The Self Preservation Society

AKA the ECB...

There’s been a lot of handbags between the ECB and EU leaders this week, after some leading EU politicians admitted that there could be some form of debt restructuring of Greek debt. Both Olli Rehn, EU Economics Commissioner, and Jean-Claude Juncker , Prime Minister of Luxembourg, suggested that there could be an extension of loans given to Greece (although its not clear whether this would just involve the official loans or private sector loans as well).

Needless to say, this did not sit well with the ECB, particularly ECB board member Jurgen Stark. After suggesting that any form of restructuring would be a catastrophe, Stark also accused “vested interests in the US and the UK” of undermining the economic adjustment programme in Greece. He also issued what seemed somewhat like a veiled threat, saying that the ECB may not accept Greek bonds as collateral for ECB lending to banks after a restructuring – a move which would probably push Greek banks into bankruptcy.

At first glance it is surprising just how removed the ECB is from the views of the rest of Europe (as we've argued for some time, restructuring is probably inevitable - an increaing number of people are coming around to this view). But ultimately, the ECB's posturing simply comes down to self interest. The ECB is holding masses of Greek bonds (we’d reckon around €60bn in nominal value) in addition to €140bn in state related collateral it has accepted from Greek banks. This €200bn exposure to Greece then presents the potential for large losses for the ECB under a Greek restructuring.

You may ask: why does the ECB care? It’s backed by eurozone governments, and therefore taxpayers, so they will ultimately foot the bill.

True – and another unfortunate potential hidden cost for eurozone taxpayers – but going cap in hand to eurozone governments to ask to be recapitalised after these losses would be incredibly humiliating for the ECB. It would also give eurozone leaders huge leverage over the ECB on future economic decisions and policy. The only other choice for the ECB is even worse though - printing money to cover its losses. This would mean abandoning its raison d’être (price stability) instead going down a path that could lead to pretty scary levels of inflation.

Arguing anything other than staying the course would therefore probably have dire consequences for the ECB, highlighting the impossible situation it’s managed to get itself into.

Is the ESM another €700bn bazooka pointed in the wrong direction?

We’ve just got our hands on the draft treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which comes into force in 2013 and is the follow up to the original eurozone bailout packages - dubbed the €750bn bazooka back in 2010.

As expected, the ESM will have an effective lending capacity of €500bn, but to maintain a Triple-A rating it needs to be backed up by €700bn in capital – pretty huge figures. This means that Germany will be on the hook for guaranteeing €190bn! We can’t imagine German taxpayers will be too happy about having that potential liability hanging over their heads for the next 12 years (at which point the fund will be reassessed). Moreover, given the structure of the fund, €80bn in capital must be paid in initially, meaning Germany has to pay in €4.3bn per year for the next five years – this could even increase if someone – yes we’re looking at Greece – puts in an early request for funding.

We were also wondering what would happen if one of the countries – this time we’re looking at all of the PIIGS – was unable to cover its share of the fund. The draft treaty seems slightly contradictory. First it states:

“The liability of each ESM Members shall be limited, in all circumstances, to its portion of the authorized capital at its issue price. No ESM Member shall be liable, by reason of its membership, for obligations of the ESM. The obligations of ESM Members to contribute to capital in accordance with this Treaty are not affected if such ESM Member becomes eligible for or is receiving financial assistance from ESM.”

This would suggest that no country would be forced to shoulder anyone else’s burden. However, it later adds:

“If an ESM Member fails to meet the required payment under a capital call…a revised increased capital call shall be made to all ESM Members with a view to ensuring that the ESM receives the total amount of paid-in capital needed.”

So in actual fact, if one or more members failed to put up their share, all the other members will be asked to cover it (with the expectation of getting it back, but, as we're beginning to see, that’s far from guaranteed in the eurozone crisis).

The treaty also contains some tough conditions for investors. First, ESM loans will be senior to all other loans except the IMF, which we expected. Second, the disbursement of any financial aid from the ESM will require “adequate and proportionate” private sector involvement (read debt restructuring or at least rescheduling) and thirdly, all eurozone government bonds issued post July 2013 must include a standardised form of Collective Action Clauses - which stop a small minority of bondholders holding up any restructuring deal by waiting for better terms.

Although this is intended to help shift the burden from taxpayers (a good thing in principle), giving investors such substantial warning is likely to turn the market for some European sovereign debt into a ghost town. Why buy new debt when you're being explicitly told that you're first in the firing line?

How this will help wean Ireland, Portgual and especially Greece off their current ECB and EU bailouts is far from clear and could turn the ESM into a self-fulfilling bailout fund.

As the conditions for bondholder involvement highlight, the ESM might eventually bring a necessary eurozone debt restructuring to fruition but by that point the write downs will need to be huge and such a large amount of the debt of peripheral countries will be owned by the taxpayer that the private sector burden will still end up being minimal.

