel sane
But it's something that I must believe in
And it's there when you call out my name
Love is in the air, Love is in the air, oh, oh, oh...
Love is in the air
In the rising of the sun
Love is in the air
When the day is nearly done
And I don't know if you're an illusion
Don't know if I see it true
But you're something that I must believe in
And you're there when I reach out for you
Love is in the air
Every sight and every sound
And I don't know if I'm being foolish
Don't know if I'm being wise
But it's something that I must believe in
And it's there when I look in your eyes
Love is in the air, Love is in the air, oh, oh, oh...
(Contributed by Shay Griffiths - May 2002)
|
|
By Claus Vistesen, on November 19th, 2010
 The Eurozone seems to be the place where the party never ends these days as one skeleton after the other comes rattling out of the closet. Indeed, one has the impression that history is in the making these days and the only thing we can hope is that it will be for the better.
In truth however, I felt a good measure of sympathy for Ireland today as I read the Bloomberg report about how the country is now essentially on its way to accepting a deal that will have aid delivered from the EU, the IMF and, most painfully, from England.
Irish rebels fought for independence during World War I, boasting they served “neither King nor Kaiser.” Ireland may now have to do exactly that to qualify for a bailout partly funded by both Britain and Germany. Prime Minister Brian Cowen is edging toward accepting a rescue package that may threaten the country’s low-tax policies and put voters on the hook to repay loans the central bank says may be worth “tens of billions” of euros. For critics of Cowen’s Fianna Fail party, which governed Ireland through its decade-long boom, national pride is at stake. Cowen has “squandered” independence for a “German bailout with a few shillings of sympathy from the British chancellor,” the Irish Times newspaper said yesterday. The government should be “ashamed that Fianna Fail should be the ones to surrender sovereignty,” said Michael Noonan, finance spokesman for Fine Gael, the largest opposition party.
However, Ireland largely made the mistakes itself of which the biggest no doubt was to guarantee its banking system and essentially gamble that a) the economy could swallow the liabilities of its broken banks (which with a deficit of 32% of GDP in 2010 it obviously can’t) and b) that help could be reached elsewhere.
Iza’s report yesterday over at FT Alphaville about just how much European governments have promised during the past 2 years makes an extraordinarily important point and it well worth reading in its entirety;
As all eyes focus on what should be done about the Irish banking crisis, perhaps it’s time for the European Union, IMF and other related parties to take a closer look at some of the factors that may have exacerbated the problem. After all, it’s now becoming abundantly clear that the dishing out of an elaborate 100 per cent deposit guarantee back in September 2008 was largely nothing more than a massive bluff designed to steal attract deposit flows from neighbouring states to for the purpose of propping up Irish banks. Furthermore, as we’ve mentioned already, the EFSF is already turning out to resemble something like Paulson’s bazooka in its own right too. Which means — with everything becoming a high-stakes game of ‘Call my bluff‘ — it could be time to restrict the ability of sovereigns generally to randomly guarantee things they clearly can’t afford to guarantee in the first place. (If confidence in the Eurozone is to be restored properly that is.) After all, let’s just look at the dynamics of the Irish deposit guarantee itself.
So, this is about a deposit guarantees which if course is one of those guarantees a government never really can make due on in the case of the ultimate rout à l’End of Days. Yet, the point has general validity far beyond the issue of deposit guarantees. Basically, Ireland promised to make due for its banks … now that it appear that she can’t, it is up to the rest of the Eurozone to pay.
No doubt this view is shared in principle as well as sentiment by the prowling Proell from Austria who recently fired two stray missiles into the raging debate on how best to deal with the issue of solidarity in the Eurozone. Earlier in the week, he raised serious questions about whether Austria would make due on its promist to spit into the common funding scheme for Greece now that it was obvious that the country was missing its budget target yet again and most recently, he said to Bloomberg reporters that he was very interested in talking with Ireland about its famously low corporate tax rate in connection with the bailout.
You know, quid pro quo and all that.
Now, before we get into the blame game I should note that I agree with the Economist in their most recent take on the Eurozone mess in which they implicitly highlight that while timing is always difficult in politics there is still a continuum between good and bad and Merkel’s sudden urge to remind bondholders that they too might take a loss falls in the latter category.
At an EU summit at the end of October the German chancellor won agreement that any future euro-zone rescue scheme should include a mechanism for an orderly sovereign-debt default. The principle was absolutely right: unless default is a possibility, bond investors have no reason to distinguish between good and bad credits. But the idea of making bondholders lose money when sovereign credits turn sour was aired without any guidance about how and when it might apply. Astonishingly, the Germans failed to put together a detailed proposal for the summit.
