Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
As I wrote upthread, currently the Serious People are fighting over the German government's insistence to involve private capital in the rescue, in the form of voluntary early rollovers. Opposed: everyone, but above all France (the country with the highest liabilities in Greece), the ECB (the bank with most Greek treasuries, around €50 billion) and Germany's own Bundesbank. The opponents argue that rating agencies will interpret the early rollover as a default, causing actual default, and spreading elsewhere. And rating agencies are glad to reinforce that argument:

Moody's puts French banks on review for downgrade over Greece | Reuters

(Reuters) - Moody's Investors Service on Wednesday placed France's top three banks, BNP Paribas, Societe Generale and Credit Agricole (CASA), on review for a possible downgrade, citing the banks exposure to Greece's debt crisis.

"Today's actions reflect Moody's concerns about these banks' exposures to the Greek economy, either through direct holdings of government bonds or credit extended to the Greek private sector directly or through subsidiaries operating in Greece, a key factor for CASA and SocGen due to their local Greek banks," Moody's said in a note.

(I read in one of the links upthread that most of the French exposure is in the form of credit extended to own subsidiaries in the Greek private sector.)

This whole battle is bizarre. If only the Greek people would manage to get their parliamentarians to put an end to it.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 03:19:54 PM EST
The opponents argue that rating agencies will interpret the early rollover as a default, causing actual default, and spreading elsewhere.

What, they mean that Greece having been shut out of the capital markets for over a year and recently downrated to the worst credit rating on the planet isn't bad enough already?

In that context, what is it that the "rescue" is going to accomplish for Greece? They acknowledge it won't return to the markets until 2013, and it will remain with  a high debt to GDP ratio so its rating will continue to be low even after that.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 03:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what is it that the "rescue" is going to accomplish for Greece?

It looks like concrete boots for the Greeks -- to keep the bodies from popping up after they have been thrown overboard. The Greeks should just write all the debt down to 30-50% and inform the creditors that they will write it down to zero if they try any more economic blackmail or try to kick Greece out of the EU.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 04:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
downrated to the worst credit rating on the planet isn't bad enough already?

I didn't realise until reading it yesterday, that for some agencies, there is a rating below C: D.

Bond credit rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moody'sStandards & PoorFitchCredit worthiness
- C C The obligor is CURRENTLY HIGHLY-VULNERABLE to nonpayment. May be used where a bankruptcy petition has been filed.
C D D An obligor has failed to pay one or more of its financial obligations (rated or unrated) when it became due.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 06:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, 'D' is "in default". It's not actually a rating of future creditworthiness.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 02:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the German government's insistence to involve private capital in the rescue

What made Merkel change her mind?

Or is this just Schaeuble asking for private involvement in the Ecofin while Merkel will argue for the contrary position at the Council?

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 03:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Reportedly, Merkel is to side with Schäuble in her meeting with Sarko on Friday. Why do you think she changed her mind? I haven't seen any news about her voicing an opinion on this, so there was the Bundesbank boss only – which could have been interpreted as either channelling Merkel's disagreement with Schäuble or, quite the opposite, trying to overcome the fact of being a political nominee and establish credibility with the in-house hawks by demonstrating independence from the government. But with this latest I now think Merkel didn't made up her mind and then chose whatever furthers her stay in power.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the SPD (PES!) called Schäuble's plans a placebo and dared something bolder in calling for defaults and Eurobonds.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 06:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Greek protesters could be having some effect. They are to give money to Greece and see the Greek populace reject it?

Just as the accusations that Greeks are layabouts, etc., coming from Merkel had their impact.

How much more punishment would the average Greek citizen have withstood if Bini Smaghi, Weidmann, Merkel and Stark resisted the urge to act smugly superior? Without a doubt, MORE!

The whole edifice is built on mutual mistrust. It will therefore crumble.

by Upstate NY on Wed Jun 15th, 2011 at 07:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's not forget Bundesbank chief Jens Weidmann was Merkel's economic advisor until she chose him to succeed Axel Weber earlier this year. So, we can either assume they were on the same page on no bondholder bailouts until 2013 or, more cynically, as you say, that Merkel has no position of her own and just does what is personally politically expedient hoping nobody calls her out on her change of opinion.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 01:54:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to educate me on this: does bondholder bailout and early rollover intersect?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:08:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Voluntary early rollover" means I hold a Greek bond and the Greek government sells me a new bond, the proceeds of which they use to buy the old bond.