*** Update 11am 20 May 2011:
Writing in the FT Quentin Peel suggests that the latest version of the treaty does not stipulate that ESM loans will be senior to private creditors. Having reviewed the version we have it looks as if its still mentioned in the preamble but not the body of the treaty, so it is possible that it could be removed, which would be big news. But since negotiations are ongoing its not completely clear whether it will be removed or not. We'll keep you posted on the situation...

Half Time score on EU short selling regulation: Common sense 1, Poltical motives 1

Pardon for this uncharacteristically jargon-heavy blog-post...

Following our event on the proposed EU regulation of short selling in March, we expressed our concerns that political motives were trumping common financial sense at that point in the negotiations (based on the European Parliament’s proposal). It looked as if certain EU politicans had got one over on the markets (or so the politicans would like to present it) with a proposed ban on uncovered credit default swaps (CDS) and extending a ban on naked short selling to the sovereign debt markets.

Now, having examined the latest proposal to come out of the recent meeting of EU finance ministers, its looks as if the common sense is slowly gaining some ground back.

For starters, they’ve left CDS largely alone, apart from a clause which allows CDS activities to be temporarily banned in exceptional circumstances if all national regulators agree (which gives the FSA an effective veto).

The proposal still bans naked short selling (as it was ultimately designed to do), including sovereign debt, but this can be rescinded if it is seen to harm liquidity in sovereign debt markets. Interestingly, short selling of sovereign debt is allowed if it is seen as hedging against a corresponding long position. The European Securities Market Authority (ESMA) is mostly given a coordination role, it can attempt to rescind or extend the ban on an EU-wide basis but, again, it requires the consent of national authorities to do so.

The transparency rules are still included, stating that any investor with a significant net short position in shares must disclose it to regulators and to the markets if above a certain threshold. Importantly, this has been watered down in reference to sovereign debt so that no public disclosure is necessary. Public disclosure of short positions isn't uncomplicated but ultimately its impact will depend on the exact threshold levels and the format in which it is disclosed, both details which are yet to be announced.

Clearly, the Council's proposal is better than what some countries, such as France, had pushed for, particularly in relation to sovereign debt. It looks as if, at least in this round of the negotiations, the common sense approach - not least in terms of avoiding cutting off sources of liquidity for struggling eurozone countries - has been taken to heart. However, the negotiations are far from over, with the European Parliament still pushing for its far tougher proposal.

Member states and MEPs will now have to try to find a compromise between their respective proposals (with some member states no doubt using those negotiations trying to win back concessions that they horse-traded away - that's the nature of co-decision and Qualified Majority Voting).

So while this is pretty good news, it's only the half-time score.

Spring cleaning

The EU has today released its spring forecast, which updates last autumn’s economic forecasts for EU (and related) countries.

Despite our (relatively) chirpy title it’s far from happy reading.

The EU now expects Greek debt to reach 157.7% of GDP in 2011 and 166.1% in 2012. We can’t help but think that this backs up our (and many others') claim that the bailout has been a complete failure in Greece (combine this with talk of a second bailout only a year after the first and they’re almost making our point for us).

It’s not just Greece either. Irish debt is expected to reach 112% this year and 117.9% next. While Portugal’s debt is forecast to hit 101.7% by the end of the year and go on to 107.4% in 2012. Only a few months ago Portugal’s debt was expected to be around 82% this year, that’s a whopping 20% increase in only a few months!

All in all the figures and the report make fairly grim reading. Over the past year we have seen these sets of figures continuously revised upwards, yet the EU and the ECB continue to maintain that the adjustment programmes they’ve laid out for these countries are achievable and are having a substantial impact.

We think it’s about time the EU started accepting the reality of its own figures and added a debt restructuring to its tools for cleaning up the eurozone debt crisis this spring.

Währungsunion: Trennung als letztes Mittel
FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE: Kann ein Mitgliedsland aus der Währungsunion austreten? In der Europäischen Zentralbank ist man zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass dies ohne einen Austritt aus der EU nicht vorstellbar sei. Welche Antwort gibt das Völkerrecht?

Die Reaktionen sind heftig. Der Vorsitzende der Euro-Gruppe, Luxemburgs Regierungschef Juncker, nennt einen Austritt Griechenlands aus der Währungsunion eine „dumme Idee“. Und der griechische Ministerpräsident Papandreou klagt über diese „Provokation“, die zeige, welchen Gefahren sein Land ausgesetzt sei. Doch niemand sagt: „Das geht gar nicht.“

Dabei sind manche Bündnisse durchaus für die Ewigkeit angelegt. Sie sind zumindest auf unbestimmte Zeit geschlossen - das gilt für die Ehe wie für die Europäische Union. Bis zum Inkrafttreten des Vertrages von Lissabon kannte die Gemeinschaft auch kein Austrittsrecht, kein vertraglich geregeltes, wohlgemerkt. Nunmehr heißt es: „Jeder Mitgliedstaat kann im Einklang mit seinen verfassungsrechtlichen Vorschriften beschließen, aus der Union auszutreten.“ » | Von Reinhard Müller | Montag, 09. Mai 2011