I should make it clear that I fully back to idea of bondholders taking their share of the loss since if this is not a real possibility there is no way in which to secure an orderly default which is inevitably coming sooner rather than later to some of the most vulnerable Eurozone economies. Especially, and going back to Izabella’s point above the practical distinction between using bailout funds for governents and not banks is a mirage exactly because promises have been made and anectodal contracts have been signed with the electorate and, one is tempted to note, the devil herself. As I have said before, you may not like it and I agree with Izabella that the EU and IMF would be wise to monitor just what promises that are made in the future.
And speaking of promises; if Ireland seems to be mellow enough to be put into the bailout fold, there is another small country left in the waiting room in the form of Portugal. Again I think that the Economist has the right answer;
If only both sides gave up posturing, they would agree that the European rescue funds should be used to stabilise Ireland’s banks, insisting only on certain budget targets in return. Such a deal should satisfy Ireland’s euro-zone partners, which want an end to the uncertainty, and the European Central Bank (ECB), on which Ireland’s banks have become overly reliant for funding. It would also be wise to offer a similar deal to Portugal. Its banks are dependent on ECB support, and it too is in the bond markets’ sights.
I am not exactly tuned up on the actual difference between just pouring money into the banks or giving it to the sovereign which then uses the funds to make due on a foolhardy promise to secure the entire domestic banking sector’s liabilities. But really, the distinction should be next to none I think. And if you think that all this about Portugal is just me trying to kick up a bad mood, Bloomberg pulled one better on me with this elegant report about how investors are turning their attention away from Ireland and over to … well, you guessed it I think;
The markets indicate that country is Portugal with 10-year bond yields of 6.88 percent, compared with 8.26 percent in Ireland and 11.62 percent in Greece, which received rescue funds in May from the European Union and International Monetary Fund. Portuguese Finance Minister Fernando Teixeira dos Santos said Nov. 15 that while “there is a risk of contagion,” that doesn’t mean the country will seek financial aid. “Portugal isn’t in the situation that it is now because of Ireland,” said Steven Mansell, director of interest-rate strategy at Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. in London. “If Ireland reaches an agreement to tap the European Financial Stability Facility or some other mechanism to support its banking sector, I don’t think that will alleviate the pressure on Portugal.”
So, it seems as if the next stop might very well be far western rim of the Eurozone and its beautiful Algarve coastline.
By Claus Vistesen, on November 15th, 2010
Life can be incredibly cruel sometimes. Only a week after Bernanke gave markets an early Christmas present with another helicopter drop the SP500 is stuttering and it seems, much as many astute observers have argued, that the real effect from QE lies in the announcement itself. Further, and to add insult to injury a recent survey conducted by Bloomberg suggests that the Fed’s reenactment of QE is not particularly popular among investors as they don’t think it will help the economy or the unemployment rate but rather that it is a deliberate policy to drive down the USD.
Ok, this is the trivial point then and I don’t give much for the investors’ opinion here since one presumes these are the same investors that recently scurried around the QE2 announcement as, well, pigs around the trough. The real irony here is that just as Bernanke thinks he can settle down to watch the USD drift down to help exports the crisis in the Eurozone flares up again, pushing a correction in the Euro and a general sentiment towards risk-off which would be positive for the USD. So, if QE does not help the economy or the unemployment rate and can’t even push the USD down and/or secure a decent melt-up in risky assets, what is a poor central banker left to do?
Now, my screen is a sea of red today which may provide the first bid for an answer for that question and the reason is essentially that the great eye of the market has turned from Bernanke’s helicoptor drop to the Eurozone where the problems of course never went away (oh and of course tightening in China). To add further context, provisional GDP estimates suggest that growth has slowed down notably in the Eurozone with especially the peripheral economies such as Spain, Italy, Ireland posting anemic growth rates.
In itself, it is not surprising that the effect from QE2 has gone astray, but the ultimate cynic would no doubt point to the fact that the real catalyst of the resurgence of the market’s focus on problems in the Eurozone coincided pretty well comments from first Angela Merkel and second the French finance minister Lagarde that bondholders should ultimately prepare for taking a loss on peripheral bonds.
Effectively, this seems to have broken Ireland’s back and now it is only a matter of time before Ireland enters into some form of quasi IMF/EU custody and most likely we will see just what kind of beast the stability fund is. Of course, the actual degree to which bondholders are supposed to take part in a restructuring was greatly watered down by comments hitting the wire today that outstanding debt would not be affected.
(quote Bloomberg)
European finance ministers said plans to establish a new crisis resolution mechanism, including the potential for bondholders to be held accountable, will not apply to outstanding debt. “Any new mechanism would only come into effect after mid-2013 with no impact whatsoever on the current arrangements,” the finance ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the U.K. said in a statement distributed to reporters in Seoul today.
