Categories
Economics

[2475] Issues with the ECB’s soft loan

It was reported that European banks took out EUR489 billion worth of cheap loan from a facility provided by the European Central Bank. The Wall Street Journal revealed these banks will require more than EUR700 billion to meet their obligation next year, with more than EUR200 billion debt maturing in the first quarter of 2012 alone.

The facility is designed to avert or reduce liquidity crunch in Europe. These are two-fold. One, so that the bank have enough money to not default. Two, so that these banks do not cut loans to individuals and businesses.

Given the near panic that prevails in today environment that is ever looking for the big bazooka solution, it is understandable that the facility provides comfort and reduces the likelihood of bank runs.

But the interest rate of 1% is so low that there is an opportunity for some banks that have a better position than others to profit at the expense of the ECB. Some could probably borrow and reinvest in higher yielding assets like government finance to get essentially free pure profits. The Journal indeed did mention that the French President Nicholas Sarkozy has suggested this to kill two birds in one stone: the banks get their refinancing and the money flows into government coffer through the sales of sovereign debts to further postpone the sovereign debt crisis farther into the future.

Discounting banks which actually need the facility to refinance themselves in time when massive amount of debts are maturing, would the presence of the better-positioned banks compete with those who truly need the funds?

I would imagine some kind of controls is present in the ECB but in time of near-panic like this, I expect the controls to be weak. The tighter the controls, the longer it will take to disburse the money and that is not good. There is no time decide who really needs it. Just give it out and worry about it later.

The tightness of the loans would depend on the size of the facility. I tried to look for it but I have not found it. I would think it should be more than EUR700 billion so that the facility would be too big for the whole of 2012 requirement.

So, I would guess some banks would make pure profit. So, the presence of controls would not answer the crowding out concern.

Also, even if some of the banks actually needed the loan, what exactly prevents the banks from hoarding it like what happened in the United States with money from Troubled Asset Relief Program. Lending cost to businesses and consumers were high but the banks had access to cheap fund. The banks were saved

So, really, the facility is saving the banks. Liquidity issued faced by individuals and businesses will not be solved by the loan facility from the ECB.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
p/s – an extremely helpful Q&A by FT Alphaville.

Categories
Economics

[2455] Rising expectation of defaults

More on CDS and the European crisis.

U.S. banks increased sales of insurance against credit losses to holders of Greek, Portuguese, Irish, Spanish and Italian debt in the first half of 2011, boosting the risk of payouts in the event of defaults.

Guarantees provided by U.S. lenders on government, bank and corporate debt in those countries rose by $80.7 billion to $518 billion, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Almost all of those are credit-default swaps, said two people familiar with the numbers, accounting for two-thirds of the total related to the five nations, BIS data show. [Yalman Onaran. Selling More CDS on Europe Debt Raises Risk for U.S. Banks. Bloomberg. November 1 2011]

This should be read in the context of the 50% Greek haircut, although that haircut itself is in question after the Greek government decided to have a referendum on the bailout and its conditions instead of executing it outright. Because of the referendum, CDS holders, especially speculative holders, may yet win their bet.

But even if they win, this might be a repeat of AIG. A Pyrrhic victory, one might say.

Categories
Economics

[2443] Guess who?

Nope ladies and gentlemen. It is not Germany. Despite voter backlash and political discontent, Germany went ahead. What is EUR211 billion among friends?

Nay. It is not the Netherlands. The Dutch were vocal but voted for it anyway. What is another EUR44 billion?

No, it is not Finland. For all the demand for collateral, Finnish lawmakers said “yes, let us do it.” Who cares for another EUR14 billion?

Sixteen countries passed the amendment to the European Financial Stability Facility, seeking to expand the facility from EUR440 billion to EUR780 billion.

It has to be Slovakia. Slovakia has to say no. Slovakia has to say, we have arrived.

That notwithstanding, the market is relatively pretty cool about. There was no panic. I half expected a storm. The market is probably expecting Slovakia to pass the EFSF amendment regardless.

Not that it will be enough, if Italy goes under anyway…

Categories
Economics

[2409] Yet another day to panic

It was earlier this week when CNBC (or was it Bloomberg?), several economics and finance commentators were highlighting the supposedly inconsistency of S&P’s downgrade of US debts. They showed that several other European countries had higher probabilities of defaulting their obligations than the US, yet these European ratings were higher than that of the US. One of the countries was France.

Yesterday, the French finance minister had to come out to defend the state of the French economy and government finance.[1] Rumors about Société Générale are flying around.[2] And the global markets tumbled just as some thought we were out of hole that was Friday and Monday. As the Asian markets open today, there seems to be a kind of pessimism as everybody braces for a bad day yet again. Yesterday, before the French fright set in, was a swallow, and it did not make a summer.

It is unclear what is driving the fear in the market at the moment. Sure, some pointed out specific events but at the end of the day, it is all a guess. There are no real definite concrete events that one can say, those are the actual causes of the fear. Nobody really knows. Right now, there are so many uncertainties that the markets do not know what to fear and being prudent, they fear everything.