FAZ: Das Drachmendrama: Das griechische Statistikamt arbeitet mittlerweile zuverlässig. Manch einer wünscht sich jedoch, die aktuellen Zahlen wären erfunden. Sie zeigen: Die Bevölkerung ist zutiefst verunsichert - Spekulationen über einen Euro-Ausstieg verstärken dieses Gefühl. » | Von Michael Martens | Sonntag, 08. Mai 2011

FAZ: Das Scheitern: Die großen Länder des Euro-Raums haben die Griechen ins Gebet genommen. Das Land müsse endlich seine Hausaufgaben machen. Die Geheimniskrämerei um das Treffen verdeutlicht die Brisanz. » | Kommentar | Von Holger Steltzner | Sonntag, 08. Mai 2011

Rettungspaket zwingt Portugal zu radikalem Kurswechsel
REUTERS DEUTSCHLAND: Lissabon/Berlin (Reuters) - Portugal muss unter der Obhut von Europäischer Union und IWF das Ruder radikal herumreißen.

Die Kreditgeber verlangen im Gegenzug für das 78 Milliarden Euro schwere Hilfspaket ein Anpassungsprogramm, das unter anderem lange verzögerte Reformen am Arbeitsmarkt vorsieht. "Portugal muss viel offener werden gegenüber dem Wettbewerb", sagte IWF-Verhandlungsführer Poul Thomsen am Donnerstag in Lissabon nach Abschluss der Verhandlungen über das Hilfspaket, die von EU, IWF und Europäische Zentralbank geführt wurden.

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel drängt auf realistische Wachstumsannahmen für das Programm. Bundeswirtschaftsminister Rainer Brüderle forderte das Land auf, seine Probleme mit der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit anzupacken. "Entscheidend ist, dass Solidarität keine Einbahnstraße ist", sagte er. EZB-Präsident Jean-Claude Trichet hob hervor, eine breite politische Unterstützung für das Hilfsprogramm sei wichtig.

Mit der Einigung erhält der Euro-Staat nach Griechenland und Irland als drittes Mitgliedsland der Währungsunion Finanzhilfen seiner Partnerländer sowie von EU und IWF. Der Internationale Währungsfonds übernimmt mit 26 Milliarden Euro ein Drittel der Portugal-Hilfen. Wenn sich die Aufteilung der Kredite und Garantien an den bisherigen Schlüsseln orientiert, kommt auf Deutschland insgesamt ein Anteil von ungefähr 15 Milliarden Euro zu. » | Donnerstag, 05. Mai 2011

You call that austerity?

We imagine that will be the response by many in Athens and Dublin to the conditions which have been announced along with the €78bn bailout deal for Portugal. Jose Socrates, the caretaker Portuguese PM, was almost boasting on TV last night about how much more favourable the terms were for Portugal compared to Greece and Ireland. In the cold light of day though, most of the details we’ve seen so far focus on what won’t happen rather than what will, raising the question: Where are the necessary savings actually going to come from? That should be slightly concerning for taxpayers across the EU.

The point that has attracted most attention is the easing of the deficit cutting programme. But in actual fact the targeted cut is higher than before, given the change in the level of the deficit.

Previous 2010 estimate and 2011 target: 7.3% and 4.6% = change of 2.7%

New 2010 estimate and 2011 target: 9.1% and 5.9% = change of 3.2%

Most observers, including us, didn’t expect Portugal to be able to achieve its original level of cuts, let alone a higher level - especially when combined with lower growth prospects. That was before we even found out what was not going to be cut…

According to Socrates the conditions will not include cuts to: minimum wages, public sector pay, education spending and healthcare. In addition, there will be no additional public sector job cuts and the retirement age will not be increased. That is a huge list of things that will be left untouched, especially since savings of 3.2% of GDP are expected.

So, seriously, where is the money coming from?

Well, there are expected to be some, limited, cuts to higher scale state pensions as well as a decrease in the amount and duration of unemployment benefit. There is also a plan to raise VAT on electricity. In terms of increasing revenue, there was talk of privatising €5.3bn in public assets but not Caixa Geral de Depositos, the largest credit institution, which was widely expected to be sold to raise funds. So all in all not exactly an earth-shattering plan for saving 3.2% of GDP.

To be fair, there are more details and plans to be announced but considering what has already been taken off the table we’re not overly optimistic.

Admittedly, too much austerity would definitely be bad for the economy and finding the right balance is a hard line to tread. But for those of us who already believe the bailouts to be a waste of money, since they won’t solve any of the long term problems, these kinds of conditions are almost just adding insult to injury.

Wrestling with a Greek restructuring

The talk of a Greek restructuring has resurfaced again, following Wolfgang Schauble’s seeming acceptance that one might be necessary in the near future. It looks like he’s back tracked today, claiming he was ‘misinterpreted’, but the damage was already done - Greek cost of borrowing has already hit new highs and the euro weakened significantly.

As we’ve noted on this blog many times (here and here, for example) and in our Greece paper, a debt restructuring is unavoidable, Greece is essentially insolvent. It’s been trying hard to enact the necessary austerity but the evidence is against the government – tax revenues have barely increased, spending cuts are proving hard to enact and the population is already fed up with austerity in all its forms.

