The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I shall again emphasize too that the foreign-denominated loan problem just came out of the blue for me, I was totally unaware, don't even know anyone who took such a loan. A speculation bubble there could very well have caused the Forint appreciation in the first half of this year (which, BTW, wasn't looked at kindly by the Central Bank at the time).
Is it possible that the Euro is going up against the CEE currencies because Eurozone banks are repatriating capital in order to shore up their balance sheets?
Could be, but the credit crunch, when jittery investors just draw back to safe havens must be a factor, too (also see CEE stock exchanges). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As discussed in earlier threads here on ET, the Government can always keep its own currency down if it wishes - by accumulating foreign reserves (in this case Euro and Swiss Franc).
Ultimately it seems as though governments should do just that, accumulating reserves in an amount sufficient to cover the foreign loans that its population/businesses take out. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Some of these disasters were more or less anticipated. Economists have wondered for some time why hedge funds weren't suffering more amid the financial carnage. They need wonder no longer: investors are pulling their money out of these funds, forcing fund managers to raise cash with fire sales of stocks and other assets. The really shocking thing, however, is the way the crisis is spreading to emerging markets -- countries like Russia, Korea and Brazil. These countries were at the core of the last global financial crisis, in the late 1990s (which seemed like a big deal at the time, but was a day at the beach compared with what we're going through now). They responded to that experience by building up huge war chests of dollars and euros, which were supposed to protect them in the event of any future emergency. And not long ago everyone was talking about "decoupling," the supposed ability of emerging market economies to keep growing even if the United States fell into recession. "Decoupling is no myth," The Economist assured its readers back in March. "Indeed, it may yet save the world economy."That was then. Now the emerging markets are in big trouble. In fact, says Stephen Jen, the chief currency economist at Morgan Stanley, the "hard landing" in emerging markets may become the "second epicenter" of the global crisis. (U.S. financial markets were the first.)What happened? In the 1990s, emerging market governments were vulnerable because they had made a habit of borrowing abroad; when the inflow of dollars dried up, they were pushed to the brink. Since then they have been careful to borrow mainly in domestic markets, while building up lots of dollar reserves. But all their caution was undone by the private sector's obliviousness to risk. In Russia, for example, banks and corporations rushed to borrow abroad, because dollar interest rates were lower than ruble rates. So while the Russian government was accumulating an impressive hoard of foreign exchange, Russian corporations and banks were running up equally impressive foreign debts. Now their credit lines have been cut off, and they're in desperate straits.
Some of these disasters were more or less anticipated. Economists have wondered for some time why hedge funds weren't suffering more amid the financial carnage. They need wonder no longer: investors are pulling their money out of these funds, forcing fund managers to raise cash with fire sales of stocks and other assets.
The really shocking thing, however, is the way the crisis is spreading to emerging markets -- countries like Russia, Korea and Brazil.
These countries were at the core of the last global financial crisis, in the late 1990s (which seemed like a big deal at the time, but was a day at the beach compared with what we're going through now). They responded to that experience by building up huge war chests of dollars and euros, which were supposed to protect them in the event of any future emergency. And not long ago everyone was talking about "decoupling," the supposed ability of emerging market economies to keep growing even if the United States fell into recession. "Decoupling is no myth," The Economist assured its readers back in March. "Indeed, it may yet save the world economy."
That was then. Now the emerging markets are in big trouble. In fact, says Stephen Jen, the chief currency economist at Morgan Stanley, the "hard landing" in emerging markets may become the "second epicenter" of the global crisis. (U.S. financial markets were the first.)
What happened? In the 1990s, emerging market governments were vulnerable because they had made a habit of borrowing abroad; when the inflow of dollars dried up, they were pushed to the brink. Since then they have been careful to borrow mainly in domestic markets, while building up lots of dollar reserves. But all their caution was undone by the private sector's obliviousness to risk.
In Russia, for example, banks and corporations rushed to borrow abroad, because dollar interest rates were lower than ruble rates. So while the Russian government was accumulating an impressive hoard of foreign exchange, Russian corporations and banks were running up equally impressive foreign debts. Now their credit lines have been cut off, and they're in desperate straits.
Gah - speechless. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
A big reason for the worsening of mood in Japan is that its banks, which have heretofore looked solid by global standards, are suddenly looking as if they too might need to raise capital. The reason? Japanese banks, a legacy of the zaibatsu days, hold substantial equity positions in other companies (note these stockholdings are much smaller than they were in the bubble years, when banks were important members of industrial groupings, later called keiretsu as the linkages weakened). The BIS, in a concession to this Japanese peculiarity, allowed a portion of the value of these shares to be counted towards regulatory capital requirements (forgive me for not checking the current rules, but it used to be 50%).
BTW, here is a direct comparison courtesy of the Hungarian Central Bank (pdf!) -- what can you make of it?
Maybe we should do a Socratic Economics on this. I can't promise much understanding, but I can get you all kinds of graphs and data from the Hungarian Central bank and the statistical office. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Thick grey: total, thin grey: consumption and other credit, red: housing credit in Forints, green: in forex *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It started before EU accession probably in the form of delayed payment credits. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As for domestic-denominated credit going negative, what does that mean at all? Interest payments, or (early) repayments (refinancing)? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I have no idea how net debt can be negative - as it has been since 2006. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2 7 comments
by gmoke - Sep 27
by Oui - Oct 15
by Oui - Oct 14
by Oui - Oct 133 comments
by Oui - Oct 131 comment
by Oui - Oct 1210 comments
by Oui - Oct 121 comment
by Oui - Oct 118 comments
by Oui - Oct 11
by Oui - Oct 105 comments
by Oui - Oct 101 comment
by Oui - Oct 9
by Oui - Oct 91 comment
by Oui - Oct 81 comment
by Oui - Oct 8
by Oui - Oct 74 comments
by Oui - Oct 67 comments
by Oui - Oct 56 comments
by Oui - Oct 4
by Oui - Oct 42 comments