Do Greece and the Eurozone Need Each Other?

Mark Roe writes:  A deal between Greece and its creditors might not happen. Several factors are in flux; Greek and northern European interests are not aligned; and personal animosities are in play. For Greece, an exit from the euro would not be easy, but if the alternative is endless austerity without debt forgiveness, its government may conclude that leaving the eurozone is the better choice.

Germany, for its part, would prefer to avoid a Greek exit – a position that Greek Finance Minister seems to have been banking on. But the German public largely wants to punish Greece, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel does not want to set a precedent for recurring bailouts of the European Union’s weaker members.

Failure to reach an agreement would be painful for Greece, which would face chaotic economic conditions. But an exit from the euro would also provide its government with new options – most notably, the ability devalue its currency to make its exports more competitive. For the rest of Europe, however, the risk is mostly on the downside, because beyond the obvious losses that would be incurred if Greece does not pay its debt to European governments and international institutions, there is the wider worry that the crisis could reverberate through the continent’s real economy.

There are three important risk channels through which Greece’s troubles could hit the European economy. The first is by destabilizing its financial institutions. The second is by disrupting the other EU member states in situations similar to Greece’s. And the third is by bringing about unexpected political outcomes.

It is important to recall that the 2008 financial crisis started in the United States, prosaically enough, with the bursting of a housing bubble.

The real trouble came when those losses hit the American financial system. At first, many authorities and observers thought that the crisis – beginning with the collapse of the US investment bank Lehman Brothers – could be contained.

Optimists will point out that the European institutions most exposed to the turmoil in Greece have had years to prepare themselves. And, indeed, a significant share of Greece’s government debt has migrated from banks to robust public institutions like the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

But the risks have not been eliminated. Risk and loss can spread from Greece to other heavily indebted countries, like Spain and Italy.

A Greek default and exit from the eurozone could unleash unpredictable political forces with a knock-on effect on the European economy.

Further hardship and economic turmoil could produce governments even further out on the political spectrum (the neo-fascist Golden Dawn party is another beneficiary of Greece’s economic troubles) or generate considerable instability, with governments becoming unable to provide basic security, let alone encourage an economic recovery. Add to that Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Greece has yet officially to default or leave the eurozone. There is still time for one side or the other to concede or for the various parties to find a face-saving compromise.

Many in Greece desperately want to retain the euro. As for the rest of Europe, its decision-makers may not want to risk finding out whether the repercussions of a Greek exit really can be contained.

Greece and the Eurozone

Lagarde Opposed Greek Loans; Now Stuck with Default

As French Finance Minister in 2010, Christine Lagarde opposed the involvement of the International Monetary Fund in Greece.

Now Lagarde’s tenure at the head of the IMF since 2011 will be shaped by Greece, which holds a referendum on Sunday that could pave the way to its exit from the euro.

By its own admission the Washington-based institution broke many of its rules in lending to Greece. It ended up endorsing austerity measures proposed by the European Commission and European Central Bank, its partners in the troika of Greece’s lenders.

That the IMF lent to Greece at the behest of Europe, which has nominated every IMF Managing Director since the inception of the Fund in 1946, may expose the institution to greater scrutiny, especially as it has $24 billion in loans outstanding to Greece in its largest-ever program.

The involvement of the Fund in Greece and its continued support for decisions driven by eurozone governments caused a deep split in the institution.

Some IMF economists had misgivings about lending to Greece in 2010 within the constraints of the so-called “troika” of lenders, where the Fund would be the junior partner to the European Central Bank and the European Commission.

IMF board members also protested the “exceptional” size of the program, as Athens did not meet the Fund’s criteria for debt sustainability, meaning it would have trouble repaying.

Yet swayed by the fear that contagion in Athens could spread to French and German banks, the IMF agreed to participate in a joint 110-billion-euro bailout of Greece with the Europeans.

Later, the Fund admitted that its projections for the Greek economy had been overly optimistic. Instead of growing after a year of austerity, Greece’s economy plunged into one of the worst recessions to ever hit a country in peacetime, with output falling 22 percent from 2008 to 2012.

While the eurozone’s insistence on drawing a direct link between euro membership and Greece’s debt sustainability and the negotiating tactics of the Greek government have exposed both to questions of credibility, the Fund stands charged as well.

Greek default on all $24 billion it owes to the IMF dwarfs previous delinquincies from countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe and Somalia.

While the IMF was worried about contagion when it made the loans, it also had institutional incentives for wanting to bail out troubled countries.

The IMF’s heavy involvement in large bailouts for euro zone countries, which included Ireland and Portugal, have enabled it to build up its reserve buffers in recent years. It is now aiming to store away some $28 billion by 2018.

From interest and charges on the Greek program alone, the IMF has earned some $3.9 billion since 2010.

