Euro Solvency?

The financial markets hate uncertainty. It is the unknown that creates uncertainty and unexpected new information often creates uncertainty because investors must not only absorb the new information but must also translate what they have learned into action!

This is what I tried to emphasize in my post of April 28, 2010, “Greece: The ‘Surprise’ That Breaks The Camel’s Back” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/201382-greece-the-surprise-that-breaks-the-camel-s-back). Recently we were given knowledge that the budget deficit of the Greek government was much worse than we had been told, and, as a result of this news, the rating on Greek bonds was lowered. Immediately, investors began to sell off these bonds.

The financial market unrest continued. Then the European Union and the International Monetary Fund came up with its bailout package of €110 billion “to save the euro by providing Greece with enough cash to meet its financial obligations over the next twelve months or so.” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/202754-greece-and-insolvency-finding-a-way-out)

The problem is, as I pointed out in this last post, that the response was aimed at preventing a liquidity crisis and not a solvency crisis. These two types of financial crises are different and a failure to understand the difference and react in the appropriate way can just exacerbate a problem and not solve it.

The Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke has been guilty of this very thing and, as a consequence, has contributed to the lingering solvency problem in the “less than mammoth” banks in the United States banking system today. (I have discussed this in many other posts.)

A liquidity crisis is a short run phenomenon related to the disclosure that the price of a certain financial asset should be different from what it had recently been trading at. The buy side of the market disappears and the price of the financial asset drops, sometimes precipitously. In the classical case, the central bank comes into the market and makes sure that there is sufficient liquidity in the market so that the price of the asset in question stabilizes and trading can resume.

The prices of other similar assets may be caught up in this uncertainty but the response of the central bank is enough to stabilize the market.

A solvency crisis is different. In a solvency crisis the value of the assets must be written down, but the concern is over the ability of the institutions that own the assets to cover the value write down with the equity capital they possess. Of course, the value of the assets may go up at some time in the future but in general these institutions must “work off” these assets over time in a way that does not exhaust their capital base.

Otherwise, if the effected institutions have to write off these “underwater” assets immediately they may have to be closed.

A solvency crisis takes a much longer time to get over than does a liquidity crisis. That is why so many small- to medium-sized banks are still having so much difficulty even with massive amounts of liquidity available in the banking system.

The problem with the current situation in the European Union is that the situation is not one of liquidity, but one of solvency. There is a very real concern in the market for sovereign debt about whether or not certain nations within the EU can maintain their solvency given the debt load their governments have assumed and given the very weak nature of their economies.

There is a question about the ability of certain governments to be able to pay-off their debts. And, if these debts cannot be re-paid, what will happen to the solvency of the banks and other institutions that now hold this sovereign debt. Special concern exists about commercial banks in Germany and France. Some think that the real reason for the Greek bailout is to keep several major banks in Germany and France from failing. (See the second post mentioned above.)

Just providing Greece the ability to be able to roll over its debt in the next twelve months or so is an attempt to make Greek debt “liquid”. The hopes are that this will buy time for the Greek government to “right its ship” so that it will be able to meet its financial obligations and then go bravely forward. The financial markets have responded by saying that the Greek situation is not a problem of market liquidity but a problem of government solvency: the government, as it appears now, cannot pay its bills.

The concern over solvency has spread. If Greece lied to its debtors, maybe other countries have been doing so as well. Maybe these other countries are not as well off as was thought. Hence, a need to check other “undisciplined” countries out.

The credit ratings of Spain and Portugal were lowered (with Portugal facing additional review concerning its credit rating). Isn’t this evidence enough. But, of course, other countries are on the radar screen: countries that have been particularly profligate like Great Britain where the Labour Government outspent the rate of inflation since 1997 by 41%! But also Italy and Ireland.

What we seem to be seeing in the world is a realignment away from countries that have over-stayed their welcome in the credit markets. We see this especially in the currency markets. The value of the euro has plunged against the dollar and other major currencies. Today, May 6 it hit a 52-week low around 1.26. In other areas of the currency market the move seems to be away from the currencies of countries having “debt problems” to those that appear to be more secure.

The same thing has occurred in bond markets. The rush to United States Treasury bonds has been phenomenal over the past week. The two-year Treasury was yielding about 1.07% April 23 while the ten-year Treasury was yielding around 3.82%. These two yields have dropped to 0.79% and 3.39%, respectively, a major move!

When uncertainty increases, market volatility also increases. If we look at one index of market volatility, the CBOE’s VIX index, we see it peaking over 40 today, up from around 20 or so over the past week and in the 15-20 range before that. The market appears to be spooked and this means one might expect the volatility of the financial markets to remain high in the near future.

