The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
What made Merkel change her mind?
Or is this just Schaeuble asking for private involvement in the Ecofin while Merkel will argue for the contrary position at the Council? Economics is politics by other means
Meanwhile, the chairman of the SPD (PES!) called Schäuble's plans a placebo and dared something bolder in calling for defaults and Eurobonds. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Just as the accusations that Greeks are layabouts, etc., coming from Merkel had their impact.
How much more punishment would the average Greek citizen have withstood if Bini Smaghi, Weidmann, Merkel and Stark resisted the urge to act smugly superior? Without a doubt, MORE!
The whole edifice is built on mutual mistrust. It will therefore crumble.
Whether or not this involves a loss for me or is done "at par", I fail to comprehend how this could constitute a "credit event" in the eyes of anyone.
Now, if people perceive the I bought the new bond under duress, maybe they'll call it a default, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
This can also be done as a bond swap. I swap my existing bond for a newly issue bond, and I agree with Greece that the bond is worth the same as the old one. Mark-to-market and hold-to-maturity accounting issues galore, as you can imagine. Credit rating agencies have said they would interpret most bond swaps as a credit event. But if you structured it as two bond purchases as above, it wouldn't be.
A "maturity extension" can be seen as a bond swap. I exchange a bond maturing in 5 years for a bond maturing in 10 years. For the same book value, the 10-year bond would have smaller periodic payments, improving Greece's ability to pay. Longer maturities have higher sensitivities to interest rates higher downside risk, and might lose market value quickly. If the maturity extension is at a loss, it would be a credit event if "involuntary", yatta yatta bing bing.
These are all examples of "debt restructurings".
A "default" is a failure to meet obligations as they mature. Evidently, if restructurings are "voluntary" there's no "default".
This has nothing to do with mathematical finance and everything to do with law and politics, evidently, though faulty accounting principles help obfuscate the issues. As does jargon.
"Bondholder bail-in" means forcing bondholders to realise losses on their bond portfolios. A "bond rollover" or "bond swap" or "maturity extension" or "debt restructuring" is a "bail-in" if it involves a loss for the bondholder. Economics is politics by other means
For instance, Greece could repurchase its own bonds at yields of 20-something percent when they issued them at yields below 5%, realising major gains.
This the Aust(e)rians interpret as an EFSF subsidy, fiscal transfer and market manipulation, so they disallow it.
They also want to prevent the EFSF from buying sovereign bonds in the secondary market (since they failed to close that loophole in the Lisbon Treaty charter of the ECB).
The wrangling over the interest rate being charged by the EFSF to Greece, Ireland and Portugal is related to this. Economics is politics by other means
(For clarity, I note that this is what I meant by "the fact of being a political nominee".) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
My emphasis. Schäuble's proposal is supposed to be voluntary, while the opponents argue that rating agencies won't see it as voluntary... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
EFSF FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (pdf):
11. TERM AND LIQUIDATION OF EFSF ... (2) The euro-area Member States undertake that they shall liquidate EFSF in accordance with its Articles of Association on the earliest date after 30 June 2013 on which there are no longer Loans outstanding to a euro-area Member State and all Funding Instruments issued by EFSF and any reimbursement amounts due to Guarantors have been repaid in full.
...
(2) The euro-area Member States undertake that they shall liquidate EFSF in accordance with its Articles of Association on the earliest date after 30 June 2013 on which there are no longer Loans outstanding to a euro-area Member State and all Funding Instruments issued by EFSF and any reimbursement amounts due to Guarantors have been repaid in full.
I failed to find the actual Deauville Declaration on the government site, but here is a copy of the German version, and here is the French Presidential office's English translation. The relevant part:
The amendment of the Treaties will be restricted to the following issues: * The establishment of a permanent and robust framework to ensure orderly crisis management in the future, providing the necessary arrangements for an adequate participation of private creditors and allowing Member States to take appropriate coordinated measures to safeguard financial stability of the Euro area as a whole.
* The establishment of a permanent and robust framework to ensure orderly crisis management in the future, providing the necessary arrangements for an adequate participation of private creditors and allowing Member States to take appropriate coordinated measures to safeguard financial stability of the Euro area as a whole.