This sounds to me to be the ultimate rubber paragraph and won’t do anything but to kick the proverbial can down the road, but in terms of calming markets in the here and now. Perhaps. On Ireland in general, I have already covered the situation in some detail, but going back to the cynical take on this situation, it seems that Ireland might have been thrown to the wolves exactly in order to bring a little attention back on Europe and thus in an attempt to avoid that the EURUSD moved too much above 1.40. It certainly seem to have worked.
Perhaps this is me being too cynical however and surely the toolbox contains other tools than merely pulling the restructuring and pissing off everyone. One alternative is that the ECB joins the ranks of its QE wielding colleagues in Japan and the US and start buying them bonds, big time and with no reservations and questions asked. Indeed, Bloomberg’s Simon Kennedy and James Hertling said it well when they recently denoted the ECB not only as the buyer of last resort, but of only resort;
(quote Bloomberg)
European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet is the buyer of only resort as the euro area’s bond market melts down (…) ”The ECB’s lack of action is puzzling to say the least and begs the question as to whether it’s fulfilling its financial- stability mandate,” said Jacques Cailloux, chief European economist at Royal Bank of Scotland in London. “The more the ECB waits, the bigger the purchase program will have to be.”
Note in particular monsieur Cailloux’ comments here. Basically, he is saying. What the heck are they waiting for?
A likely question can be directed at the G20 who concluded their meeting this week in Seoul and while I certainly recognise the inherent difficulties in agreeing on difficult issues, it is a bit disappointing still. Macro Man provides a cynical view of the consequences of s strong global consensus of doing nothing. Perhaps, this is part of the effect from markets seemingly being able to eye only one thing at once?
By Rok Spruk, on October 28th, 2010
The economic and financial crisis of 2008/2009 hit Ireland heavily. The asset price bubble and the subsequent deflation have added to the uncertain macroeconomic outlook. How did the country went from the times of the “Irish miracle” to the prolonged economic slowdown? Following the beginning of the 2008/2009 economic and financial crisis, Ireland was hit by an unprecedented economic slowdown. In 2008, the GDP declined by 3.0 percent on the annual basis. In 2009, the GDP further declined by 7.1 percent in real terms. The unemployment rate increased to almost 12 percent.
Prior to the outburst of the economic crisis, Ireland enjoyed stable and predictable levels of public debt. In 2007, the country was known for having stabilised the public debt at 25 percent of the GDP – the lowest level of any Western European country. In 2009, the debt-to-GDP ratio increased to 64 percent of the GDP. Once known as the sick man of Europe, Ireland’s economic policymakers have implemented a set of fiscal policy measures aimed to boost the long-term economic growth and abolish the economic policy based on the state intervention, high tax rates on labor and capital and export-led growth.
Ever since the 1960s, Ireland pursued a soft version of industrial policy targeted at the promotion of inward foreign direct investment and the education of highly skilled workers. In addition, Ireland reduced the corporate income tax rate to 12.5 percent and provided a thorough technical assistance and to multinational companies located in Ireland. Indeed, U.S. multinationals such as Microsoft, Dell and Intel were encouraged to locate in Ireland mainly because of its geographic proximity to key European markets, skilled English-speaking workforce, membership in the EU, relative low wage level and favorable corporate taxation.
In early 1990s, the results of a precise set of economic policies were spectacular. By the end of 2006, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 percent from 18 percent in early 1980s. Between 1992 and 2005, Irish GDP increased by an average of 6.9 percent while the investment grew by 8.6 percent on the annual basis. The largest contribution to GDP growth was domestic demand (5.3 percentage point). Hence, Ireland’s public finance enjoyed a favorable outlook mainly due to the rapid decline of debt-to-GDP ratio from 1980s onwards, and from a relatively low demographic pressure on the budgetary entitlements.
During the Irish boom, Irish banking and financial sector were highly dependent on the wholesale funding. Due to largely positive macroeconomic outlook from 1990 onwards, Irish banking sector received high and consistent credit ratings from agencies such as Moody, S&P and Fitch. In turn, the reliance on fragile wholesale funding resulted in overleveraged balance sheets. After the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, the short-term outlook on Irish banking sector signaled a significant rise in credit-default swaps which raised concerns over the ability of banks to provide the wholesale funding for a mountain of short-term debt liabilities. And since the overleveraged balance sheets downgraded the outlook on Irish banking sector, the institutional investors demanded higher risk premium to extend the funding channel to the Irish banks.