The major problem going forward is leadership: who can lead the eurozone and Great Britain out of this mess? The concern is captured in Landon Thomas’ article in the New York Times, “Bold Stroke May Be Beyond Europe’s Means,” (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/bold-stroke-may-be-beyond-europes-means/?scp=5&sq=landon%20thomas%20jr.&st=cse). In the case of the eurozone, there is no leader. And, this has been a problem the detractors of this union have pointed to since before the euro was put into place. There is an economic union but no political union. It is like herding cats and given the cracks that are occurring in the structure, many are wondering if this economic union can last for more than two or three years more.

In Great Britain, there is going to be a “hung” Parliament. But, who really wants to rule in jolly ole England. Some are saying that if the new government (‘hung’ or not) really does what it needs to do with respect to the fiscal condition of the nation, these politicians will not be able to be re-elected for the next ten- to fifteen years because they will be so unpopular. Shades of Greece?

The bottom line: governments have lived beyond their means. Certain ‘brands of economics’ have argued that this is possible because people don’t really take into account future tax liabilities or future inflation. They are very ‘current minded.’ It just seems possible that this philosophy has run its course!

Greece and Insolvency

A financial crisis that is a result of the potential insolvency of a borrower is connected with the “true” value of the underlying assets held by the lender. In the case of the Greece bailout, the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are working to keep the value of Greek bonds at 100% of face value.

Thus, the €110 billion (or $145 billion) package put together over the weekend is an effort to save the Euro by providing Greece with enough cash to meet its financial obligations over the next twelve months or so. Hopefully, at the end of this time Greece will be welcomed back into the capital markets so that it can raise its own cash, something it needs lots of.

Then, as is usually the assumption in insolvency situations like this, the debtor will grow out of its difficulties so that its debt will return to 100% of face value in the financial markets. The problem with this is that Greece is expected, at best, to return to the level of real GDP it achieved in 2009 in or around 2017. The austerity moves required by the IMF of the Greek government is not expected to contribute to a strong rebound in its economy.

Many analysts are contending that the bailout is really to protect the banks in Germany and France. The commercial banks in these two countries hold a massive amount of Greek debt. If one gives the Greek debt a haircut of 40% to 50%, several banks in these two countries will fail and require government support to keep the banking systems functioning. If this were to happen both nations would find themselves in deep economic trouble, threatening the recovery of all Europe.

But, note…”The European Central Bank (ECB) agreed to continue accepting as collateral any current or future Greek government bonds, no matter how much debt-rating companies downgraded them.” (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703612804575222331434882588.html#mod=todays_us_page_one.)

By doing this, the ECB is attempting to prevent a liquidity crisis at Greek banks, because these banks can use the new collateral rule to get cash from the ECB by pledging their Greek bonds as collateral. Also, this rule will benefit euro-zone banks because it will mean that these banks can also get money from the ECB by pledging their Greek bonds as collateral.

There seems to be a special effort on the part of EU and IMF officials to take all discussions of losses on Greek debt “off-the-table.” The emphasis is upon ensuring that the banks that hold Greek debt and the financial markets that everyone will be “paid-in-full” over the next year or two. Anyone that talks differently will have his or her hand slapped!

The ultimate mechanism for insuring that debt is covered over the longer run is to produce an inflationary environment. And, in a severe financial crisis, the concern of the policy makers is to err on the side of providing too much liquidity. The policy makers do not want people, at some time in the future, to accuse them of not providing enough liquidity to the system which resulted in an even greater financial crisis.

Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank certainly is adhering to this principle in the current situation. Trichet, the stern defender of central bank fight against inflation in 2007 and 2008, now seems to be putty in the hands of current circumstances.

Trichet, however, still seems to be a amateur when compared with his counterpart Ben Bernanke at the Board of Governors of the United States’ Federal Reserve System. When it comes to “throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks” Bernanke is the poster-child.

Inflation may be the ultimate tool that Europe uses to save the Euro and the European Union. The reason for this is the other nations that are on the brink of financial disaster: Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. Also, there is the U. K. sitting across the channel showing us the very real possibility of having a “hung” Parliament which would find it very difficult to do what it needs to do to get its own act in order. There may just be too much to do in the current state of affairs to overcome the lack of national discipline that has been exhibited in this the European region in the recent past.

The factor that might set this all off is the reaction of the government employees and the working classes in these nations to the austerity programs that are being forced down the throats of the governments in question. Europe has a long and proud history of labor movements and working class unrest. These movements have been relatively quiet in recent years. In Greece we are seeing a resurgence of protest that could fuel further unrest in other countries, especially in Italy.

It was fear of such unrest in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that led to a philosophy of government policies that supported the creation of an inflationary environment to keep people employed with ever increasing wages. These policies were implemented in many countries once the disruptions created by World War II subsided. The history of labor movements in Europe in the twentieth century is long and rich. It is unlikely that the austerity programs will be easily accepted by the people being impacted by them.

