Seven EU banks fail stress tests

According to the BBC:

"They include five Spanish banks - Diada, Espiga, Bianca Civica, Unnim and Cajasur.

The other two were Germany's Hypo Real Estate and Greece's ATEBank."

Here´s what the European Commission has to say about it, and here´s what the CEBS (Committee of European Banking Supervisors) has to say about it.

These stress tests and the transparency they endow the banking industry with are relevant to the extent that they decrease asymmetries of information, and the ensuing uncertainties about the quality of the EU´s banks´ balance sheets. They should thus revive investor confidence in EU banks, and the industry, if as expected they are, overall, good.

For those banks who fail to pass these tests, recapitalization awaits; either through a private take-over(Germany and Greece?) or through public lending (Spain?).

Understanding the financial crisis through the UK's LIBOR

Inspired by the previous post, here's a similar analysis of the Leading interbank offered rates for the pound. I've been compiling some data to do the same for Euribor rates, but it's taking me a while. The source for the events is the BBC.

Greece will be bailed out before it defaults or restructures

So it seems that Greece will actually need to be bailed out. Wolfgang Munchau offers a good explanation of the underlying dynamics and mechanisms, while Jean Quatremer provides a more accessible version, for those who speak French. Its particularly relevant in terms of the accounting and maths of it all. Please read them if you have a chance. I must say I identify more with the optimistic perspective of M. Quatremer, in that Greece will be bailed out. I'm not saying it won't default. I'm just saying it will be bailed out and if that's not enough, then it will default. My hope for the bailout is that it will save Greece from falling further into a debt deflation dynamic such as the one described by Jacques Depla, which would then create real lasting problems. If this proves true, then we end up in Wolfgang Munchau's scenario number two, where the EU and the IMF bail out Greece. Contrarily to him I assume that member states can bail each other out, within the limits of some set out by article 103a of the Maastricht Treaty(in page 13), which reads as follows:

"ARTICLE 103 a 1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in this Treaty, the Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products. 2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned. Where the severe difficulties are caused by natural disasters, the Council shall act by qualified majority. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."

Granted that all of Greece's problems are not motivated by "difficulties caused by exceptional occurences beyond it control", but they are partially. As long as it is possible to determine that an economic shock is not purely endogenous, this article allows for the intervention of the Council upon a unanimous decision of its members. Given that economics is not an exact science, and that we are unlikely to create a European Court of Macroeconomic Justice, it is fair to say that as long as an economic shock is symmetrical(meaning as long as everyone else is also experiencing a recession), those who are suffering less will always be able to bail out those suffering more, even if everyone is suffering.

I also disagree with Munchau on his last comment that "the message from the EU, and from Germany in particular, is that member states are not ready to co-ordinate economic policy in the short run, and move towards a minimally sufficient fiscal union in the long run, and that as a result EMU is doomed". To me this is a syllogism. I think that the EU is more than the sum of its parts, particularly in terms of institutional reform, which is what is relevant from the point of view of fiscal

Also, if common sense is not a good enough explanation for German self interest in dealing with its neighbours, here is a fairly comprehensive review of all the possible reasons why Germany does not want to offer Greece any outrageous bailout.

This is why we need European independent revenue, ie EU taxes. This way there will be another level of government whose preferences are the result of an aggregation of the preferences of the populations of all EU member states, weighted by the machanics of the European parliament's electoral system.

This way, the greeks won't complain about Germany. They'll complain about Europe. And if Europe does not help them with structural funds, they'll burn EU flags or vote for more leftist representatives in the EP, who will be more generous with how they spend EU funds.

On a final note, this issue of the bail out from the EU has been a controversial topic since the beginning of the financial crisis, before it expanded to the rest of the economy. There's an interesting distinction that must be made. States can, under some circumstances bail each other out, the ECB cannot. Both the member states and the ECB can bail out the private sector. The explanation for this can be found in Article 104 of the Maastricht Treaty:

"ARTICLE 104

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

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to publicly-owned credit institutions which, in the context of the supply of reserves by central banks, shall be given the same treatment by national central banks and the ECB as private credit institutions."