There are a couple of points which have been raised with us recently on the negatives of a Greek debt restructuring: it will take down the Greek banking sector and there is significant moral hazard. Undoubtedly, it is a risky proposal but from what we can see, there are few other options to tackle the long term (and in this case short term) problems.

On the risk to the banking sector, there is no doubt that Greek banks hold huge amounts of Greek sovereign debt but that just serves to underline that they’re unsustainable. All the large Greek banks need to be restructured and recapitalised. Combining this with a sovereign debt restructuring is just good sense. They may need some capital injection and a lot of ECB help, they may even need to be nationalised while all this takes place but in the end the newly streamlined banks will serve the economy far better than the bloated inefficient current ones ever could.

As for the moral hazard, it is a valid concern that it could encourage other nations to seek debt relief but unfortunately we’re now in the realm of lesser evils. With bailouts or fiscal transfers you get a double moral hazard – firstly to the governments, who are not being reprimanded for their profligacy, and secondly to banks, who took huge risks which they could not cover – at least a restructuring shares the burden between the two.

It looks like Greece is coming to the end of the road, a decision needs to be made otherwise a chaotic default could be on the cards before 2013 and nobody wants that. Greece is priced out of the markets for the foreseeable future, the public is fed up with austerity and taxpayers across Europe are tired of paying to support ailing economies; what more is there to lose from a debt restructuring?

Performance problems

The problems facing German banks (and banks as a whole) have been slightly under reported in recent months. This week, though, has seen a spate of reports which pick up on just that issue.

The IMF Global Financial Stability Report pinpointed the Irish and German banks as the ones with the most "acute" need to rollover debt. Both banking sectors have about half of their outstanding debt due in the next couple of years. So expect a refinancing rush in the not too distant future (although the more immediate concern for most German banks is whether they can raise enough capital to make sure they pass the next round of stress tests).

Interestingly (and commendably), the IMF takes a much higher threshold for capital requirements than the EBA (8% compared to 5%). According to the report, a third of all European banks don't meet the IMF core capital requirements. This highlights just how lax the EBA is being in its assessments, and how precarious the position of many banks is.

According to PWC, German banks are holding €225bn in "non performing loans" - these are loans which are unlikely to be repaid (to compare: UK banks hold €175bn. Irish and Spanish banks hold €110bn and €100bn respectively). The sheer volume of risky loans held by German banks is surprising, especially considering that they hold more than the UK banking sector which is far larger. These figures are only going to increase as well, thanks to poor economic growth and the looming ECB rate rises. Once these losses start being realised they could pose a serious problem for the smaller German banks, who already have capitalisation issues.

(Yesterday it emerged that the German state of Lower Saxony will pump a further €600m of capital into regional bank NordLB, in which it holds the biggest share, aiming to help it pass EU stress tests. We're sure the Lower Saxony taxpayers are thrilled with that!)

On the surface this may seem like it detracts from the problems of the periphery and could even reduce the 'piousness' which many have accused Germany of. However, this is probably far from the truth. Unfortunately, these banking problems are systemic and not enough is being done to tackle them (or even root out their full extent).

So what needs to be done?

Well, (not that we like harping on about it) effective and transparent stress tests would be a good place to start. Combining some peripheral debt restructuring with a widespread recapitalisation programme for European banks should be the ultimate goal. This might be a painful process but it would finally deal with the issues that have been hanging around since the start of the financial crisis. There also needs to be a plan for winding down insolvent and inefficient banks (to be fair there is a 2001 directive which outlines one, but it needs updating and some political will to enforce it).

European leaders continue to turn a blind eye to the dire state of European banks and in this instance Germany is as, if not more, guilty. The level of non-performing loans, huge exposure to peripheral economies and large amounts of debt maturing highlight the trifecta of problems which European banks face; shouldn't EU leaders at least try and deal with one of them?

Procter & Gamble and Unilever Fined for Laundry Detergent Price Fixing
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Unilever and Procter & Gamble (P&G), the consumer goods giants, have been handed a €315.2m (£280m) fine for their involvement in a pan-European price-fixing ring.

The European Commission (EC) found that the two companies, together with Germany's Henkel, had colluded to fix the price of washing powder in eight continental European countries between January 2002 and March 2005.

Unilever has agreed to pay €104m and P&G €211m following the investigation which was launched in June 2008. The scale of the fines reflect the size of the groups' businesses in the eight countries.

Henkel was spared a fine after it informed the EC of the cartel's existence. P&G's fine was reduced by 50pc after it co-operated with the EC's investigation, with Unilever receiving a 25pc reduction after subsequently also co-operating. Continue reading and comment » | Jonathan Sibun | Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Why is Portugal in trouble?

Solving the problem should undoubtedly be the priority now, but looking at how Portugal got into this mess might help to formulate a solution.

Clearly there were many factors which helped to precipitate the current crisis, including numerous domestic political and policy mistakes. However, being a member of the single currency definitely seems to have played a part.