Again, the problem we are seeing is that there are no attractive options to governments or governmental bodies after a long period in which financial discipline has been absent. As Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff have shown in their book “This Time is Different”, every time that governments (or people, or, businesses) lose their fiscal discipline the time is never different.

The Piper eventually has to be paid.

The effort to prevent too much pain, however, is to bail out governments (and people, and, businesses) and then stimulate the economy to put businesses, and, people, and, governments, back where they were before the crisis began. This is done by inflating the economy through extensions of liquidity and programs to maintain asset prices. The goal: to get the economy back to where it was before the crisis began.

This is what the European Union, with the help of the International Monetary Fund, is attempting to do. Unfortunately, the underlying problem has not been solved. There are major amounts of assets on the books of financial institutions and other organizations that are substantially over valued. The question that lingers in an insolvency crisis relates to how long these financial institutions and other organizations can continue to hold onto the assets without marking them to a more realistic value or working the losses off through charges against other earnings?

The "Next Greece" Again

The New York Times business section carries the headline, “Traders Turn Attention to the Next Greece”: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/business/global/04bets.html?ref=business.

“Is Spain the next Greece? Or Italy? Or Portugal?”

Sounds vaguely similar to another article on the topic, my post of March 1, “Where is the Next Greece?”: http://seekingalpha.com/article/191242-where-is-the-next-greece. But, the subject is in the air these days.

The New York Times article wades into the issue of whether or not the “banks and hedge funds” should be doing what they are doing.

“Indeed, some banks and hedge funds have already begun to turn their attention to other indebted nations, particularly Portugal, Spain, Italy and, to a lesser degree, Ireland.” Aha, the PIIGS, of course without the G.

“The role of such traders has become increasingly controversial in Europe and the United States. The Justice Department’s antitrust division is now examining whether at least four hedge funds colluded on a bet against the euro last month.”

The same concern has been expressed over short sales.

Little concern was expressed about the debt policy of nations, states, municipalities, businesses and consumers when they were piling on massive amounts of debt to their balance sheets.

Of course, nations, and others, have good reasons for loading up with debt. It stimulates the economy and everyone wants prosperity and full employment. Well, don’t they?

Everyone wants businesses to prosper. Everyone wants everyone else to own their own home.

All good reasons for piling on debt.

But, when do “good intentions” spill over into “foolish behavior”?

And, in an environment where excessive amounts of credit are being pumped into the economy (thank you again Federal Reserve)n to spur on housing or some other “good”, shouldn’t it be expected that “extra-legal” means will be used to “get the credit out”.

But, when does serving “societal goals” become fraudulent and hurtful?

The problem in both cases is that there is a very blurry line between the “good” and the “bad”. On the upside, of course, emphasis is placed on the “good” being done, and the “bad” is alluded to but quickly dismissed. A common theme in such periods is that “Things are different now!”

On the other side, however, great pain takes place. One can certainly sympathize with those who live in Ireland, and Spain, and these other countries.

This, however, is just where “moral hazard” raises its ugly head. There is a downside to the excessive behavior of nations, states, and so on! There is pain on the other side of the pinnacle.
And, eventually the pain must be paid for. Bailing out those that used excessive amounts of debt just postpones the situation and usually leads people to behave just the way they did before the crisis. That is, the lesson learned is the one can behave badly and, if there is the threat of sufficient societal pain, little or no cost will be carried forward because of the previous un-disciplined behavior.

The problem is that those in power get mad at the bankers and the hedge funds and try to prohibit them in some way from moving against those private or public organizations that are financially weak. But, in doing so they are taking away a tool that can be used to enforce discipline on those who have lived excessively. The same applies to short selling.

We have seen behavior like that exhibited by the “banks and hedge funds” in the past. The last time these predators were called “shadowy international bankers”, many of whom were pictured as living in Switzerland. In that time the “ bankers” attacked the currencies of profligate nations. France, under the leadership of François Mitterrand, is perhaps the best known example of such a situation. Mitterrand, the socialist, had to pull back from his grand plans and became a believer in fiscal discipline and an independent central bank. Similar cases are on record.

It is disconcerting to see the increased efforts to reduce or eliminate financial tools that help to bring discipline to the market place. If these investment vehicles get punished or face harsh controls and regulations then the world is so much the worse for it.

Yes, I agree, at this stage it looks like the strong are kicking the weak member of the party. But, in these cases we forget that many benefitted greatly on the upside, particularly the politicians that promoted goals and objectives that were underwritten by the undisciplined use of debt. And, the central banks were prodigal in underwriting this credit inflation.

And, now the piper is calling in the debt.

It is a rule of life: those in power that create a given situation are often the most vocal opponents of those that respond to the consequences of what the powerful have created. If you create an inflationary environment fueled by excessive credit expansion then, sooner or later, the price must be paid.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, England, and others are now facing the downside of so many years of “good intentions.” Let’s not just blame, or punish, the “bankers and hedge funds” for creating the situation we now face