Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Draghi's comments on the press conference today got me thinking a bit more.

14. 23 Some fascinating comments from Draghi -- delivered with obvious relish -- on what he sees as the real potential benefits of the LTRO to the real economy. He stresses that the number of banks tapping the cheap three year finance jumped from some 500 in December to 800 this time. Many of the new takers were small banks in Germany and elsewhere.

    I would love to read you the places, the towns, the villages where these banks are but often they would be the only bank in towns so they could be identified. But this tells me one thing - this money is now closer to the small and medium-sized businesses than it was before. I'm not saying this money will necessarily go to SMEs but it is certainly closer. We have this in mind because 80 per cent of eurozone employment is SMEs.


Isn't Draghi right here, that LTRO money could actually end up in real investment?

Imagine a fundamentally solvent European bank, ie a bank without periphery sovereign debt all over its balance sheet. Imaging that this bank has a number of customers who want to borrow money for certain projects, say a mine or a wind power project. Given the risk for the bank inherent in the project, the bank want the money bank back in three years, and a margin of at least 10 %. The bank can currently raise money at a cost of 4 %, and hence demand an interest rate of 14 % on the loan to issue it. This rate of interest turns the net present value of the project negative, so no loan is made and the project doesn't happen.

Imagine instead that the bank pledges some of its quality assets to the ECB and gets to borrow at 1 %. Hence, they only demand 11 % interest from the developer, which turns the NPV positive, the money is lent, the project happens and demand increases.

Or am I missing something here?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Mar 8th, 2012 at 11:47:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't Draghi right here, that LTRO money could actually end up in real investment?

It's not really the LTRO money. The key here is 8 December 2011 - ECB announces measures to support bank lending and money market activity

The NCBs are allowed, as a temporary solution, to accept as collateral for Eurosystem credit operations additional performing credit claims that satisfy specific eligibility criteria. The responsibility entailed in the acceptance of such credit claims will be borne by the NCB authorising their use. Details of the criteria for the use of credit claims will be announced in due course.
I.e., banks could potentially give loans and use those loans as collateral for liquidity directly with their national central bank, not just at the LTROs but at the weekly liquidity auctions.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 8th, 2012 at 12:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, shouldn't that work in some cases, and give lower interest rate costs to companies, and hence make more projects NPV-positive?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Mar 8th, 2012 at 12:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No reason why it shouldn't. See my Rediscovering Minsky's wheel, one pundit at a time (May 9th, 2011) and JakeS' The trouble with [talking about] banking (May 13th, 2011) for more on that.

Also, Steve Keen's Dude! Where's My Recovery?

This is bizarre, since as long as 4 decades ago, the actual situation was put very simply by the then Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Alan Holmes. Holmes explained why the then faddish Monetarist policy of controlling inflation by controlling the growth of Base Money had failed, saying that it suffered from "a naive assumption" that:
The banking system only expands loans after the [Federal Reserve] System (or market factors) have put reserves in the banking system. In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand; over time, its influence can obviously be felt. (Alan R. Holmes, 1969, p. 73; emphasis added)
The empirical fact that "loans create deposits" means that the change in the level of private debt is matched by a change in the level of money, which boosts aggregate demand. The level of private debt therefore cannot be ignored--and the fact that neoclassical economists did ignore it (and, with the likes of Greenspan running the Fed, actively promoted its growth) is why this is no "garden variety" downturn.

In all the post-WWII recessions on which Lazear's regression was based, the downturn ended when the growth of private debt turned positive again and boosted aggregate demand. This of itself is not a bad thing: as Schumpeter argued decades ago, in a well-functioning capitalist system, the main recipients of credit are entrepreneurs who have an idea, but not the money needed to put it into action:

[I]n so far as credit cannot be given out of the results of past enterprise ... it can only consist of credit means of payment created ad hoc, which can be backed neither by money in the strict sense nor by products already in existence...

It provides us with the connection between lending and credit means of payment, and leads us to what I regard as the nature of the credit phenomenon... credit is essentially the creation of purchasing power for the purpose of transferring it to the entrepreneur, but not simply the transfer of existing purchasing power." (Joseph Alois Schumpeter, 1934, pp. 106-107)



There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 8th, 2012 at 03:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But there is an important point insofar as the ECBuBa keeps pretending that it's going to yank away the unlimited tender weekly liquidity before the interbank market has completely unfrozen. And some of the members are crazy enough to actually do it, so it's a threat that has to be taken seriously.

This ensures that the liquidity for a mid-term project won't suddenly disappear in a poof of neo-Hayekian idiocy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Mar 8th, 2012 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, can they call in the cash at anytime? The repo is over three years, isn't it? That is, ECB only has the right to demand the cash back after three years, not earlier than that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Fri Mar 9th, 2012 at 10:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely.

Mig argued that they had already done what you said they were doing when they expanded the eligibility for the MRO.

I agree with you that this has a greater scope, precisely because it can not be revoked with a week's notice. But I also agree with Mig that the scope is not as much greater as the BuBa (wants to) believe.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Mar 9th, 2012 at 11:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Project Free-Dumb

by rifek - May 4
3 comments

Growing Food in Hard Times

by gmoke - Apr 20
1 comment

US Rugby

by rifek - Apr 18

There Are No Grown-Ups In Charge

by rifek - Apr 17
2 comments

Occasional Series