The Directorate Generale for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission downgraded the macroeconomic forecast of Irish GDP growth. By the end of 2009, the economic activity plummeted by 7.1 percent. The housing market crash was largely a result of the asset price bubble channeled through the overinvestment in the construction sector which represented 12 percent of the GDP. Nothing could explain the deflationary pressures in the aftermath of the financial crisis than excessive housing prices during the pre-crisis Irish economic boom. After 2008, Ireland’s household savings rate increased to the level above 10 percent which is a result of the adjustment in the household balance sheet. In fact, between 2001 and 2007, the share of household debt in the GDP nearly doubled.
Meanwhile, the mountain of liabilities in the Irish banking and financial sector raised the concern over its solvency. The Irish Government immediately facilitated a bailout plan for the troubled banking sector. Consequently, the large budget deficit resulted in excessive debt-to-GDP ratio which grew by 39 percentage points between 2007 and 2009. In the annual European Economic Forecast (Spring, 2010), the European Commission estimated that by the end of 2011, the debt-to-GDP ratio could reach as high as 87.3 percent. while the cyclically-adjusted government balance is estimated to increase up to -10.2 percent of the GDP. The contraction of domestic demand which, by all measures, is the main engine of Ireland’s economic growth led to a rapid increase in the unemployment rate which increase from 6.3 percent in 2008 to 11.9 percent in 2009. By 2011, the European Commission forecast that the unemployment rate is expected to further increase by 1.5 percentage point compared to 2009. In World Economic Outlook, the IMF estimated that the unemployment rate in Ireland would increase by 1.1 percentage point by the end of 2011. In 2009, Ireland experienced net outward migration for the first time since 1960s in the wake of expected 13.8 percent unemployment rate in 2010.
The macroeconomic forecast for 2011 is favorable. The European Commission upgraded GDP growth estimate to 3 percent. Meanwhile, the investment is expected to increase for the first time since the 60 percent cumulative decline of the construction sector. The positive contribution of net exports to the gradual narrowing of the current account deficit could be an important measure to alleviate the rising pressure over debt-to-GDP ratio. On the other hand, Ireland’s Department of Finance revised the macroeconomic forecasts and estimated that by the end of this year, the GDP would grow by 1 percent on the annual basis.
The essential measure of Irish economic recovery is the retrenchment of wage rates in the public sector and the adjustment of public sector wages to the cyclical dynamics of economic activity to prevent the possibility of excessive inflationary pressures in the course of economic recovery. Current measures of retrenching public sector wages successfully anchored the inflationary expectations. According to the IMF, the annual inflation rate is estimated to peak at nearly 2 percent by the end of 2015. The falling wage rates in the private sector could induce the reallocation of resources in the tradeable sector, further adding to the contribution of net external trade to the GDP growth.
The key measures to alleviate the consequences of economic and financial crisis in both real and financial sector are the immediate narrowing of Ireland’s excessive budget deficit and public debt in the share of GDP. High public debt is mainly the result of government capital injection into Anglo-Irish Bank which represents about 2 percentage points of net deficit increase in 2010. The entire consolidation package represents 2.5 percent of the GDP.
Deutsche Bank recently published Public Debt in 2020 and estimated the levels of public debt by the end of that year for both advanced and emerging-market economies. The analysis by Deutsche Bank predicted the effect of a combined negative shock in real interest rate, primary government balance and real GDP growth. If the combined shock of all three variables were to change by about one-fourth standard deviation from the estimated growth rate, the public debt in 2020 would reach 154 percent of the GDP. If the combined shock of all three variables increased by one-half standard deviation from the baseline estimates, the public debt in 2020 would increase to 197 percent of the GDP. The difference in the estimated increase is due to higher intensity of the combined shock. In addition, to restore the debt-to-GDP ratio to pre-crisis level, Ireland would be required to increase the primary government balance to 6 percent of the GDP.
Given the enormous magnitude and burden of public debt and overleveraged corporate and financial sector, the immediate facilitation of measures to alleviate the public indebtedness is necessary. Ireland’s economic future is constrained by the persistence of budget deficit which adds to the future burden of public debt. Prudent efforts to reduce the burden of both debt and deficit are of the essential importance. Nevertheless, Irish policymakers should not neglect the economic policies that created the Irish miracle as well as the policy errors that caused the deepest economic decline in Western Europe during the 2008/2009 economic crisis.
By Claus Vistesen, on October 27th, 2010
Popular wisdom has it that markets are always right or, more appropriately; that if you find your self on the wrong side of the market consensus the best cause of action is to join the ranks less you want to be rolled over by a steamroller. However, it may take some time before the market corrects to the underlying fundamentals or so, at least, I will argue.