According to an interesting paper published by European Commission officials, joining the euro had the following consequences:

"The Portuguese economy went from a boom led by in the second half of the nineties to a marked slowdown in this decade (Chart 1). A major impulse for the expansion was the considerable fall in interest rates when the prospect of accession to EMU became increasingly self-validating. Nominal short-term interest rates fully converged to those at the common low level set by the ECB (Chart 2)."

The paper suggests that the "substantial fall in interest rates, [was] the main trigger for the boom", which later resulted in a bust. The interesting difference with Portugal, compared to Spain, Ireland and Greece, is that it experienced the infamous boom - bust dynamics before it entered the eurozone, but still because of the "prospect of accession to EMU", as the officials put it.

The eurozone's "sleeping pill" dynamics (as Herman Van Rompuy puts it) have prevented investors from forcing the country into unpopular, but necessary, reforms to boost competitiveness, resulting in Portugal becoming 21% less competitive relative to Germany over the past decade (this looks to be true of the past and current crisis).

So when Portugal experienced its bust, long before Spain and Ireland experienced theirs, there wasn't a currency which could come under strain and thereby discipline the politicians. This was surely one of the reasons for the consistently sluggish growth in Portugal following its bust.

There is, obviously, more to it though. Thanks to the ECB's artificially low interest rates, which were designed for a slow growing Germany, the country started accumulating very high levels of private debt, up to more than 200 percent of GDP (just like in Spain and Ireland, however, they managed to grow at the same time ).

On top of all of this, the Portuguese government hasn't exactly been a shining example of sound budgetary management. It has run large budget deficits for many years and has accumulated a significant level of debt for an economy the size of Portugal's (both the debt and deficit figures for last year were recently revised upwards as well).

Fundamentally however, an overvalued currency which prevented growth (the Escudo would have decreased in value following the original bust), combined with interest rates which were an ongoing stimulus to take on new debt, left Portugal with a decade of low growth. The resulting fall in relative living standards, compared to the rest of the EU, and the fall in tax receipts further fuelled the build up of both private and pubic debt.

Interestingly, Portugal's problems can provide some hint at what the future may hold for Greece, Ireland and possibly Spain. Even loose monetary policy and boosts in liquidity (admittedly in debt form) didn't solve Portugal's underlying competitiveness and currency problems, in fact they may have made things worse.

These lessons from Portugal's past should be heeded by those in charge. Tackling the root causes of this crisis - eurozone imbalances, competitiveness problems and the banking crisis - is of paramount importance, as is providing for all eventualities, including a restructuring and possibly even a change in eurozone membership.

A bridge to nowhere

There’s been a lot of talk over the last couple of days about Portugal getting bridge loans from somewhere (the European Commission, bilateral loans, the ECB) to hold them over until a new government comes to power.

If the objective is to deal with the sovereign debt crisis, such a solution would really be the worst of both worlds.

Not only would this small bailout have to be condition-free (since there is no government to enact or negotiate the conditions) but it would be nothing more than a precursor to a larger bailout to be negotiated with the new government. Neither of these bailouts will solve anything (as we pointed out in our Portugal paper); the country is basically insolvent and uncompetitive within the eurozone and beyond.

Regardless, no one seems to have any idea where a condition free loan would actually come from. As FT Alphaville points out, EFSM, IMF and even bilateral loans come with conditions (although we agree that the latter is currently the most likely option). The ECB has been eerily silent during the back and forth on this issue, suggesting that it is strongly opposed to expanding its government bond buying to fund Portugal (although we already knew that).

Oh, and just for good measure the caretaker government continues its line of denying that any talks with the EU over short term loans, or otherwise, exist.

Meanwhile, back at the fort, Portugal held another short term bond auction, which raised €1bn but at 5.9% for a one year loan (at that interest rate you could get a €70bn bailout from the EU/IMF). To add insult to injury Portuguese banks announced they would stop buying Portuguese government bonds (because even they have accepted that the debt will be restructured). In case you were wondering, it looks like the Portuguese social security fund bought most of the debt on offer today, meaning that when it gets restructured a large chunk of the populations’ retirement capital will be wiped out.

Clearly, a bridge doesn’t help if you’ve already sunk.

Is the ECB becoming a bad bank?

Its common knowledge that the ECB has been providing massive amounts of liquidity to eurozone governments both directly (through the purchase of government bonds) and indirectly (by taking on large amount of government debt as collateral for lending to banks). The extent of this – and therefore also the implications – are less clear, mostly thanks to the ECB’s reluctance to publish any data on its holdings of collateral or government debt.

FT Alphaville highlights a note from JP Morgan, which suggests that the indirect exposure of the ECB to the Greek state is massive - and then we mean massive. JPM estimates that Greek banks have posted almost €140bn in state related collateral with the ECB (€85bn of state guaranteed bank paper, €45bn of Greek government bonds owned by Greek banks and €8bn of zero-coupon bonds which the Greek government had lent to Greek banks in 2008). Combining this with the direct holdings of government debt (thought to be around €60bn, as we noted in our paper on Greece) you get total exposure of the ECB to the Greek state of around €200bn.