Whether or not this involves a loss for me or is done "at par", I fail to comprehend how this could constitute a "credit event" in the eyes of anyone.

Now, if people perceive the I bought the new bond under duress, maybe they'll call it a default, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

This can also be done as a bond swap. I swap my existing bond for a newly issue bond, and I agree with Greece that the bond is worth the same as the old one. Mark-to-market and hold-to-maturity accounting issues galore, as you can imagine. Credit rating agencies have said they would interpret most bond swaps as a credit event. But if you structured it as two bond purchases as above, it wouldn't be.

A "maturity extension" can be seen as a bond swap. I exchange a bond maturing in 5 years for a bond maturing in 10 years. For the same book value, the 10-year bond would have smaller periodic payments, improving Greece's ability to pay. Longer maturities have higher sensitivities to interest rates higher downside risk, and might lose market value quickly. If the maturity extension is at a loss, it would be a credit event if "involuntary", yatta yatta bing bing.

These are all examples of "debt restructurings".

A "default" is a failure to meet obligations as they mature. Evidently, if restructurings are "voluntary" there's no "default".

This has nothing to do with mathematical finance and everything to do with law and politics, evidently, though faulty accounting principles help obfuscate the issues. As does jargon.

"Bondholder bail-in" means forcing bondholders to realise losses on their bond portfolios. A "bond rollover" or "bond swap" or "maturity extension" or "debt restructuring" is a "bail-in" if it involves a loss for the bondholder.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Crucially, creditor countries in the Eurozone have insisted that the EFSF is not allowed to loan money to Euro member states for the purposes or repurchasing bonds in the open market.

For instance, Greece could repurchase its own bonds at yields of 20-something percent when they issued them at yields below 5%, realising major gains.

This the Aust(e)rians interpret as an EFSF subsidy, fiscal transfer and market manipulation, so they disallow it.

They also want to prevent the EFSF from buying sovereign bonds in the secondary market (since they failed to close that loophole in the Lisbon Treaty charter of the ECB).

The wrangling over the interest rate being charged by the EFSF to Greece, Ireland and Portugal is related to this.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 06:13:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On second thought, I may have been confused: I was interpreting "bondholder bailout" as bailing out private holders of Greek bonds in case of a Greek default, while you probably meant bondholders participating in Greece's bailout... financial terms are difficult.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:23:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Bailout" and "bailin" are not financial terms, they're colourful metaphors.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bundesbank chief Jens Weidmann was Merkel's economic advisor until she chose him

(For clarity, I note that this is what I meant by "the fact of being a political nominee".)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:18:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Back to no bondholder bailouts until 2013: can you find the original news report behind this? I could only track down this (a press conference with Juncker in March):

Auf gar keinen Fall können wir jetzt innerhalb der Laufzeit des EFSF ‑ das will ich noch einmal ganz deutlich sagen, weil das oft missverstanden wird ‑ eine verpflichtende Beteiligung privater Gläubiger einführen, die es bis 2013 nicht gibt.Within the term of the EFSF, no way can we now - I want say this very clearly once more, because it is often misunderstood - introduce a mandatory participation of private creditors, which there won't be until 2013.

My emphasis. Schäuble's proposal is supposed to be voluntary, while the opponents argue that rating agencies won't see it as voluntary...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 06:07:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh. So that's where 2013 comes from:

EFSF FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (pdf):

11. TERM AND LIQUIDATION OF EFSF

...

(2) The euro-area Member States undertake that they shall liquidate EFSF in accordance with its Articles of Association on the earliest date after 30 June 2013 on which there are no longer Loans outstanding to a euro-area Member State and all Funding Instruments issued by EFSF and any reimbursement amounts due to Guarantors have been repaid in full.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 06:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would look for accounts of the 18 October 2010 Deauville summit between Merkel and Sarkozy.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 06:19:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hm? I found the Schäuble position in Merkel's reply to a question at the 19 October 2010 press conference after the Deauville meeting:

REGIERUNGonline - Pressekonferenz Merkel, Sarkozy und Medwedew in Deauville AP - Press Conference Merkel, Sarkozy and Medvedev in Deauville
Ich habe immer wieder gesagt, dass die Fonds, die wir jetzt für die Rettung des Euro aufgelegt haben - sowohl bezüglich Griechenlands als auch für den Gesamt-Eurorettungsschirm -, die 2013 auslaufen, auf gar keinen Fall einfach so verlängert werden können. Deshalb heißt es heute, bereits Vorsorge zu treffen und zu überlegen: Was tun wir dann? Wir sind uns einig, dass wir einen Rettungsmechanismus brauchen, der aber dauerhaft und qualitativ anders beschaffen ist. Ich glaube, es ist ein sehr gutes Signal, dass Deutschland und Frankreich gemeinsam gesagt haben: Wir brauchen dazu eine Vertragsänderung, und diese Vertragsänderung beinhaltet einen Mechanismus, bei dem auch die Gläubiger finanziell an der Beseitigung einer schwierigen Situation für den Euro beteiligt werden. Das ist ein großer Fortschritt.I said agai and again that the funds we created to save the euro - both for Greece as well as for the aggregate euro rescue package - which expire in 2013, can in no case be just extended. That is why already today, one has to prepare and think about what we will be doing then. We agree that we need a rescue mechanism that is designed to be durable and qualitatively different. I think it's a very good signal that Germany and France have said jointly: for that, we need a treaty amendment, and this treaty amendment includes a mechanism in which the creditors, too, will participate financially in the solution of a difficult situation for the euro. This is a big step forward.

I failed to find the actual Deauville Declaration on the government site, but here is a copy of the German version, and here is the French Presidential office's English translation. The relevant part:

The amendment of the Treaties will be restricted to the following issues:

* The establishment of a permanent and robust framework to ensure orderly crisis management in the future, providing the necessary arrangements for an adequate participation of private creditors and allowing Member States to take appropriate coordinated measures to safeguard financial stability of the Euro area as a whole.

On the German government site, there is a copy of an op-ed for Handelsblatt by an advisor of the financial ministry (Schäuble), which comments the issue thusly:

Entscheidend für die Eindämmung der Staatsverschuldung ist die Beteiligung der Gläubiger an den Kosten der Sanierung überschuldeter Länder, also ein funktionierendes Verfahren für staatliche Insolvenzen. Dabei bezieht sich die Insolvenz lediglich auf die Bedienung der Staatsschulden, nicht auf sonstige staatliche Aktivitäten, und sie beinhaltet auch nicht den Ausverkauf staatlichen Vermögens. Es geht also um etwas anderes als eine private Insolvenz.Crucial to curbing the national debt is the participation of creditors in the costs of rehabilitating over-indebted countries, that is a working process for state insolvencies. The insolvency relates only to the servicing of public debt, not to other government activities, and does not include the selling off of state assets. That is, this is about something different from a private bankruptcy.
Wenn so ein Verfahren erreicht wird, sind Sanktionen der EU gegen Schuldensünder notfalls entbehrlich. Länder, bei denen eine Überschuldung droht, werden früher als bisher hohe Zinsaufschläge zahlen müssen und den Zugang zu weiteren Krediten verlieren. Genau in diesem Punkt geht die Erklärung von Merkel und Sarkozy weit über das hinaus, was die Van-Rompuy-Task-Force vorgeschlagen hat. Während die Task-Force eine Gläubigerbeteiligung nicht einmal erwähnt, ist nun vorgesehen, ein solches Verfahren im Rahmen einer Vertragsänderung einzuführen...If such a process is reached, the EU sanctions against debt sinners are expendable if necessary. Countries threatened with over-indeptedness will be required to pay high interest rate surcharges earlier than previously and lose access to further loans. Exactly at this point is the statement of Merkel and Sarkozy going far beyond what the Van Rompuy Task Force has proposed. While the Task Force did not even mention creditor participation, it is now foreseen to introduce such a procedure as part of a treaty amendment...
Entscheidend ist nun die Art und Weise, in der Insolvenzverfahren und Hilfen kombiniert werden. Wichtig ist zunächst die Reihenfolge. Die Beteiligung der Gläubiger muss am Anfang stehen. Diese Beteiligung erfolgt im Wesentlichen in Form eines "Haircuts", also einer pauschalen Kürzung der Forderungen. Erst dann kann das betreffende Land Hilfen erhalten. Keinesfalls dürfen die Hilfen vorher gewährt werden. Denn sonst besteht die Gefahr, dass es nie zur Beteiligung der privaten Gläubiger kommt und die Steuerzahler letztlich doch die Kosten der Sanierung tragen.Now the decisive issue is the way and method of the combination of the bankruptcy process and bailouts. Of foremost importance is the order. The participation of the creditor must appear at the beginning. This participation takes place mainly in the form of a "haircut", i.e. a sweeping reduction of claims. Only then can the country receive assistance. Under no circumstances may the aids be granted beforehand. Otherwise the danger exists that it will never come to the involvement of the private creditors and in the end the tax payers will pay the price of the rehabilitation.

