The departure of Patrick honohan from the central bank caps a week where the Irish public saw the true reality of central bank independence. Continue reading
So the ECB has, years late and trillions short, decided to act rather than to react. Having passively allowed its balance sheet, shrink By €1 trillion over the last two years it has now decided to inflated its balance sheet by €1 trillion over the next two years. One of the things that central banks are supposed to do is to ensure stability. Looking back from the end of 2016 the gyrations of the ECB balance sheet will hardly inspire. Nonetheless the proposal to engage in quantitative easing, of a sort, is welcome. But its more a constipated squeezing than real quantitative easing. Continue reading
The mortgage crisis is the rancid gift that keeps on oozing.
The publication this week by the Department of Finance of mortgage arrears figures highlights the festering lethargy that has characterised much of the Irish response to the financial crisis. That it publishes slightly different figures on the same issue as the central bank highlights the embedded inability of the Irish state to engage in any sort of joined up thinking. The central bank data is of end March, the Department of Finance end April. They use slightly different presentations and slightly different emphases on the same dataset. To get a full picture of what is going on one needs to read two publications and interpolate two different time series. Why is this effective duplication allowed? Why is it needed? Why do we not have ONE official source, weekly or monthly or quarterly or whatever, from ONE state agency providing ONE comprehensive dataset? Do the central bank and department of finance not talk to or coordinate with each other? Does one hand know what the other is doing?
There was an interesting book launch last night at the Long Room in TCD. Phillipe Legrain is on a tour of various places, doing local and localized launches of his new book.
He, and Senator Sean Barrett who gave the launch, delivered very strong, impassioned speeches. In his book Legrain lays a large quantum of the blame for the mess on the failure of interlocking European institutions. He backs squarely the Irish need for sovereign debt relief ; he calls for debt-equity swaps for distressed homeowners and SMEs; he castigates the failure of the economics elite to see the crisis, and challenges the policy making apparatus of both local and European governance. He calls for hardball negotiations, and lays out a path for same.
Legrain is no fire breathing radical. He is however from personal and professional background and inclination deeply European. His book has been lauded with positive reviews. He challenges us.
Given this, and given the importance of the topic on which he speaks, it was frankly astounding to see how widely the launch was ignored. With the exception of Sean Barrett, there was (as far as I could see) not a single faculty member from a single economics department; with three exceptions the same for business school faculties. The Central Bank? The Department of Finance? Taoiseach? Foreign Affairs? Most of the media? Any elected official of state? Nobody that I could see. We could create a list as long as the page of elite institutions (IBEC? IIEA?, ACCI? …..) who were NOT represented at this talk, or if so were very well disguised. It was to my mind a clear example of how we have a collective elite who have firmly pulled on the green jersey and decided to press on regardless. Maybe they are right, maybe wrong, but one thing we have learned is that groupthink is bad. We need outsiders to challenge, but we need also to be prepared to be challenged. Seems we aren’t.
This is a version of my column in the Irish Examiner of 26 April 2014. Macroeconomics is hard. Its hard because there are actually few coherent theories, such internally coherent theories as we have oftent tend to be at odds with reality, data are of fairly low frequency (monthly usually) and we cant run experiments usually. Those of us who are not practicing macroeconomists thus tend to fall back on fairly simple rules of thumb when assessing policies and outcomes, often by reference to the past. Thus in Europe the ECB has in fact run an experiment against the Federal reserve board. While the Fed has taken the lessons of the 1930s on board and expanded its balance sheet, the ECB has taken the lessons of the 1920 on board and done so reluctantly and is now unwinding them. While the USA engages in quantitative easing, the ECB has engaged in quantitative squeezing. And the results are in; look at the comparative unemployment, performance of the two regions which is really the key metric any sentient or ethical policymakers should concern themselves with. Yes, the USA has an advantage in that they cleaned the banks earlier than did the Eurozone, and thus the monetary transmission system, such as it is in the modern world, was able to work. But that aside it is striking how in recent years the two banks have diverged. It is reasonable to infer that the experiments have had different outcomes.