So if you are wondering why people talk about the help that the ECB gave to businesses during the financial crisis, it did so through paragraph 2. It provided credid facilities to "private and publicly owned credit institutions." In conclusion, member states can bail eachother and their private sector out. The ECB can also bail out the private sector but not country. The ECB can increase its credit lines to private institutions all over the Euro-zone, which may then buy credit from the state. So in principle, the ECB could bail a state out. However, it is rather unlikely that the ECB will provide a credit line exclusively to one bank of a specific country, which would serve as a proxy of the state, as this would be highly frowned upon. Alternatively, it could provide that credit line to everybody, but it seems very unlikely that all those banks would then flock to a troubled country and just hand that money to it.

Government run Ponzi Schemes - Call the IMF!!

So, aside from the brief and recent comment posted yesterday, I haven't written much lately, which is good. It means I have a life. :) However, I think I ought to write something about this whole Greek mess, so as to at least have a reminder of these troubling times for the future. I have five comments about this mess:

First, why on earth is any country allowed to finance the payment of debt itself with more debt? Greece is (today) struggling to pay its debts, so it borrows to pay the debts. Why do markets even lend it the money, given the rather poor growth prospects that Greece is faced with?... It's likely that they have lent some money to Greece at lower interests in the past which now require more lending to get paid. Therefore the idea is that high interest yielding debts pay for low yielding debts. As long as lenders believe that Greece will pay, they keep on lending. So the risk really is to get to a point where Greece loses credibility, because then it will no longer be able to borrow. (this is a bit messy...). As a friend of mine reminded me, this cannot technically qualify as a Ponzi Scheme, because there are no asymmetries of information as the people purchasing Greek bonds are aware of the state of Greek finances and the implications. Indeed it is possible that the Greek government might be the one being defrauded…

Secondly, it is interesting to see the aggressive comments coming out of Greece, about German WWII reparation payments and about Anglo-Saxon media and financial conspiracies... It’s evident that the first two are political manoeuvres to confuse the electorate and shift the blame from the present government to other people. Nonetheless, I must say that the financial conspiracy does carry some weight. I’m not saying that there was any wrong doing. I’m just saying that there is enough evidence to make me believe that it would have been interesting to investigate whether there was collusion between the major lenders to Greece, the last time that it issued its debt. This idea is motivated by the fact that someone recently brought to my attention the fact that although the German bund spreads on Greek debt went up massively the last time they issued debt, the demand for it was massive. This would imply that lenders had estimated an increase in the risk of Greek defaults, but still found them to be attractive enough to want to purchase them. Because the Greek government really needed the money, its demand was rather flat, and inelastic. If there was collusion between the major financial players, then in real terms they would have behaved like a monopolist, supplying cash at an interest equal to their marginal revenue, not their marginal cost. So to go back to the beginning of this paragraph, I’m not saying that there was any wrong doing. I just think its natural to investigate whether the collusion that seems to have taken place was natural, tacit and logical or whether there was some type of explicit agreement between some of the financial actors. Both situations are possible, but only the first is legal.

Thirdly, it was interesting to read Eichengreen's article about why the Euro will not collapse, due to market arbitrage (ie: if Greece was to leave the Eurozone, firms would know that it would devalue its currency, and as such would move their assets abroad before this, so as to not have them devalued) and to practical concerns of paying machines and cash dispensers, as well as the cost and time of producing the new currency itself.

Fourthly, one thing that is becoming more talked about is the consequence of the default for other EU member states as the interdependencies in the EU financial sectors might mean that Greece defaulting on its debt would destroy the assets of some other member states financial institutions. (As illustrated in that article: This in turn would freeze lending in EU markets as markets once more become unable to distinguish between good assets and bad ones, as they did when Lehman fell. This might cause companies to go bankrupt, because they are dependent on some type of lending from the financial sector, and to consequently fire more people. Depending on the size of these interdependencies, we could either have a little glitch or another financial crisis on our hands. Lovely...

