Published on ZeroHedge
In order to “help” Greece, since 2010, we’ve seen fiscal transfers and foreign intervention into its domestic economic policies. Greece’s debt to GDP ratio is now around 180% to GDP, while a lot of the bailout cash has merely served to bail out banks, as Open Europe already warned in 2012.
In order to “help” Greece, since 2010, we’ve seen fiscal transfers and foreign intervention into its domestic economic policies. Greece’s debt to GDP ratio is now around 180% to GDP, while a lot of the bailout cash has merely served to bail out banks, as Open Europe already warned in 2012.
A
number of policy makers now wants to try something new: a Greek exit
from the Eurozone. One of them is Christian von Stetten, a Member of
Germany’s Parliament and of Angela Merkel's CDU. He states
what a majority of
Germans believe should happen: "The experiment with the Greeks
in the eurozone, who are unwilling to implement reforms, has failed
and must be ended". He adds that he's in favour of providing
"many billions" in support so Greece can make the
transition onto its own currency.
Hereunder
I explore what would happen if Greece were to leave the Eurozone,
through a legal fudge.
- Default
If
Greece wouldn’t have already defaulted before it would introduce a
new currency, Grexit would make it virtually certain that the
country would default. It’s not wise to take out a considerable
loan in a foreign currency, but that’s what Greece has done since
2001, when it entered the Eurozone. If
Greece would introduce a new currency, which then likely would lose
value against the euro, it would still need to pay back its debt in
euro, which woud appreciate in value as compared to the new Drachma,
making this task even harder.
If
Greece would only pay back what it owes in a new, devalued currency,
this would be considered a default. As a result, the Greek
government would face higher borrowing rates in the future. In
theory, the fact that it wouldn’t be burdened by an excessive 180%
debt to GDP may serve as a factor countering this, giving that the
financial situation of the government would look more rosy. But this
ignores the second aspect of Grexit, which I’ll discuss next.
- The Greek banking system would be cut off from the ECB’s cheap money canal, with real austerity to follow
A
default would only relieve Greece from its excessive external public
debt burden, not from the exposure it has to its banking system.
Almost half
the “capital” in the four largest Greek banks really consists of
“deferred
tax assets” or discounts
on future tax bills. When banks make no profit, they won’t enjoy
such discounts.
Moody's
has estimated that at the end of April, 32% of total assets of Greek
banks were derived from central bank funding. This was 12% in
September and estimates
put it at close to 50% today., with bank deposits at their lowest
level in 11 years, below 130 billion euro. As Greeks withdraw
deposits from their banks, using the money to buy hard assets like
cars, whose sales have
risen, the ECB still makes sure Greek banks enjoy sufficient
liquidity, by allowing the Greek central bank to create euros itself
through the system of “emergency liquidity assistance” (ELA),
which should only be allowed to prop up solvent banks. Some five
billion euros was withdrawn
from Greek banks last week, with the ongoing bank run forcing the ECB
to decide on increasing or maintaining the ELA – lifeline for Greek
banks on a daily basis now.
The
ELA loans to Greek banks are in theory a risk for the Greek central
bank, and not for the ECB, but of course any new euro which wouldn’t
have been created in “normal” circumstances reduces the value of
the existing stock of euros, representing a transfer to those who
withdrew the cash. Also those who didn’t withdraw don’t need to
despair, as a Greek euro exit would signify a goodbye gift for the
Greek economy, a “dowry”, as German economist Hans-Werner
Sinn has put it. With Open Europe, we already warned
in March that a bankrun may drive the eurozone to support capital
controls, in order to stop this. In one wants to know what would
happen if every central bank in the eurozone would do what the Greek
central bank is doing, perhaps it's interesting to have a look at the
breakup
of the Ruble zone.
ELA
is not the ordinary way for the ECB to shower Greek banks with
liquidity. The normal way of doing business is for Greek banks to
provide the ECB with - shaky - collateral, as Greek government debt,
in return for cash. As a result, the ECB has been building up
considerable
exposure to Greece through the so-called “Target2” payment
system, which makes it again less appealing to go for Grexit.
Importantly,
the ECB
announced
in
February it will – finally - no longer accept Greek government debt
as collateral, forcing banks to their last resort - Emergency
Liquidity Assistance. The ECB also imposes
a discount on the collateral posted by Greek banks to get their ELA
cash from the Greek central bank - making it harder for banks to get
the cash. Will the ECB cut off funding for Greek banks if Greece
defaults? An insider, quoted
by Reuters, seems to think so, saying that "If
Greece declared default, everything would change. It would be very
hard for the ECB to authorize financing with collateral of a debtor
in default."
To
make a long story short: when
a country enters the Eurozone, having access to the ECB’s cheap
money provision is without any doubt one of the most important
elements of Eurozone membership.
That this cheap money may one day be used
by the ECB to exert political influence, can be confirmed by former
Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, who was toppled by the ECB’s ability
to affect Italy’s borrowing rate, according
to some. The
ECB now also uses it to pressure Greece into bowing to its demands,
as it has been doing to Cyprus
and Ireland.
Perhaps Paul Krugman may not agree with it, but in the real world
there is no such thing as a free lunch.