This was not merely about early rollover but participation in a default, and an apparently mandatory one. So I would conclude that Merkel's March 2011 comments were probably motivated by the financial sphere's negative reaction to the Deauville proposal, saying "don't be scared, me and Sarko only proposed this for after 2013".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 07:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The insolvency relates only to the servicing of public debt, not to other government activities, and does not include the selling off of state assets.

...oh was that long ago...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 07:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So I would conclude that Merkel's March 2011 comments were probably motivated by the financial sphere's negative reaction to the Deauville proposal, saying "don't be scared, me and Sarko only proposed this for after 2013".

March? Merkel's position since October has been no losses for private bondholders before 2013

Germany's Angela Merkel, by contrast, pushed ahead with her plan to set in concrete the principle that government bondholders should be prepared post-2013 to suffer losses if a government can't pay its bills. She got her way and EU governments this month backed the principle as part of a future financial-rescue regime. Do note, however, that even conservative Angela Merkel kicked the can down the road a couple of years like any run of the mill politician is likely to do.

Even so, Ms. Merkel's decision to be explicit about the possibility of future bondholder losses spooked the markets. There, a little more ambiguity might have been a good thing. Usually markets tend to like certainty but it is apparent that bondholders of sovereign debt dislike the certainty that in the future they will have to share in losses due to governments having a solvency problem and restructuring, really defaulting, on government bonds.

Of course, if you tell the markets you'll allow defaults after 2013, you won't be able to place any bonds in the open market with maturities after 2013...

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 07:18:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Merkel's position since October has been no losses for private bondholders before 2013

For October, that's interpretation, for March, it's explicit. (And before Merkel and Sarko brought that proposal in, there was no one proposing it for any time including after the ESFS, either.)

Either way, there is no contradiction between the Schäuble proposal and either the Deauville Declaration or Merkel's March 2011 promise that I can see, and all of them seem motivated by appeasing the don't-spend-our-precious-tax-euros members of the own camp.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 07:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, let's be precise: Merkel's position since October has been no mandatory losses for private bondholders before 2013.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 07:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The distinction between voluntary and involuntary bailins is academic. If the bondholder arrives at an agreement with the bond issuer there's nothing Merkel or anyone else can say about it.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 08:12:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that I was afraid to ask :

why would a sane bond-holder accept a "voluntary" bailin?

The Nonsense of purely voluntary Bail-ins

A purely voluntary maintenance of exposure at current market rates would make the sovereign's debt even more unsustainable and, in time, will ensure a default on the new bonds. The only way to prevent the coupon/yield on the new bonds from being close to market rates and thus unsustainable would be to provide the new bonds with seniority or some collateral; but both options are undesirable as a rollover is not a case of "debtor-in-possession" financing and thus doesn't justify such credit sweeteners.

 

If, instead the rollover occurs at original coupon or well below market rates, so as to provide Greece with some debt relief, the rollover option is not purely voluntary and has coercive elements; thus, it is not different in any substantial way from the orderly debt restructuring, or reprofiling, that the ECB and other official sector folks so vehemently oppose.



It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 09:56:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
German banks have sold off enough of their Greek bonds that they are now at a manageable level; French banks have held on to theirs (or own Greek subsidiaries which hold the bonds).

So a rollover/default is something the German banks can live with, given that they have already imposed themselves a haircut. But the French banks/government are still in denial, and are soon to hit a brick wall.

Unless there is a change in ECB policy, or something.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 04:32:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The French banks cut their Greek exposure massively in late 2010.