I must say that in light of all this, and particularly in light of the stupidity of some greek politicians it might actually be better to bring in the IMF. At least that way the Greeks will stop blaming other Europeans. Moreover I don't think Germany is in the mood to help a country where a government official says something like what the Greek deputy prime minister said and the government does nothing. (Actually I wouldn't be surprised if on the eve of a German led bail out, he would be fired or retire for “personal reasons”, that most political of euphemisms…) "Let the IMF let loose the Washington consensus dogs of war"

A less interesting situation, but one which takes me back to my Varieties of Capitalism days, is the understanding of why people are protesting in the streets of Athens. On this issue, there are two interesting paths to explore here. The first one is that Greece probably lacks a substantial export sector other than its shipyards (which is not little, but probably not overwhelming). This in relation to other insights on labour force reactions to economic policy and industrial relations makes me feel that the default position for labour is protest, not refrain. If it was, then Greek workers from exporting industries would protest against the protestors (for that sake the same would apply to Danish workers when Denmark joined the Deutschmark area). The other thing is that myopic self interest really is a strong force. I mean, Greece is really in a mess. If it does not tighten its belt, it will really have to default on interest payments of its debt. This would bring about a number of painful consequences, where the little business existing in Greece would leave, thus increasing unemployment, and decreasing wages, which is basically what the EU is asking Greece to do. The difference is that business would not leave if Greece did it without defaulting on its debt. However, public functionaries don't really seem to care much about that... I may sound cruel and cold, but the truth is that Greece has no alternative. One way or another it will have to decrease wages. The choice is between the process, ie whether it wants to be coerced into doing that by basic economic mechanisms or whether it decides to do so voluntarily.

Lagarde seems more enlightened...

The FT has a nice little report on David Cameron and the EU, here. Moreover, here's what Damian Chalmers has to say about selective EU law. How would he deal with the incentive for time inconsistent promises from the national council and the resulting conflict of interests. The problem is the same as the one face in the implementation of the SGP in the Eurozone: The people who are expected to carry the burden of rules (ie to be punished by them) should not, alone, be the ones expected to ensure that they are well implemented. If everybody can chose what they want, than everybody will be selective. If Damian Chalmers logic applied, the Single market agenda would have never gone forward. Trade-offs are the costs of functional coordination. Without the CAP and regional policy, there would not have been enough support for the single market. I believe however that Damian Chalmers does actually have a point, although the 15 meter rule about the fireworks is not a bad idea and would do a good job at protecting people, if people are stupid enough to want to violate it, then for god's sake, do it. There's just too much human stupidity for governments to contain. However if anyone is to decide which EU laws are constitutional or not, it should be the ECJ. My EU law is a bit rusty, to say the least, but doesn't the ECJ already do this, deriving its power from article 230 TEC? If so would it not be more appropriate to just add a provision in one of these treaties, stating that EU law is supreme over national law, except on those matters whereupon it affects aspects of national culture which do not disrupt higher goals of EU law, or something like this (what I mean is to make a law which would ensure that competition in the single market is not disrupted and that EU integration is not disrupted, but that if a silly amendment is included which disrupts national cultures, if these are harmless, where these national, cultural practices are harmless there is no reason to create conflict, and impose rule from above). Thus I propose that instead of Chalmers proposal for national EU law review councils (which FYI is what parliaments already are...) the ECJ ought to fulfil its role of judicial review, possibly aided by a treaty provision which ensures that harmless national cultural practices should not be disrupted. Then again blowing up in a fire work accident does seem harmful enough. Then again, what do I know... He's a EU law specialist! Finally, Christine Lagarde, French foreign minister has very interesting insights on the financial crisis, discretionary fiscal policy, automatic stabilizers, and on the effects of competition between China and the EU (although I assume competition of an economic nature, one is left to wonder whether her comments may also apply for foreign and military affairs) and how it may stimulate stronger cooperation between EU member states.

Potential output in the EU and a EU AD response

check this out...