Last time I wrote on Ireland I noted how the country’s latest move to emphasize its strong cash position (as well as the fact that it announced the intention not to go to market to seek financing) was a wink to EU policy makers that either the current plan works or Ireland will need funding help. Private market funding at current and future expected rates is not an option and the really important question is whether the interest rates charge by some form of European SPV would also be consistent with a recovery or simply another debt spiral. I have my doubts here.
Indeed; with a the running deficit to GDP of 32% in 2010 it is absolutely necessary that Ireland addresses this as a first priority. No matter how much cash you have lying around or how much you expect to be able to get from a coordinated relief program (essentially borrowing with low rates and long maturity), the failure to react now would mean that the time path of public debt would prove instantly unsustainable as we moved into 2011 and 2012
However, markets don’t seem to be very comfortable with the prospects of very strong austerity measures in Ireland.
Quote Bloomberg
Bond investors are losing faith in Ireland’s plan to lower the deficit as spending cuts threaten to undermine economic growth, reducing government revenue. Irish 10-year bond yields climbed within 50 basis points of the 454 basis-point record spread, set Sept. 29, relative to similar-maturity German bunds. Portugal’s spread fell about 1 percentage point against the German benchmark in the past month, the Greek-German yield gap narrowed 102 basis points and the Spanish spread was close to the lowest level since Aug. 10.
It is important to understand the underlying message here. What drives the worry is not so much the debt and deficit itself, but more so that the severe austerity measures needed to restore the evolution of debt will derail the economy and thus become counterproductive. Indeed, this is the main issue which most OECD economies grapple with at the moment.
But surely, it is not easy being Ireland at the moment. On one day, spreads climb because you are trying to plug the hole in the budget as you try to salvage a broken financial sector and the next spreads climb on growth fears as you introduce austerity measures in an attempt to correct the deficit incured in the first place.Look up the old proverb of being stuck between a rock and a hard place and you will find the European Periphery as a chief example.
What is interesting in particular are the comments extracted by Bloomberg from various fixed income portfolio managers across Europe. They seem to me to be getting closer to a does not compute moment of their own (all quotes are gathered by Bloomberg). Firstly, Dermot O’Leary, chief economist at Goodbody Stockbrokers simply turns the focus upside down and argues that now, surely, growth is the most important goal for Ireland.
“With the scale of consolidation now known, the department’s strategy for returning the economy to growth” could “now be described as more important than the consolidation measures,”
I wonder whether he would change his mind if the black hole of Anglo Irish takes the 2010 deficit/GDP figure to 40% (or perhaps 50%?). But there are other much more fundamental issues being raised; for example by John Fitzgerald a member of the central bank board.
The risk is “the medicine is too severe so that, like chemotherapy, it puts the patient into decline,”
Indeed, this is a risk and one which I (and others) have been banging on about the last 2 years, but the one I really liked was the comment by Ralf Ahrens from Frankfurt Trust and the simple yet crucial question;
“There is this central question of where does growth come from.”
Well, well. Aren’t we coming full circle here?
Allow me to repeat three questions I posed recently in relation to the ongoing efforts to solve the the crisis in many European economies.
- How do you correct external competitiveness deficiency from within a currency union at the same time as implementing fiscal austerity without risking debt levels to spin out of control?
- How long should Southern Europe and Ireland endure deflation relative to the core to restore external competitiveness (will Germany accept a lower external surplus as result)?
- How might a sovereign restructuring in a Eurozone economy play out?
The first question is really the main issue at hand. In the absence of nominal currency devaluation you need to impose wage restraint and deflation in order to correct a large external balance. As this large external imbalance is reflected in a large domestic debt level there is a real risk that if the entire correction must come from the domestic price level, the level of debt in itself will spin out of control which then manifests itself in either large scale private sector defaults or default on the sovereign level.
The main message here is simple macroeconomics. If you combine deflation and negative nominal growth rates over a prolonged period of time and given an already elevated debt level; your overall level of debt relative to the value of your activities (GDP) quickly become unsustainable.
So how do correct then? Well, not without a little help from your friends which brings us to the second question.
Consequently, this is not only about the European periphery suffering, it is about them suffering more than everyone else. Indeed, the recent ascent of the Euro is no good for them in so far as goes competitiveness outside the Eurozone and even inside Europe, it is starting to look like everybody’s race to the bottom in terms of on whose back intra-Eurozone imbalances are supposed to correct. Naturally, a steady depreciation of the Euro would, strictu sensu, be welcome news for Greece, Ireland et al. Yet, this seems far off at the moment with the Fed doing the printing and the ECB reluctant to add further stimulus. On the concrete question of time, you just need to slice up the effects of say, a 30 % nominal devaluation (e.g. against the Euro or USD) which is the likely alternative scenario, I think, if any of the most troubled Eurozone economy had their own currencies. It then means that we would need to see a prolonged period of relative deflation to Core Europe.