That is a phenomenal amount.

Though these amounts are slightly speculative at the moment, there are some interesting and possibly disturbing implications here, particularly for those of us who believe that Greece will need to restructure its debt at some point soon (not that we’re alone, this group includes nearly all investors and apparently the IMF). This exposure to the Greek state is in the direct firing line if a restructuring occurs. First, there are likely to be large write downs on the direct holdings of Greek government bonds (at least 35% to have any significant impact on the debt burden) and secondly, the state backed paper could become close to worthless. Potential losses are still hard to quantify but would easily be upwards of €40bn.

Comparing this loss to the capital and reserves which the ECB holds, around €79bn, shows the potentially difficult situation which the ECB could find itself in following a Greek restructuring. Essentially the ECB would either have to ask eurozone governments for an injection of capital or or try to print their way back to an acceptable level of capital and reserves.

Therefore, following a Greek restructuring the ECB may have may face a difficult choice: completely ignore its primary mission (i.e. price stability) and print money or go hand in cap to governments - like the bad banks in the financial crisis - and ask for cash (almost like a bail-out).

Two questions: how in the world did the ECB allow itself to get so deep into this mess? And do German politicans/economists/opinion formers understand how incredibly exposed the ECB - once dubbed the world's strongest central bank - actually is?

Emerald Isle stress tests get a gold star (for now)

Yesterday afternoon Ireland announced the results of its recent round of banking stress tests. They showed that the banks need €24bn to recapitalise; that is undoubtedly a huge number for an economy the size of Ireland’s. So why are investors not running for the hills?

Well, from our perspective at least, the Irish stress tests seem to do something that none of the ones that have gone before have – make a genuine attempt to fully estimate the potential losses which banks could face.

This is a good start and the stress tests should be commended, but more important is how the banks and the government respond to the results. Unfortunately, that has been less commendable.

The government was expected to announce a series of measures to raise the necessary capital and set the banks on a sustainable course. However, there was only talk of ‘some’ capital being raised by investors and private lenders, with the main chunk expected to still come from the €35bn allotted to the banks by the original Irish bailout. There was also no mention of bondholders taking losses or of the widely reported new ECB medium term liquidity mechanism. So what we have is some more clarity of the state of Irish banks - which is good - but we're still missing a solid, revised plan to to address the mess.

The response of the banks was also slightly worrisome. Both AIB and Irish L&P suggested that their losses will not be as high as estimated due to the nature of the Irish mortgage market and real estate sector. This is essentially a reference to forbearance – when a lender allows a borrower extra time to repay a mortgage rather than foreclosing on the property. This allows the lenders to delay the realisation of losses, while giving the impression that the extra time given is designed to give a break to struggling taxpayers. Whatever the motivation, this is only a short term policy and, unless the Irish economy has a miraculous turnaround, most borrowers will be unable to repay these loans despite an extension in maturity.

Lastly there is the issue of the deleveraging – the sale of assets to bring the deposit-to-loan ratio back to a sustainable level – or as some people are terming it, the ‘fire sale’. Irish banks will need to shed €72bn of assets by 2013, which is a massive amount to dump into fragile financial markets. The losses on these assets will, in many cases, be substantial although the stress tests claimed to have accounted for this. Whether or not they were fully able to accurately predict the market value of some of these assets, especially since they will be sold over time, remains to be seen.

So a gold star for the stress tests (relatively at least) but they’re only a start. How the government and banks respond will deter whether Irish banks can recover quickly or whether markets will lose faith in them completely - meaning that an Irish restructering and/or another bail-out could be around the corner.

Darling drops a bomb

Alistair Darling hit out at David Cameron and George Osborne today for trying to put all the blame for the UK’s participation in the €60bn European bailout fund (the EFSM) onto the previous Labour government.

Darling said:

"When you referred to the discussions that took place in May of last year in relation to the eurozone fund, you gave a somewhat incomplete account of my conversation with the now Chancellor (George Osborne),"

"We did indeed agree that we should do everything we could to keep Britain out of the main part of the rescue fund.

"But in relation to the smaller element [the EFSM] which you refer to, what we discussed was not voting against but abstention, recognising that Britain could have been out-voted - exactly the same thing that the Chancellor referred to when dealing with Ireland.”

It has been known for some time that Darling consulted Osborne before effectively nodding through the deal, but this is the first time the former has gone public with what actually happened during that extraordinarily eventful weekend back in May. Cameron and Osborne may argue that they could have been outvoted and dragged into the bailout fund anyway, but that’s not really the point. By agreeing to abstain - it that's what they did - and essentially condoning the UK’s participation in the bailout mechanism, they can hardly claim that it was all down to the Labour government and that they're therefore innocent victims of a deal struck before their time.

This whole situation is indicative of the Coalition’s approach to some of key challenges facing Europe at the moment – steer clear of controversy by shirking responsibility. Well, with a potential Portuguese bailout looming as well as new budget negotiations on the horizon it’s clear that the government will be forced to engage with the EU and make some decisions soon; they would look a whole lot better if they started taking the initiative.