Greek Default

Regulating Wall Street?

Erica Orden writes:  The search to replace New York’s former top financial regulator,Benjamin Lawsky, has attracted the involvement of one of the banking industry’s harshest critics: U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).

In recent weeks, Ms. Warren has placed calls to top staffers for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and others assigned to identify a successor to Mr. Lawsky, according to a person with direct knowledge of the search process. Ms. Warren’s advice: Tap Rohit Chopra, the student loan ombudsman and assistant director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she helped start up and initially ran.

On Wednesday, the CFPB said Mr. Chopra would be leaving the bureau next week. Neither the bureau, nor Mr. Chopra, in a letter to the Treasury secretary, said what he planned to do next.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Warren didn’t comment on whether the senator has placed calls to the Cuomo administration or others on Mr. Chopra’s behalf, but pointed to a Facebook post from June 1 in which Ms. Warren endorsed the notion of Mr. Chopra succeeding Mr. Lawsky.

“He is smart as a whip, independent, hard-working, and loaded with integrity,” Ms. Warren wrote. “The New York banking superintendent is an important overseer of Wall Street, and I think Rohit would be phenomenal in that role.”

Cuomo and Wall Street

Warren v Dimon: Warren Wins Hands Down

Charles Gasparino writes:  The problem isn’t Dimon’s mansplaining. It’s that Warren is telling a truth no one else will tell: Big banks aren’t free-market at all.

Warren says these big bank institutions should be broken up by the government out of fear that the system could implode as it did in 2008.

Dimon says the good senator should stick to making sure the Community Redevelopment Act is enforced and other pet lefty projects because she doesn’t “fully [understand] the global banking system.”

For once we have a leader in Washington, namely Warren, telling us what most of the political class and the bankers won’t: The banks are not free-market at all. They are big, government-protected entities that will be bailed out the next time a 2008 scenario comes around.

And the best way to make sure they don’t end up costing the taxpayers more money will be to make them smaller, which is about as close to a free-market statement as you might find on this subject, courtesy of Sen. Warren.

The dirty secret in Washington and Wall Street that Warren is exposing is that banks like JP Morgan, Citi, and B of A will always be on the government’s protected-species list because of a little thing known as deposit insurance, which covers bank deposits up to $250,000.

These banks just don’t take in deposits and lend them out so people can buy homes and so on anymore. Thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton’s husband, banks combine these commercial banking activities with Wall Street risk-taking.

Meanwhile, JP Morgan has a whopping $1.4 trillion in deposits. A massive screwup on its trading desk or some 2008-like event that leads to insolvency could mean the taxpayer is on the hook for a chunk of that money—a number, I might add, that could dwarf the $800 billion stimulus package President Obama  blew through during the Great Recession.

What free-marketer would allow the American taxpayer to subsidize Jamie Dimon’s risk-taking?

Again, the Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to get rid of Too Big to Fail, but the reality that Warren is at least honest about is that it hasn’t:

What’s great about the Warren vs. Dimon feud is that it both exposes Wall Street’s real crony capitalism roots and the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton remaking herself in the Elizabeth Warren class-warrior mode. Yes it was Bill Clinton who enacted one of the least thought-out banking laws back in 1999 that made it legal to combine commercial-banking activities with Wall Street-style risk-taking.

The result of what was known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act was the permanent dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act, which made it illegal to mix bond trading with deposit-taking.

The law paved the way for the creation of the financial supermarket known as Citigroup, which would go on to hire Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin as one of its top executives and board members. Hillary Clinton has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from bankers.

She won’t of course, but Warren should be given credit for explaining just how protected and coddled banks still are in many ways, thanks to the Clintons and their unholy alliance with Wall Street. Dimon’s comments about Warren are shocking only because they were made honestly and publicly.

Why should taxpayers subsidize his paycheck, which goes up with every successful trade? My advice: If Jamie Dimon wants to roll the dice in the derivatives markets, he should first be forced to give up his access to FDIC insurance on JP Morgan’s deposits.

I’m pretty sure Adam Smith and Elizabeth Warren would agree.

Warren v Dimon

HSBC Shrink and Pivot East?

HSBC began in Hong Kong during the colonial period.  Pummelled by regulators in the UK where its headquarters are now located and looking at drramatic rises in GNP in Asia, HSBC is contemplating a move back to its roots in Hong Kong.

Deutsche Some and  other big banks having probelm in thier home countries are looking to retrench.  Few have HSBC’s history.

With the exception of CItibank in the US, most of the big banks weathered the most recent financial crisis well.  Part of this came from their presence across the globe.

Where bigs will operate and how big they will be are questions on the table now.

HSBC Pivot?

