Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The ECBC Factbook linked above has a chapter

1.2 WAS THE ECB COVERED BOND PURCHASE PROGRAMME A SUCCESS?

Opening key fact:

The ECB disclosed daily the purchase volume under its programme. In addition, monthly reports on the purchases were published disclosing the amount purchased in the primary and secondary market. However, the ECB did not disclose any additional information regarding the breakdown by currency or country, not even in the final report. We only know that "in total, 422 different bonds were purchased, 27% in the primary market and the remaining 73% in the secondary market. The Eurosystem mainly purchased covered bonds with maturities of three to seven years, which resulted in an average modified duration of 4.12 for the portfolio, as of June 2010". We also know that the "Eurosystem intends to hold the purchased covered bonds until maturity".

The paper assumes that the €60bn were allotted as per national bank capital holdings in the ECB, which would give the Bundesbank practically a quarter.

The Conclusion states that the programme did a lot for the covered bond market. But:

The only caveat has been the domestic bias of the purchases by the national central banks which based on the flow we saw and other anecdotal evidence bought primarily paper from issuers out of their own countries. Hence, the German, French and Italian issuers benefited isproportionally whilst the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese markets, despite having arguably the highest needs, received less support due to their lower outstanding covered bond volumes.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2011 at 12:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So the ECB acted as market maker of last resort for the covered bond market. Why can this not be done for the sovereign bond market without giving the serious people apoplexy?

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2011 at 04:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, but it can. All the governments of the relevant countries have to do is found a government-owned and -run bank, and have that bank issue covered bonds against its own sovereign debt. And viola, the purifying power of the bid-ask spread of a - nominally - private bank has turned the toxic public debt into a pristine private monetary instrument.

These rules are a fucking farce.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2011 at 10:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
These rules are a fucking farce.
Been screaming about this for over a year now. But finally we're amassing a wealth of evidence of the extent to which the Eurozone is built on bullshit.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 3rd, 2011 at 04:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not turning public debt into something good: it's turning an extra-volume of public debt, plus the signature of the entity issuing the bonds, into something good. Overcollateralisation, plus recourse over someone else's paid-up equity: it does make a difference.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 6th, 2011 at 05:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is buying public bonds inflationary and in need of sterilization, while buying covered bonds isn't?

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 6th, 2011 at 05:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If, as with Portugal just now, a country is in a situation where it seems unlikely that it will have the tax base to pay off its obligations, covered bonds might not be such a good solution. Why put public assets such as hydro power, wind power, rail, etc. up as collateral for covered bonds? That would seem a prelude to loss of public control of these assets in a default. It would seem more in the (Portuguese) public interest to leave the debt backed by "the full faith and credit" of the nation and let the debtors come after the whole angry nation. At least the public would retain the benefits of public ownership of power generation, rail, etc.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 6th, 2011 at 09:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series