On the German government site, there is a copy of an op-ed for Handelsblatt by an advisor of the financial ministry (Schäuble), which comments the issue thusly:
This was not merely about early rollover but participation in a default, and an apparently mandatory one. So I would conclude that Merkel's March 2011 comments were probably motivated by the financial sphere's negative reaction to the Deauville proposal, saying "don't be scared, me and Sarko only proposed this for after 2013". *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The insolvency relates only to the servicing of public debt, not to other government activities, and does not include the selling off of state assets.
...oh was that long ago... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
March? Merkel's position since October has been no losses for private bondholders before 2013
Germany's Angela Merkel, by contrast, pushed ahead with her plan to set in concrete the principle that government bondholders should be prepared post-2013 to suffer losses if a government can't pay its bills. She got her way and EU governments this month backed the principle as part of a future financial-rescue regime. Do note, however, that even conservative Angela Merkel kicked the can down the road a couple of years like any run of the mill politician is likely to do. Even so, Ms. Merkel's decision to be explicit about the possibility of future bondholder losses spooked the markets. There, a little more ambiguity might have been a good thing. Usually markets tend to like certainty but it is apparent that bondholders of sovereign debt dislike the certainty that in the future they will have to share in losses due to governments having a solvency problem and restructuring, really defaulting, on government bonds.
Even so, Ms. Merkel's decision to be explicit about the possibility of future bondholder losses spooked the markets. There, a little more ambiguity might have been a good thing. Usually markets tend to like certainty but it is apparent that bondholders of sovereign debt dislike the certainty that in the future they will have to share in losses due to governments having a solvency problem and restructuring, really defaulting, on government bonds.
For October, that's interpretation, for March, it's explicit. (And before Merkel and Sarko brought that proposal in, there was no one proposing it for any time including after the ESFS, either.)
Either way, there is no contradiction between the Schäuble proposal and either the Deauville Declaration or Merkel's March 2011 promise that I can see, and all of them seem motivated by appeasing the don't-spend-our-precious-tax-euros members of the own camp. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
why would a sane bond-holder accept a "voluntary" bailin?
The Nonsense of purely voluntary Bail-ins
A purely voluntary maintenance of exposure at current market rates would make the sovereign's debt even more unsustainable and, in time, will ensure a default on the new bonds. The only way to prevent the coupon/yield on the new bonds from being close to market rates and thus unsustainable would be to provide the new bonds with seniority or some collateral; but both options are undesirable as a rollover is not a case of "debtor-in-possession" financing and thus doesn't justify such credit sweeteners. If, instead the rollover occurs at original coupon or well below market rates, so as to provide Greece with some debt relief, the rollover option is not purely voluntary and has coercive elements; thus, it is not different in any substantial way from the orderly debt restructuring, or reprofiling, that the ECB and other official sector folks so vehemently oppose.
A purely voluntary maintenance of exposure at current market rates would make the sovereign's debt even more unsustainable and, in time, will ensure a default on the new bonds. The only way to prevent the coupon/yield on the new bonds from being close to market rates and thus unsustainable would be to provide the new bonds with seniority or some collateral; but both options are undesirable as a rollover is not a case of "debtor-in-possession" financing and thus doesn't justify such credit sweeteners.
If, instead the rollover occurs at original coupon or well below market rates, so as to provide Greece with some debt relief, the rollover option is not purely voluntary and has coercive elements; thus, it is not different in any substantial way from the orderly debt restructuring, or reprofiling, that the ECB and other official sector folks so vehemently oppose.
So a rollover/default is something the German banks can live with, given that they have already imposed themselves a haircut. But the French banks/government are still in denial, and are soon to hit a brick wall.
Unless there is a change in ECB policy, or something. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Another possibility is that the French banks understand that they will get cents on their from Greece, but want their Spanish and Portuguese bonds to mature and be rolled over before Greece makes an unequivocal demonstration to Spain and Portugal that default is not the end of the world. But that's data-free speculation on my part.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Regarding the ECB, what is your thinking about that 50 billion exposure? Could a default on that mean, as argued, an actual (or at least perceived) risk to the ECB itself? (Where I am not even sure whether that is supposed to be a liquidity, solvency, credibility, or some other crisis.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Regarding the ECB, what is your thinking about that 50 billion exposure? Could a default on that mean, as argued, an actual (or at least perceived) risk to the ECB itself? (Where I am not even sure whether that is supposed to be a liquidity, solvency, credibility, or some other crisis.)
In CEPR Policy Insight No.24, Willem Buiter asks: Does it matter if a central bank suffers a large capital loss? Can the central bank become insolvent? How and by whom should the central bank be recapitalised, should its capital be deemed insufficient?