Even its own shadows.

This perhaps highlights the Austrian belief that not a single person is able to process all available information in a timely manner, which is a strong defense for the free market.

Nevertheless, it seems that the markets are fighting rumors more than anything else right now. Money is moved based on the petty rumors, without its truth reasonably checked. Better safe than sorry, maybe. Although speculation itself is useful in testing the truth value of certain statements that might be true in the end, it can also be a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, turning statement with its initial state as false to true.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — PARIS (Dow Jones)–The French Finance Ministry Wednesday said speculation that the country is about to lose its triple-a rating is “totally unfounded. The three [ratings] agencies have confirmed there is no risk of downgrade of the French rating, and these rumors are completely unfounded,” an advisor for French Finance Minister Francois Baroin told Dow Jones Newswires. [William Horobin. French Finance Ministry:Rumors On France AAA Totally Unfounded. Wall Street Journal. August 10 2011]

[2] — PARIS (Dow Jones)–Societe Generale SA (GLE.FR, SCGLY) said Wednesday it has asked France’s financial markets watchdog Autorite des Marches Financiers to investigate the origin of rumors that caused the bank’s share price to plunge more than 20% at one point in hectic trading Wednesday. Societe Generale asked the AMF to “open an inquiry into the origin of these rumors, which are extremely harmful to the interests of its shareholders,” the bank said in a statement. [David Pearson. Societe Generale Seeks AMF Probe Of Market Rumors . Wall Street Journal. August 10 2011]

Categories
Economics History & heritage

[1280] Of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Asian Financial Crisis and the unholy trinity

Almost 30 years ago, the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was established to promote monetary stability among 12 members of the European Commission (EC). All participating states agreed to limit the variability of respective currency to 2.25% band on either side of a central rate. Later members were allowed to have their exchange rate to gyrate within a 6.00% band from a central rate. The ERM was a tool to converge the monetary policy of the 12 states and eventually, the adoption of a monetary union. Between 1992 and 1993, the ERM suffered a crisis that in a way, is similar to the Asian Financial Crisis that began exactly a decade ago.

In 1989, an EC committee laid out a plan to realize the European Monetary Union (EMU). The EMU would have an European central bank to manage a unified monetary policy for the EC. This ultimate convergence of a myriad of independent monetary policies would abolish all national currencies and eventually create an EC-wide currency.

Before the EMU could be established, all 12 members of the EC (namely, Germany, France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg and Greece) had to approve the plan. In 1992, the Danish people almost rejected the EMU in a referendum while opinion poll in France was unconvincing. This brought the EMU into question, hurting confidence in the EMU and the ERM.

Currency speculators started to short sell various European currencies, betting for currencies devaluation. Regardless whether it was a self-fulfilled prophecy or a natural outcome, massive devaluation occurred and that forced many countries to drop out of the ERM band. Many fought but all lost. The British pound was one of them. The Malaysian central bank, the Bank Negara tried to defend the pound but it proved to be a USD4 billion futile adventure. In my opinion however, none other fought more valiantly mad than Sweden.

In effort to stop devaluation of the krona dead on its track as well as to teach the speculators a lesson, the Sveriges Riksbank, the central bank of Sweden, raised interest rate up to an astronomical 500%. This shocked a lot of people, including the speculators. The crazy monetary policy worked for awhile until the economy started to so a sign of stress. With a long run rate like that, not too many economy would survive long and so Sweden relented, quit the battle and forced to float the krona.

The story repeated itself in other European countries. The central banks of Portugal and Italy initially tried to defend their currencies only later to admit defeat. About five years later, similar story struck Southeast Asia.

On July 2 1997, after sustained pressure of devaluation, the Bank of Thailand gave up the battle to defend the baht. As history has recorded, the baht lost more than half of its value, from 26 baht to a US dollar in late June 1992 to 55 baht per US dollar in January 1993.

A professor of mine told my class that in late 1997, he did not understand what was going on but he did watch everything slipped away. He continued by saying nobody knew what exactly caused the crisis. But ten years after Camdessus looked on Suharto, we might have learned a thing or two from the crisis.

For me, it offers a real life example of the unholy trinity. The unholy trinity is the desire to have a pegged currency, free flow of capital and independence in monetary policy. One can only have two of them, not all three. When there is a violation of the rule, trouble looms.

In case of Sweden, the Sveriges Riksbank wanted all three. Under intense pressure and eager to move forward, the peg had to go. For Malaysia, in order to move on, free flow of capital had to go. Or rather, was chosen to be expendable. The Southeast Asian country imposed capital control in at the peak of the crisis and pegged its currency to the US dollar in 1998.

Of course, that is not the only lesson that could be learned from the era of irrational exuberance. But if the next currency crisis strikes, would anybody remember the lessons learned in the past?