This is an expanded version of an OpEd in the Irish Examiner published 15 December 2012
The new banking union proposals that are now emerging from the wreckage of the European economy are to be given a (very) cautious welcome. Without going the whole Naomi Klein “shock doctrine” route, its very clear that once again this is a win for (mainly german) banking interests. They for one have not wasted a good crisis, unlike our hapless crew of permanent and transitory governments. Banks have walked away scot free, in essence, from the calamitous decisions they have made. In Ireland, faced with a government as weak as water they essentially bluffed and buffaloed a hapless crew of inepts into socialising the losses. Anybody who think that senior bank management have learned their lesson of humility need only look at the truculent faces when the elected representatives dare question their remuneration.
A banking union required three essential elements: a common supervisor, a common system of deposit insurance or assurance, and a common method to resolve problems. What we have here is the first, and its as good a place to start as any. But without the others its a onelegged stool. The power in European banking has now shifted decisively to Frankfurt – already building an new towerblock (for a cost of over a billion euro…) the ECB will soon need more space. As presently proposed the effect of the new regulator will be to shift regulatory control of AIB, IBRC and BOI to Frankfurt. What exactly that will mean for the newly beefed up regulators office in Dame Street (the beefing up requiring that it move to the IBRC shell – very apt) is unclear. Will staff move to Frankfurt or more probably will it be a remote operation?
Two issues emergent from this require us here to think long and hard. These are the future funding of SMEs and the future of those vile promissory notes
On SME funding the Irish banks are in a bind. They need to continue to delever, and the only way to do that is to progressively increase the deposit base (costly) and/or reduce outstanding loans. In particular, reducing loans will be done while also shifting the balance of loans away from riskier towards less risky ventures. Lending to SME’s is inherently more risky than to more established sectors and ventures. The easiest venture at present is to obtain cheap money from the ECB and purchase Irish government bonds, a carry trade as it is known, reaping a handsome profit for the banks and incrementally driving up the price and down the yield on these bonds yielding a handsome political dividend for the government. Evidence from the ECB biannual survey on access to finance that along with Greece Irish SME’s are the most likely to be discouraged from applying for credit. Although only around 10%, this is unfortunate – discouraged borrowers may be borrowers that have excellent prospects but feel that there is no point seeking a loan. Since March 2010, when the data series begins, excluding property and financial services related lending, lending to the SME sector has fallen by 24%, while in the overall economy it has fallen by 22%. Within the SME sector lending to property and financial services related activity has risen by 30%. Its hard to see how this is justified given the job creation engine that the SME sector can be. As banks regulatory oversight moves more and more remote it is likely that the existing centralization of lending decisions at HQ will intensify. It is reasonable to assume that local managers of banks are more likely to be at least approachable by local SMEs seeking finance. If we wish to reduce discouragement in applicants we need to be very nimble in negotiating the parameters of this new regulatory regime. It’s a good job we have a history of nimble wily negotiators with the ECB….
The creation of the new regulatory framework was a quid pro quo for the establishement of the new ESM lending framework. This will lend to banks for new capital needs, finally breaking the linkage between the soverrign and the banking sector. However, this is of little use to Ireland. We have invested 24b in the pillar banks and 30b via the wretched promissory note in IBRC. The proposal on the table will not give us any relief on these. The government in march 2012 engaged in a complex shell game to avoid payment of the note but this was for a one year basis. Despite this can kicking they continue to claim that they have avoided repayment, which is simply untrue. Thus a solution to the deferred 3.1b and the regular 3.1b needs to be found before march. All indications are that this will involve a restructuring of the repayment schedule, to reduce the amount of money destroyed from 3.1b to perhaps 1b per annum. That anyone outside a lunatic asylum would consider it acceptable for a state so broke that it is cutting respite care to carers to destroy a billion euro shows how degraded our political debate has become. After Minister Rabbit stated that we would not pay in March I asked the Central Bank, the ECB and the government for a statement. Despite being the ultimate loser in any refusal to pay the Bank declined to comment. The ECB reiterated the statement by its president that it was Frankfurts way all the way, while the government press office reiterated that we hadn’t paid in 2012 and were seeking a deal. None of these give any hope that a meaningful reduction in the outstanding debt, as opposed to some restructuring of the payment schedule, is in the offing. That wont prevent the government from touting some form of interest reduction or extension of the repayment schedule as a triumph. But it should.