This however would in itself be problematic since 5-10 years of slow pain would almost certainly result in a Japan type lost decade, but also be almost impossible from within the Eurozone (i.e. politically). So by proof of elimination we reach question three. Indeed, PIMCO’s El-Erian recently argued that Greece is likely to default within 3 years and that this need not be cataclysmic. I fully agree.
It is impossible to do any form of calculation here since we don’t have any numbers that are coherent, but surely I would think that something along the lines of a 30% haircut on the principal and a notable extension of maturity is a likely result (but really, I have no idea!). The alternative would be that the rest of the periphery follows Ireland’s example and simply leave the private market (although China et al. have indeed been fishing lately) and thus, they would have to be capitalised slowly from within an intra Eurozone structural fund (or through outrigth monetization by the ECB, but this is not going to happen I think).
In the event of restructuring, big the question of the hole left on the balance sheet of Eurozone debt holders of peripheral bonds (let us think about foreign holders later). A couple of potential solutions have already been put forward.
Leaving aside the Structural Fund which is not supposed to recapitalise private entities (at least not yet) it would mean that those banks either would have to enter the market to recapitalise, be recapitalised by their domestic governments (a deal which could form part of the default), or simply transfers bonds at par to the ECB which tend would have to take the hair cut on its balance sheet.
At the end of the day, this kind of rhetoric is still seen as fearmongering and disruptive in the Eurozone collective since there is still a strong sense of resolve around the fact that no sovereign in the Eurozone may be allowed to default/restructure on its debt. As such, you could argue that one glaring omission in my analysis is that I don’t consider the costs of default. Well, they would naturally be substantial not only for the individual economies but for the Eurozone itself. However, when you run even a rudimentary simulation of the likely numbers it is pretty easy to see how this cannot go on. There is no exogenous source of economic growth that will help the periphery move in to a virtuous circle, there is only one big vicious one in which more austerity brings lower growth and deflation which in turn affects the level of debt to GDP.
I admire resolve and I even believe that it is merited, but this is only to the extent that Germany (and France) are willing to assume their part of the bill (which will be very big) or to the extent that the ECB decides to employ wholly new and Fed-like policy tools.
Absent this and leaving aside the question of whether Germany and France realistically would be able to foot the bill at all, the only question is if the markets are starting to get it, when will the shoe drop on the level of macroeconomic policy making?
Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts
By Claus Vistesen, on October 15th, 2010
It is not that I don’t enjoy a good old bull/teflon run as much as the next guy but just to provide some form of balance to the current QEasy Money Hymn I almost choked on my oatmeal earlier this week when I loaded up Bloomberg and learned that everything suddenly was fine in the erstwhile whipping boy (alongside Greece) of the Eurozone as the economy apparently has the cash to starve off any foreign bond vigilantes;
(quote Bloomberg)
Ireland expects its 20 billion-euro ($28 billion) cash pile to stave off a Greek-style rescue, as the government taps the funds to avoid paying record rates to borrow. The government canceled next week’s debt auction and another scheduled for November after the yield on 10-year Irish bonds rose to a record 454 basis points above benchmark German bunds. Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has said Ireland is “fully funded” through the middle of 2011. The country has 4.4 billion euros of bonds maturing next year, compared with about 27 billion euros in Greece.
I find this fascinating for a number of reasons. First of all there is root of the problem itself in the form of Anglo Irish Bank which will cost Ireland perhaps up to 30 billion Euros and will be responsible for a fiscal deficit in 2010 to the tune of of an unbelievable 32% of GDP. Naturally, this is expected to be a one-off expense and the whole exercise on cancelling auctions is because Ireland feels that the yields it would be able to borrow for at the moment would not reflect the long term health of the economy.
This makes sense. Why borrow if you don’t have to and especially if you are not happy with the terms put forward by your potential creditor. On this point I am, in principle, on Ireland’s side as it were. But what if costs for bailing out Irish banks are understated? Indeed, what is the real cost of assuming the entire bad loan book of Irish banks with no haircuts to bondholders or no restructuring of any kind? I don’t know, but more importantly; I am not sure the people concerned in Ireland know either. After all, the fact we are now looking at a +30% deficit as % of GDP in 2010 was not part of any of the official rescue manuals I think.
Consequently, let me throw another number at you; 3 % of GDP which is the fiscal deficit targeted for 2014 and which the market is supposed to take as collateral for a lower yield on Irish debt offerings in 2011.
Yet, is this plausible?