Pushing for an alternative route for Portugal - a restructuring combined with a limited cash injection so that more of the burden fall on investors and less on taxpayers - would be a good place to start.

EU to Ban Cars from Cities by 2050
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour." » | Bruno Waterfield, Brussels | Monday, March 28, 2011

Splitting the difference between the BBC and the tabloids

There have been lots of numbers floating around on what a bailout of Portugal would mean for the UK. The tabloids today reported a figure of €6.8 billion, while on the BBC Today programme, Robert Peston argued that Britain would only contribute through the IMF, and possibly nothing at all.

Please bear with us as we're trying to break down what's going on here.

First, any bailout would NOT be a direct cost imposed on the UK, apart from the cash contributions the country is making to the IMF. The UK would be liable for a possible bail-out under the the so-called European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, which the Labour government signed up to in the dying hours of its administration. The mechanism involves the European Commission borrowing money on the markets and then lending it to struggling eurozone countries, using the EU budget as collateral. So far, only Ireland has tapped this fund (Greece only recieved money from the IMF and the bail-out fund that only eurozone members contribute to, the EFSF). Since the UK contributes to the EU budget, it guarantees a certain portion of the loans given to any bailout recipient under the EFSM (the UK's share is around 13.6%). However, this is still significant for UK taxpayers, as it effectively requires them to underwrite the debt of peripheral eurozone economies. It's a bit like if you were to underwrite the mortgage of your neighbours house.

Secondly, in terms of the size of these liabilities, we expect a bailout of Portugal to be in the region of 60-€70bn - though we've seen figures of up to €100bn floating around(clearly its a moving target which makes it difficult to predict). If Portugal needs a €70bn bail-out and the rescue operation is structured in the same way as the loans to Ireland were - one third each from the EFSM, EFSF and IMF - the UK’s liabilities would be €3.2bn (13.6% of the total) under the EFSM and €1.05bn under the IMF. This gives a total UK liability of €4.25bn (if the bail-out is restricted to €60bn, then the UK's liabilities will be in the region of €3.7bn).

Are you with us? Pardon all the acronyms - but this is EU policy, remember.

Thirdly, this is assuming that the EFSM - which, again, the UK is partially underwriting - is in fact activated and used. If EU leaders decide to only look to the IMF and the EFSF, we're looking at a different scenario.

So, the question is, will the EFSM be used in a Portuguese bail-out? The BBC's Robert Peston gave no explanation on the Today programme for his assertion that the UK wouldn't be implicated in a rescue operation on the Iberian peninsula. However, on his blog, he seems to suggest that the EFSM will only be used once the eurozone-only fund, the EFSF, has been exhausted (which it won't be in the case of Portugal).

This is a possible scenario (as we explain in our Portugal briefing) - which will clearly limit the UK's liabilities - but it involves some pretty heroic assumptions. EU leaders are currently bogged down in hugely complicated talks over how to boost the fire power of the EFSF (the fund is currently worth €440bn on paper, but a lot less in reality) in order to convince markets that the eurozone has what it takes to save the euro. A deal is currently being blocked by Finland, due to domestic opposition to underwrite the debt liabilities of other countries, with Finnish national elections looming.

Only involving the EFSF and IMF in a bail-out would leave the EFSF almost completely tapped out. And if markets suspect that the EFSF is runing dry, the euro might be in for an even bumpier ride. Therefore, there will be many EU leaders out there who will want to use a large chunk from the EU-wide EFSM (which still have €37.5bn in it).

In addition, the EFSM is much faster to get off the ground as, unlike the EFSF, it's decided by majority voting. The case of Finland (and also Slovakia which refused to take part in the Greek bail-out), shows why this matters. Ergo, there is a very strong case for suspecting that the EFSM will be used, and therefore, that the UK will become indirectly liable.

That Peston seems to be omitting this discussion - which touches on so many important aspects of the ongoing eurozone crisis - is surprising.

Fourthly, the UK tabloids today featured pieces on what would happen if the EFSM was tapped completely (i.e. if it used all the remaining funds). Well, there is currently €37.5bn left, of which the UK is liable for €5.17bn. However, it's very unlikely that this entire amount will used in a Portugal bailout, since the cost will be shared with first, the IMF and most likely also the EFSF. Our estimates that we set out above are far more likely.

So still lots of uncertainty. Time will tell.

Don't fear the R-word

The Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates resigned last night, after failing to get his new austerity measures through the Portuguese Parliament. This has pushed Portugal into a political crisis, and forced them to the brink of asking for a bailout.

As our new briefing on Portugal’s economic situation shows, a bailout could amount to €60bn - €70bn. Based on the structures of previous bailouts, the UK’s contribution could amount to as much as €4.26bn in liabilities (in the form of loan guarantees). That’s a big liability for taxpayers.

That’s why we argue for a combination of a restructuring and bailout. This would shift some of the burden onto investors; it would also help put Portugal on the road to debt sustainability rather than just recycling more debt around the EU.