Another possibility is that the French banks understand that they will get cents on their € from Greece, but want their Spanish and Portuguese bonds to mature and be rolled over before Greece makes an unequivocal demonstration to Spain and Portugal that default is not the end of the world. But that's data-free speculation on my part.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 04:51:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, not data free: contagion is what everyone from Trichet through Weidmann to Lagarde is warning about.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The part about French banks I don't get is why bonds to own subsidiaries are to be considered as a risk equivalent to that faced by foreign banks holding sovereign bonds. Can't companies be much more flexible about rollovers and even haircuts in that case?

Regarding the ECB, what is your thinking about that €50 billion exposure? Could a default on that mean, as argued, an actual (or at least perceived) risk to the ECB itself? (Where I am not even sure whether that is supposed to be a liquidity, solvency, credibility, or some other crisis.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:16:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the ECB, what is your thinking about that €50 billion exposure? Could a default on that mean, as argued, an actual (or at least perceived) risk to the ECB itself? (Where I am not even sure whether that is supposed to be a liquidity, solvency, credibility, or some other crisis.)
See Can Central Banks Go Broke? (CEPR Policy Insight No. 24)
In CEPR Policy Insight No.24, Willem Buiter asks: Does it matter if a central bank suffers a large capital loss? Can the central bank become insolvent? How and by whom should the central bank be recapitalised, should its capital be deemed insufficient?
I quoted some bits about the ECB and Eurosystem in this diary.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The key point seems to be:

Insolvency for central banks therefore would mean failure to pay obligations as they fall due (equitable insolvency) rather than liabilities exceeding assets (balance sheet insolvency).

As long as central banks don't have significant foreign exchange-denominated liabilities or index-linked liabilities, it will always be possible for the central bank to ensure its solvency though monetary issuance (seigniorage).

...which the ECB won't do, leaving recapitalisation by the Treasuries of the 15 Eurozone governments, which is tricky. Did I miss something?


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 05:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ECB press releases: 16 December 2010 - ECB increases its capital
The European Central Bank (ECB) has decided to increase its subscribed capital by €5 billion, from €5.76 billion to €10.76 billion, with effect from 29 December 2010. This decision was taken by the Governing Council of the ECB in accordance with the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the ECB, as well as the Council Regulation No 1009/2000 of 8 May 2000 that foresees an increase in the capital of the ECB by up to this amount.

This decision resulted from an assessment of the adequacy of statutory capital conducted in 2009. The capital increase was deemed appropriate in view of increased volatility in foreign exchange rates, interest rates and gold prices as well as credit risk. As the maximum size of the ECB's provisions and reserves is equal to the level of its paid-up capital, this decision will allow the Governing Council to augment the provision by an amount equivalent to the capital increase, starting with the allocation of part of this year's profits. From a longer-term perspective, the increase in capital - the first general one in 12 years - is also motivated by the need to provide an adequate capital base in a financial system that has grown considerably.

In order to smooth the transfer of capital to the ECB, the Governing Council decided that the euro area national central banks (NCBs) should pay their additional capital contributions of €3,489,575,000 in three equal annual instalments. Consequently, the current euro area NCBs will pay €1,163,191,667 as their first instalment on 29 December 2010. The remaining two instalments will be paid at the end of 2011 and 2012, respectively. Moreover, the minimal percentage of the subscribed capital, which the non-euro area NCBs are required to pay as a contribution to the operating costs of the ECB, will be reduced from 7.00% to 3.75%. The non-euro area NCBs consequently will make only minor adjustments to their capital shares, which will result in payments totalling €84,220 on 29 December 2010.

Then, each national treasury will have to recapitalize its own National Central Bank, with "no fiscal transfers".

So, the problem is not whether or not the ECB will become insolvent. The question is whether the ECB will allow Eurosystem member National Central Banks to become insolvent.

ECB council members have used the threat of insolvency of the Irish and Greek central banks explicitly over the past year.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 06:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
then presumably that would eat up the €10B capital, and the ECB would already be insolvent, by its own lights...

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 08:27:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the ECB itself only has €13bn of sovereign bonds from the Securities Market Programme, right? The rest is in the National Central Banks' books.

So the ECB itself wouldn't realise a €50bn loss from a Greek default...

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2011 at 08:40:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series