After
euro-accession - or actually since it became clear they’d join the
Eurozone, given the expectation effect- Greek, Italian, French,
Belgian, Spanish and Irish banks were suddenly flooded with cheap
money, whereas before they faced higher interest rates. As a result,
investments were being made that would otherwise not have been made,
with very considerable economic distortions as a result. In the case
of Greece, Italy and Belgium, much of the cash went to public
spending. In the case of Ireland and Spain, it went to unsustainable
private spending, ending up in a gigantic real estate bubble and
bust, very high private debt rates and broken banking systems which
have only partially been cleaned up. The ECB could have partially
countered this, for example by not gradually
loosening up collateral requirements for banks to get ECB cash
over the years since 2008, but at the end of the day, it was
inavoidable.
If
the ECB would cut off or limit funding for Greek banks to
the point where the bank run couldn't be dealt with, a bank
holiday would be called. Greek banks would be restructured.
Shareholders would lose everything, just like bondholders, and
depositors would either lose a part of their deposits or would
receive them in devalued Greek currency. Parallel currency solutions
may be tried, transition bailouts may be given, but in the end the
cheap money party would be over.
Most
analysts of Grexit are concerned about how this “Corralito”,
as a similar episode in Argentina in 2001-2002 has been dubbed, would
play out, but that’s not even the most risky aspect of Grexit.
The
Greek state, strongly reliant on the ECB, through the Greek banking
system, wouldn’t be able to pay salaries and pensions any longer.
Dismissals of public servants, cuts into their salaries to
Balkan-style levels, or both, would become necessary, whether Syriza
would survive in power or not. To predict that this will never happen
without very serious protests isn’t hard. But depending on the size
of transition bailouts, it would be possible to smooth out this
process over time. Those who really care about ending the clientelist
system in Greece, to which Syriza may
be taking part, should rejoice. In the same way that Georgia
managed
to reduce state corruption and boost economic growth by simply
cutting the number of government workers by 50% and reducing the
state's role into the economy, Greece may achieve the same success.
To end Greek access to the ECB's cheap money canal may not be a
sufficient condition for this to happen, but it is probably a
necessary condition. Higher interest rates would secure that Greek
politicians would no longer be able to burden their citizens with
ever more debt.
- Depreciation of the new Greek currency
As
explained, the main problem of Greece’s Eurozone membership wasn’t
so much the fact that it had an overvalued currency, but rather that
the euro served as a massive debt machine for the country. Still, the
country did lose a lot of competitiveness, contributing to the
inability to serve its debt obligations, after it entered the euro.
One must give Greece credit for having partially
restored competitiveness, through labour market reform, rising 48
places in the World Bank’s Doing Business report between 2010 and
2015. Given that the currency would lose value, economic sectors like
tourism may benefit, but this effect has already been partially
achieved by the efforts to achieve an “internal devaluation”.
It
should be noted that the introduction of a new currency may well
fail. This happened in Ecuador, leading the country to adopting the
US Dollar as its currency. Montenegro and Kosovo already use the euro
as their currency, without their banks having access to the cheap
money canal of the ECB. If the ECB cuts off Greek banks, Greece will
become like Montenegro. The good part is that politicians then won't
be able to abuse the printing press to fund state spending. The bad
part is that Greece would need to rely on these politicians to
restore competitiveness. If Greece would have its own currency,
investors could just sell it off in case the country's
competitiveness would be in trouble. This would impoverish the
Greeks, but it would also make them cheaper to hire. It would make it
cheaper to go on a holiday in Greece. It really is a trade-off then:
Becoming like Montenegro or like Turkey.
- (Long term) Contagion
The
process of introducing a new currency may in theory set off immediate
contagion: bank runs in Portugal, higher borrowing rates for Italy.
However, the ECB can
just print money in order to bail out Portugese banks and
manipulate sovereign borrowing rates, through QE or other various
instruments.
A
more likely risk is long term contagion. Grexit
would set a precedent. After Grexit,
once another Eurozone state would get in trouble, much more money may
be needed to assure that the country would stay in, for example
Portugal. This may make it less likely that Eurozone countries would
bail out Portugal, in turn raising attention to Italy and Spain,
increasing the chance of a complete Eurozone break-up.
On
the other hand, bailing out Greece once
more also comes at a cost. It will
emboldens these populists in countries like Portugal and Spain who’re
hostile to the strings attached to the bailouts their countries have
received or continue to receive indirectly, through the ECB's easy
money canal. This in turn may make the wealthier Eurozone states,
like Germany, less keen to provide more bailouts. It increases the
chance of a Eurozone break-up.
Conclusion:
Regardless
of whether one thinks the Eurozone should be broken up or not: if it
can only survive through continuous transfers, states mingling into
each other’s national policy choices, which strains once-beneficial
relations between European countries, it may not be such a great idea
to continue with it. Those who believe
that if only we do a few more transfers, everything may turn quiet,
have been trying for five years.
There will be no calm in a transfer
union which lacks sufficient political unity.
But perhaps the euro can survive, without transfers. Those who
believe so, and I doubt that they're right, may now try Grexit to
prove their point.