 

Draghi Commits to Continuing QE

Brian Blackstone writes:  The European Central Bank’s president said the ECB will implement its EUR1 trillion-plus quantitative easing program to completion and is even willing to add to it if needed.

Yet investors reacted oppositely to what would have been expected. German bond yields soared, and the euro rose against the U.S. dollar. Easier monetary policies typically reduce yields and currency values.

In a sense, the recent rise in bond yields—though Germany’s 10-year yield, at around 0.93%, is still super low—reflects a normalization in the economy and inflation. Consumer prices are up in the eurozone and returned to positive territory last month faster than many analysts had thought they would. That implies a higher bond premium to safeguard against inflation. Firmer economic growth typically has the same effect on yields. Hopes for a deal between Greece and its creditors have dampened demand for ultra-safe assets like German bonds.

A deeper message from Wednesday’s market reaction to Mr. Draghi’s press conference is that seven years after the onset of the financial crisis, the global economy and financial markets are still highly dependent on monetary policy.

For investors, that means bouts of volatility that central bankers can’t, or won’t, intervene to resolve.

For Mr. Draghi and his peers this means their words still matter greatly whether they like it or not, and need to be chosen carefully.

Mario-Draghi-Cartoon

Influence of “Never-Ran” Warren

“Never-ran” Warren is fiery and fierce. She made her name nationally through her dogged and fearless attacks on big banks and financial institutions. Outside of the presidential campaign, the Senator can keep that role — the symbolic embodiment of economic populism — and continue to target the financial elite who perpetuate dangerous and abusive inequality. From her pulpit as America’s most popular populist, Warren can hold candidates from both parties accountable.

As a “never-ran,” Warren can speak about the issues she cares about, without worrying about how she’s polling against her opponents. Just recently, she spoke out against the President on his big trade bill, and questioned Hillary’s coziness with Wall Street. That’s not to suggest that Warren, like any politician, ignores polling. But, intensity and impact of such calculations is ratcheted up when you’re actually running for office. If Warren isn’t a presidential candidate, she can be a conscience for all those who are.

Warren can also focus on the Republican coterie — by keeping issues in the debate so they’ll have to address them. At a time when our economy is recovering and corporate profits and elite incomes are growing faster than ever, wages for ordinary Americans are stagnant or declining. This is a real crisis that transcends political parties, and yet the simple fact is that only one party, the Democrats, is really talking about it.

Ordinary conservative voters are concerned about inequality, especially when it comes to their own bank balances and their children’s futures. (Remember, the Tea Party originally rose up in response to government bailouts of big banks, a populist grumbling if ever there was one.) But, mainstream Republican candidates for president aren’t likely to talk about inequality and economic populism. They need pressure, and as a “never ran,” Elizabeth Warren can provide it. As long as she’s out there speaking loudly about inequality, the issue will stay in the national debate — and any serious candidate will be forced to comment.

When Warren said she wasn’t running, she meant it. (Unlike just about everyone else, for whom saying “I’ll never run” is virtually the same as declaring.) Rather, the “Run Warren Run” campaign reflected a true grassroots groundswell of progressive and independent voters inspired by Warren’s populist ideals and tenacity.

In a political system that feels increasingly theatrical — an uneventful show paid for and put on to preserve the power of the monied elites — Elizabeth Warren feels like a breath of fresh air, a fed-up and fired-up truth-teller who seems to be channeling the hearts and minds of average voters from across the political spectrum. As such, Warren is almost too good for politics — and definitely too good for the race for president. That’s why we’re so looking forward to her not running.

Never Ran Warren

IMF Bulletin to US Fed: Hold Rates Steady

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde said the Federal Reserve should wait to see “more tangible signs of wage or price inflation”.

The IMF believes that “pockets of vulnerability” in the US economy have emerged.

These could cause serious trouble for the wider economy, Ms Lagarde said.

“Deferring rate increases would provide valuable insurance against the risk of disinflation, policy reversal and ending back at zero policy rates,” the IMF’s report said.

And because of the global implications of a rate rise, communication from the Federal Reserve was vital, it added. The fund suggested monthly press conferences from the central bank. Currently they have six a year.

Many Washington watchers have predicted an interest rate rise this year.

But recent economic reports have been mixed, including data showing that the US economy shrank by an annualised 0.7% in the first quarter.

The IMF said this would “unavoidably pull down 2015 growth, which is now projected at 2.5%”. For 2016, the forecast is for 3%.

That is still better than Wednesday’s projection from the think-tank, the OECD, which cut its forecast to 2% for this year.

Ms Lagarde also said commented on the US dollar, saying the IMF believes it is moderately overvalued.

That marks a change compared with a previous assessment.

“Continued over appreciation is a potential risk and should not be discounted,” she said.

Chinese Currency On the Rise?