Insolvency for central banks therefore would mean failure to pay obligations as they fall due (equitable insolvency) rather than liabilities exceeding assets (balance sheet insolvency). As long as central banks don't have significant foreign exchange-denominated liabilities or index-linked liabilities, it will always be possible for the central bank to ensure its solvency though monetary issuance (seigniorage).
As long as central banks don't have significant foreign exchange-denominated liabilities or index-linked liabilities, it will always be possible for the central bank to ensure its solvency though monetary issuance (seigniorage).
...which the ECB won't do, leaving recapitalisation by the Treasuries of the 15 Eurozone governments, which is tricky. Did I miss something? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has decided to increase its subscribed capital by 5 billion, from 5.76 billion to 10.76 billion, with effect from 29 December 2010. This decision was taken by the Governing Council of the ECB in accordance with the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the ECB, as well as the Council Regulation No 1009/2000 of 8 May 2000 that foresees an increase in the capital of the ECB by up to this amount. This decision resulted from an assessment of the adequacy of statutory capital conducted in 2009. The capital increase was deemed appropriate in view of increased volatility in foreign exchange rates, interest rates and gold prices as well as credit risk. As the maximum size of the ECB's provisions and reserves is equal to the level of its paid-up capital, this decision will allow the Governing Council to augment the provision by an amount equivalent to the capital increase, starting with the allocation of part of this year's profits. From a longer-term perspective, the increase in capital - the first general one in 12 years - is also motivated by the need to provide an adequate capital base in a financial system that has grown considerably. In order to smooth the transfer of capital to the ECB, the Governing Council decided that the euro area national central banks (NCBs) should pay their additional capital contributions of 3,489,575,000 in three equal annual instalments. Consequently, the current euro area NCBs will pay 1,163,191,667 as their first instalment on 29 December 2010. The remaining two instalments will be paid at the end of 2011 and 2012, respectively. Moreover, the minimal percentage of the subscribed capital, which the non-euro area NCBs are required to pay as a contribution to the operating costs of the ECB, will be reduced from 7.00% to 3.75%. The non-euro area NCBs consequently will make only minor adjustments to their capital shares, which will result in payments totalling 84,220 on 29 December 2010.
This decision resulted from an assessment of the adequacy of statutory capital conducted in 2009. The capital increase was deemed appropriate in view of increased volatility in foreign exchange rates, interest rates and gold prices as well as credit risk. As the maximum size of the ECB's provisions and reserves is equal to the level of its paid-up capital, this decision will allow the Governing Council to augment the provision by an amount equivalent to the capital increase, starting with the allocation of part of this year's profits. From a longer-term perspective, the increase in capital - the first general one in 12 years - is also motivated by the need to provide an adequate capital base in a financial system that has grown considerably.
In order to smooth the transfer of capital to the ECB, the Governing Council decided that the euro area national central banks (NCBs) should pay their additional capital contributions of 3,489,575,000 in three equal annual instalments. Consequently, the current euro area NCBs will pay 1,163,191,667 as their first instalment on 29 December 2010. The remaining two instalments will be paid at the end of 2011 and 2012, respectively. Moreover, the minimal percentage of the subscribed capital, which the non-euro area NCBs are required to pay as a contribution to the operating costs of the ECB, will be reduced from 7.00% to 3.75%. The non-euro area NCBs consequently will make only minor adjustments to their capital shares, which will result in payments totalling 84,220 on 29 December 2010.
So, the problem is not whether or not the ECB will become insolvent. The question is whether the ECB will allow Eurosystem member National Central Banks to become insolvent.
ECB council members have used the threat of insolvency of the Irish and Greek central banks explicitly over the past year. Economics is politics by other means
So the ECB itself wouldn't realise a 50bn loss from a Greek default... Economics is politics by other means
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 8 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 6 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 11 9 comments
by gmoke - Mar 7
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 5 2 comments
by gmoke - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 16
by Oui - Mar 16
by Oui - Mar 164 comments
by Oui - Mar 153 comments
by Oui - Mar 15
by Oui - Mar 147 comments
by Oui - Mar 1312 comments
by Oui - Mar 12
by Oui - Mar 1113 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 119 comments
by Oui - Mar 1116 comments
by Oui - Mar 109 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 103 comments
by Oui - Mar 94 comments
by Oui - Mar 8
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 83 comments
by Oui - Mar 71 comment
by Oui - Mar 7