Basically, you have a confirmed 32%/GDP deficit today and you are promising to bring this down to 3% in a manner of 3 years. What are your assumptions here? What kind of nominal growth in GDP is build into the model? How will national debt evolve over this period? I am sure the good people at the National Treasury Management Agency are busy calculating just that as I type, but the problem is more profound.
Ireland has basically made the bet that in using its remaining reserves today and thus avoiding going to the market it can bring back its house in order and then return to borrow at that time, but this is circular thinking. The main question is whether Ireland has enough money to bail out its banking system such as it is. Alan McQuaid, quoted by Bloomberg, puts it well;
“They are taking a gamble that the budget will deliver and get spreads down,” said Alan McQuaid, chief economist at Bloxham Stockbrokers in Dublin. “If that doesn’t happen, maybe you skip a few auctions at the beginning of the year. But at some point, you have to go to the market. If you can’t go to the market, then you have to look at outside aid.”
And Danske is even more sanguine, but then again they would be wouldn’t they as they own National Irish Bank and thus effectively depend on this gamble to succeed (at least in terms of the health of their Irish operations).
“The government has a significant problem” unless yields fall, said Soerensen of Danske Bank, which owns Dublin-based National Irish Bank. “But it isn’t under any immediate pressure to raise cash, and even in the unlikely event that the government had to call upon IMF/EU aid, investors would still get paid. There isn’t going to be a default.”
But I think that we are still missing the main point here. This is not only a question of how dubious it is that Ireland can get its house back in order (and what kind of economic pain it will take) it is also a matter of whether it is in Ireland’s interest to enter the market at all. Essentially, the current interest rates are unpayable for Ireland today but also in the middle of 2011 since this is where, presumably, the full force of fiscal contraction will be put on the Irish economy.
So, my reading of this is that Ireland has now played itself into whatever deal it can broker with the IMF and EU and while I may be persuaded otherwise by a credible fiscal plan it is not the actual promise I will be looking at but the assumptions of debt/gdp and nominal GDP growth which underlies it.
Until then, Ireland can continue to heed the old proverb that cash is king; it sure is … until you run out.
By Claus Vistesen, on October 5th, 2010
The Eurozone has its “does not compute” moment
First, it was there, then it left and then suddenly the Spanish prime minister Zapatero assured us that it was gone, but somehow the lingering European crisis of confidence in relation to the status of sovereign and private debt sustainability in key membership economies never seem to have gone away.
Now, please don’t think that the headline above is in any way related to the flurry of whether Spain has been faking its GDP numbers. FT Alphaville ran the story, got cold feet and took it down (although I reckon you can easily find the report if you try). Now, the flurry was real and the questions asked by the report fair I think. Clearly, if it was such nonsense it should be easily refutable and while some of the explanations I have seen for the the sudden dis-correlation between the Market Services Gross Value Added (GVA) and the Indicator of Activity in the Service Sector (IASS/SSAI) make sense (especially the import component point) the Spanish statistical office is still mute and the ministry of finance is just playing the part of an insulted child. So, if those of us who are skeptic are so stupid then really, now is the chance for those much more clever than us to give us a lecture.
But I digress.
Moving on, Ireland has recently been at the center stage of things and the latest number from the finance ministry is that the butcher’s bill for bailing out Anglo Irish amounts to more than 30% of GDP in the form of a running deficit in 2010. That is a almost unbelievable number by any standards and I would take very little comfort here in the fact that Ireland remains fully financed until mid 2011. What really matters here is that with this amount of debt overhang that needs to be transferred to the government’s balance sheet and ultimately over to the private sector in the form of taxes Ireland is being played straight into the hands of the IMF and the European Stability Fund. But this is not only about Ireland since the all the fundamental questions are still left unanswered.
- How do you correct external competitiveness deficiency from within a currency union at the same time as implementing fiscal austerity without risking debt levels to spin out of control?
- How long should Southern Europe and Ireland endure deflation relative to the core to restore external competitiveness (will Germany accept a lower external surplus as result)?
- How might a sovereign restructuring in a Eurozone economy play out?
The last one is particularly important since no official inside the Eurozone has even begun to voice an opinion on this even if it is blatantly obvious that this is where we are headed. I mean, I am not talking about the entire stock of PIGS bonds being wiped out and marked to 0, but merely of a reasonable and fair estimate of the haircut we all know that is coming. Yet, so much water has gone under the bridge that it is difficult to see how such a memo would look. For starters, the stress tests carried out recently on Eurozone banks would have to be, uhm, redone with proper assumptions of haircuts and impairment in the context of real sovereign stress in the Eurozone.