Stephen Greenville writes: The renminbi is still some distance from being an ‘international currency’, but it is moving fast in that direction, passing some important waypoints over recent months.

It’s not exactly clear what being an ‘international currency’ means, but one aspect is whether the currency is included in the IMF’s notional currency, the Special Drawing Rights.  China is pushing strongly on this. Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan made the case at the recent IMF meeting. Since then capital controls have been eased further, especially for outgoing capital flows, but Governor Zhou notes the lessons of the 1997-98 Asian crisis – that completely unregulated capital flows, with their surges and ‘sudden stops’, have caused great disruption. China intends to retain enough controls to avoid these pitfalls.

In practical terms, being included in the SDR basket is no big deal, but there would be considerable prestige involved, symbolising China’s arrival at the epicentre of international transactions (the SDR currently includes just four currencies: the US dollar, the euro, the UK pound and the Japanese yen). The US is looking for more reform before the renminbi is included.

The pressure to have the renminbi included will continue when the ‘SDR basket’ comes up for its regular five-yearly reappraisal at the end of this year. The present focus is on capital account openness, but this is not the only criterion. The currency must also be ‘freely available’, which for China might mean a much deeper domestic bond market with greater foreign participation, as suggested here.

The IMF has also changed its tune on whether the renminbi is undervalued (‘manipulated’), giving China extra international competitiveness. Again, the US is resisting this assessment, with the US Treasury maintaining that the strengthening has not been ‘as fast or as much as is needed’.

This debate, however, has lost its fervour. The Chinese current account surplus is now 2% rather than the 10% recorded in 2007; foreign exchange reserves are no longer growing; and the yuan has appreciated by 30% over the past decade. More recently it has maintained its value against an appreciating US dollar, which means it has lost competitiveness against just about everyone else.

Even one-time renminbi warrior Ted Truman (a long-serving senior official at the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve) not only accepts that the renminbi is no longer ‘manipulated’, but also that if the US pushes too dogmatically on this issue (as is being done by his colleague at the Peterson Institute, Fred Bergsten), the US might have to acknowledge that its quantitative easing policies have also had the effect of enhancing US international competitiveness.  Chinese Currency

Entrepreneur Alert: Women Discover Scarves

Nancy Diehl writes:  When International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde goes to the G8 summit in June, she may well be wearing a scarf – a fashion accessory that she’s become known for, and one that’s been drawing more and more attention.

In fact, the BBC recently identified scarves as a “new power symbol” for women.

True, just as some men choose amusing ties to enliven monochrome suits, many women who work in an atmosphere that requires conservative business apparel will wear scarves to add a fillip of colour and distinction.

The scarf is the most simple form of adornment: a single piece of cloth. For this reason, it’s one of the most versatile clothing accessories, used for centuries across a variety of cultures, for a range of purposes.

Many Muslim women wear headscarves for modesty, while women of a certain age favour scarves with a triangular fold to protect expensive or elaborate coifs.

The British firm Jacqmar produced designs with propaganda-themed slogans. One design mimicked a wall with posters urging citizens to “Lend to Defend” and “Save for Victory”.

But in Western culture, the scarf is most prominently known for its use as a fashion accessory, one that first gained widespread popularity in the 19th century.

The fichu is a typical 18th- and 19th-century style that can be seen as the forerunner of modern scarves. A piece of fabric worn draped on the upper chest and usually knotted in front, it provided modest covering but was also an opportunity to add an especially fine textile – sometimes lace edged or embroidered – to an ensemble.

Lightweight, finely woven silk and cashmere shawls from India were one of the first fashionable scarf styles. Empress Joséphine – the first wife of Napoleon – had an extensive collection (thanks to her husband’s travels), and the style persisted through much of the 19th century, spawning cheaper imitations fabricated in other parts of Europe, notably France and Paisley, Scotland.

Certain labels are particularly associated with high style in scarves. Ferragamo, Fendi and Gucci – all originally esteemed leather goods houses – now produce desirable scarves.

But for prestige and polish, Hermès represents the pinnacle of scarf culture.

Limiting the number of designs they offer each season has maintained Hermès’s mystique. The company’s focus on craftsmanship helps justify their reputation and high prices; Hermès takes pride in the impressive number of colours in each design, the hand-printing process and the fineness of their silk, positioning their output as artisanal creations.

In contemporary fashion, scarves continue to serve the same functions as those earlier fine linen fichus and paisley shawls; they denote connoisseurship and sophistication.

French Economy, Industry and Employment minister Christine Lagarde leaves the Elysee Palace on April 21, 2010 following the weekly cabinet meeting in Paris.     AFP PHOTO / LIONEL BONAVENTURE (Photo credit should read LIONEL BONAVENTURE/AFP/Getty Images)