For you restructuring-phobes out there, we are aware of the risk of contagion, but we believe there are many factors in this instance which make this a viable course of action:

- The bailouts of Greece and Ireland have solved little, they still have no market access to fund themselves and face ever increasing debt burdens.
- Markets are already boycotting peripheral eurozone debt, how much worse can things get (if it wasn't for the ECB, Portugal would have gone bust long ago)!
- Portugal’s debt burden, although large in GDP terms, is relatively small in nominal terms (given the size of other EU countries and banks).
- Exposure to this debt is spread around the EU and does not fall heavily on peripheral economies; the European banking sector will withstand the losses it may incur (although if it coincides with other negative banks may start to wobble - but that's an argument in favour of sorting out the banks!)
- The ‘Portugal goes, Spain goes’ assumption looks to be overstated (see positive market response to Spain despite Portuguese problems). In any case a limited bailout fund should help halt the spread of contagion from Portugal.
- Unfortunately, we’re in a crisis; difficult decisions need to be taken. A restructuring now is preferable to a more costly one later. The alternative is ongoing transfers of wealth to struggling eurozone economies - the sudden rise of the "True Finns" in Finland shows why this is politically very unlikely.

The question that now needs to be answered is when can or will any of this take place? That depends on what powers a caretaker Portuguese government has, but, in our view, the sooner the better. (The double standards displayed by the opposition in bringing down the government over austerity measures, then pledging to do a better job of managing the debt and deficit levels, doesn’t fill us with confidence though).

You can read our briefing here.

Socrates needs to get philosophical

Looks like Portugal could be asking for a bailout by the end of the week.

Pedro Passos Coelho, Leader of the main opposition party, said on Saturday:

“We need external aid. The Prime Minister does not want to admit that, but the whole country has already understood it.”

He also said he will continue to oppose the new austerity measures, which are due to be voted on by the Parliament tomorrow or Wednesday.

Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates, announced that:

“Should the Parliament vote against, then the government would no longer have the means to act.”

With massive public protests against austerity in Portugal over the weekend, there seems less and less political incentive for the opposition to cave in and support the new measures. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that if the new austerity measures are voted down, Portugal will be forced to ask for a bailout.

However, given Socrates stance the government may fall if he fails to garner the support he needs.

That does not bode well given the EU summit at the end of the week. Socrates needs to get his thinking cap on…as going into summit negotiations without a government cannot be a good strategy.

A third way to bail out struggling countries

Much was discussed and a little agreed during Friday’s eurozone summit, but it was enough to give the euro a bit of a boost. Investors - going into the weekend with exceptionally low expectations - seemed pleased with the news that anything was agreed at all.

The most important and controversial measure agreed over the weekend looks to be allowing the EFSF - the eurozone's main bail-out fund - to purchase government debt, under exceptional circumstances.

The conditions imposed on any country wishing to make use of the EFSF's bond-buying scheme are pretty exceptional as well:

- EFSF can only buy bonds on the primary market (i.e. directly from governments)
- For this to take place, the government must enact an austerity programme as it would under a bailout

So what exactly is the difference between a bailout and using the EFSF to buy government bonds under these conditions? Not much, as far as we can tell.

One argument behind restricting purchases to the primary market is that it bails out governments rather than investors. Although that might be true, if the EFSF did purchase bonds in the secondary market the cost of borrowing for peripheral governments would undoubtedly fall by a lot more. There is also the added advantage of purchasing existing debt rather than issuing new debt and increasing the already heavy burden. In the end it looks like the standard EU compromise where both sides meet somewhere in the middle to achieve very little.

The decision also means that the ECB could well be forced to continue buying bonds on the secondary market, since a struggling country will think twice before signing up to strict conditions in return for the EFSF relieving them of some of their junk bonds.

What is significant, however, is that there are now three avenues through which the cost of failing economies can be transferred onto EU taxpayers - about a year ago, there were none (remember the days when some of us were foolish enough to believe that a guarantee in the EU Treaties, i.e. the no bail-out clause, actually meant something?):

1) Direct loans from one of the bail-out funds (requiring unanimity or a majority vote amongst eurozone governments)
2) The ECB buying government bonds, from the secondary market (at the discretion of the ECB)
3) The EFSF buying government bonds, directly from governments (unclear how decisions will be reached on when this can happen).

Many of the key questions remain, however. Such as:

- What interest rate will the EFSF be charging on government bonds purchased?
- Will this option be open to countries who have already received a bailout?
- How will the activation of the EFSF's bond purchasing programme be decided?
- Will Merkel be able to see this through amid domestic political resistance?

We’d hazard a guess that the EFSF would charge below market rates but above its lending rate, but we’d also expect some differentiation from the bailout loans otherwise it would look completely pointless.

Apart from that, we note that Greece - as we expected - has been granted what can only be described as a debt restructuring, though a limited one.

So on the upside, markets are slightly more re-assured. On the downside, expectations are now raised that a meaningful deal will be struck at the summit in two week's time.

When you do scratch the surface, this looks perilously close to more of the same.