However, what really clinched it for me and what leads me to note that we have now had one of (several to come) those does not compute moments was Wolfgang Munchau’s basic bond arithmetic of the the European Stability Funds lending conditions and the means with which it allows access to its funds. From FT Alphaville …
Münchau comes up with a rough estimate that borrowers could end up paying a total interest rate of about 8 per cent — far above and much more than the 5 per cent Greece paid when it tapped its €110bn European Union emergency loan back in May.
BarCap’s back-of-the-envelope calculations has the total borrowing cost above 8 per cent. That’s about 80bps (3m Euribor) + 300bps (EFSF mark-up) + 150bps (due to the fact that the interest has to be paid on the whole loan) + 300bps (service fees). As BarCap also note, requesting EFSF funds would also likely entail some strict policy conditions, similar to IMF conditionality.
Now, let me be quite clear here. 8% or even anything in that vicinity makes the whole exercise quite pointless since there is no way that any of the Eurozone economies would be able to pay off their debts at these conditions. So, if one or more Eurozone economies were to find themselves in a situation where they could no longer tap international bond markets due to the yield on offer, the alternative would be no better. I called this a catch 22 recently and even wrote a paper, in part, about it. However, Munchau’s article makes it all so clear. Whatever funds that are paid out of the stability fund at these conditions would in itself be subject to a haircut in the context of an inevitable sovereign debt restructuring and thus it is really and ultimately a question of on whose balance sheet the final loss will be put. One would only hope that this soon will come to compute a little better with the agenda that will and has to emerge in the Eurozone at some point.
Some (academic) food for thought
As many of you might have noticed I am about to start my research degree here in the UK and while I am in general surprised and disappointed about the utter lack of creativity on the part of the economic faculty in terms of constructing a curriculum with the sole purpose of testing your abilities in math (rather than you know, uhm economics!) I hope and believe it will be fun. On that note and while the cracks have clearly not yet transcended to the way underlings such as myself are treated, I found the following paper (The Dahlem Report) interesting and important (thanks Scott for sending it over).
The economics profession appears to have been unaware of the long build-up to the current worldwide financial crisis and to have significantly underestimated its dimensions once it started to unfold. In our view, this lack of understanding is due to a misallocation of research efforts in economics. We trace the deeper roots of this failure to the profession’s insistence on constructing models that, by design, disregard the key elements driving outcomes in real-world markets. The economics profession has failed in communicating the limitations, weaknesses, and even dangers of its preferred models to the public. This state of affairs makes clear the need for a major reorientation of focus in the research economists undertake, as well as for the establishment of an ethical code that would ask economists to understand and communicate the limitations and potential misuses of their models.
Now, as an immediate testament to the importance of this paper and echoing my points above I can say for certain that my generation of economists will be trained no differently on a PhD level than they were, I suspect, 30 years ago. Same old axioms, same old models, same booring (and often stupidly difficult) math problems. Two of the co-signers of the paper are David Colander and Alan Kirman and I recommend readers to have a look at their work if you want a good critique of the way we (still) do economics today (don’t forget James E. Hartley too). I don’t want to be a cry-baby, but surely; running through the proof of why a utility function should and might exist (in mathematical terms) is not only waste of good time, it is an insult to any serious economist eager to get on with some real work. But now, I really(!) digress.
To balance things a bit I did actually find much enjoyment in Oded Galor’s recent synthesis of what really kicked off the demographic transition back in the days of the industrial revolution.
This paper develops the theoretical foundations and the testable implications of the various mechanisms that have been proposed as possible triggers for the demographic transition.Moreover, it examines the empirical validity of each of the theories and their signi
cance forthe understanding of the transition from stagnation to growth. The analysis suggests thatthe rise in the demand for human capital in the process of development was the main triggerfor the decline in fertility and the transition to modern growth.
Here in the 21st century such a paper essentially reads as a piece of economic history as the demographic transition never really ended and whereas some form of the quantity/quality tradeoff might have started the whole process, we are now dealing with a much more complicated process in which both a quantum and tempo effect acts as a driver of the fertility decline (and eventual or potential(?) catch-up as the tempo effect fades). However, Galor’s recent paper provides an important finetuned representation of the way we think about the quantity/quality trade off and as such it is important.
I also take more than a passing interest here since it is after all my field and while I eventually opted for the original quantity/quality model by Becker and Lewis in my thesis I have almost been turned to Oded Galor’s theory with this recent paper. Yet, the two theories are still ultimately very close to each other and for laymen the finer grained theoretic subtleties of the trade-off are not important.
Perhaps you should read Oded Galor first and then the Dahlem paper afterwards. Actually, yes you definitely should!
|
|
Most Popular Posts