Blogs

Macro and Markets

Kahn analyzes economic policies for an integrated world.

Latest Post

Headquarters of Sberbank, one of the Russian institutions under U.S. sanctions
Headquarters of Sberbank, one of the Russian institutions under U.S. sanctions REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin

Have Sanctions Become the Swiss Army Knife of U.S. Foreign Policy?

The Congress takes an important, positive step to reinforce Russian sanctions, but are we at risk of overusing the sanctions tool? Read More

Europe
Greece: Game Over?
This is how Grexit happens. Following the collapse of negotiations between Greece and its creditors, the European Central Bank (ECB) has halted emergency liquidity assistance. Facing an intensified bank run, the Greek government on Sunday introduced banking controls and declared a bank holiday. With substantial wage and benefit payments due this week and local banks out of cash, economic conditions are likely to deteriorate quickly in Greece ahead of a planned referendum for July 5 asking Greek voters whether the government should accept a creditor-backed reform plan. Creditor governments have left the door open for an agreement, one that if fully implemented and coupled with debt relief could be transformative for Greece. But that deal never seemed close and now seems out of reach. I am skeptical that economic or political conditions exist to allow a prolonged period of controls (e.g., Cyprus). Pressures to exit the euro and monetize government spending will become acute, and could outpace the sort of political transition or realignment within Greece that would allow a deal. Where are we? First, here’s a quick review of the weekend. On Friday, the Greek government surprised creditors by rejecting their compromise proposal and announcing their intent to hold a referendum on the plan on July 5 (with a “no” recommendation from the government). Markets had rallied on expectation of a deal, and even deal skeptics thought negotiations would continue up to and after the June 30 deadline for making payments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Eurozone finance ministers reacted sharply, announcing that negotiations had ended and that discussions had turned to “Plan B." This led several ministers (perhaps alluding to Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis’s frequent references to game theory) to suggest it was “game over." Late Saturday night, Parliament approved the referendum for next Sunday, July 5, and the proposal now goes to Greece’s president, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, for approval. Unless the vote is called off, and given the escalating rhetoric domestically against creditor governments, it is difficult to see the Greek government returning to the table before that vote. Given these developments, on Sunday the ECB suspended the provision of additional liquidity under its emergency lending facility (ELA). It is hard to fault the ECB: the additional liquidity provision (€9 billion in past week alone) had required forbearance under their rules, and had been justified by continuation of the negotiations. It is my understanding that should there be formal finding that Greek banks are insolvent, the ECB would need to end the program, but for now a freeze in access at current levels is a significant forcing event. Lastly, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras this evening announced the imposition of broad banking and capital controls. All banks--including branches of foreign banks--will remain closed for six business days, until after the referendum.  ATM withdrawals will be limited to €60 per day (foreign bank cards would be exempted, presumably as a concession to the tourism sector).  Wages can be paid online, but there will be tight controls on transfers abroad. This leaves unanswered the extent to which payments can be made electronically within the country.  The Athens stock exchange also will be closed for an indefinite period. What’s next: Four Points Banking controls and a banking holiday will cause a rapid deterioration in the Greek economy. Economic activity in Greece has already been badly damaged by arrears and a loss in confidence, and disintermediation of the banks has been reflected in greater reliance on cash-based transactions. Households reportedly have hoarded euros, but firms have been stretched by the crisis. Going forward, reduced expectations for a deal, concerns about currency redenomination, and limited availability of euros all work to trigger a cascade of business failures, rising numbers of non-performing loans, and further reduced tax compliance. Moreover, around 75 percent of Greek primary government spending is for pension, wages, and benefits, and large payments are due in coming days. Without an operating banking system, the dislocation from non-payment of these obligations will be substantial even without the panicked bank lines that formed Sunday night. External default will have a lesser effect in the near term. There is little doubt now that on Tuesday the Greek government will miss its €1.6 billion payment to the IMF, and the Fund’s board likely will move quickly to enact its normal procedures for arrears. I do expect European governments to show restraint and not call their loans in default based on the IMF move, but it will make any program in the future more difficult to negotiate and finance. A Cyprus-like extended period of capital controls and restructuring within the eurozone does not look economically or politically viable for long. In a situation of severe financial stress, the government will quickly have to decide whether to issue IOUs to cover its expenses. In this case, a de facto "dual currency" would start to circulate domestically. If there was a creditor-backed program in effect, and the ECB was providing liquidity (as for example, was the case in Cyprus), this situation could be sustained for a period of time while debt is restructured and banks recapitalized. IOUs would trade at a discount, but those in critical need of liquidity could find it. That will not be the case here, and further the existence of a primary deficit means that the government will be unable to finance high-priority social spending. There may be some useful lessons to be learned from the Argentina default, where dislocations were reduced by developing a secondary domestic payments system that allowed for transfers within the country between frozen accounts. Even in this case, the government paid a high political price for reneging on their commitment to protect depositors.  From this perspective, the focus should be on what happens in the week after the referendum, as cash balances are exhausted and when pressures to reopen the banks will be strong.  In this environment, the incentive to turn to the printing press will be substantial. Contagion will be less than in 2010, but we should still be worried. European policymakers are at least publicly sanguine that there will be limited contagion from this weekend’s developments. No doubt, we are in better position than 2008 and 2010, given European rescue facilities that have been put in place, other reforms (e.g. banking union) and the existence of the ECB’s quantitative easing program (QE). Further, there is limited bank exposure and most of the debt is owed to the official sector, limiting the risks from financial market interconnectedness. The Eurogroup and the European Central Bank have both signaled their intent to “make full use of all available instruments to preserve the integrity and stability of the euro area.” Taking a page from the U.S. crisis playbook of 2008, that indicates a willingness to bring overwhelming force in coming days. At a minimum, it suggests aggressive purchase of periphery sovereign debt (which is already allowed under the existing QE, though statements suggesting an extension of the policy may make sense), additional liquidity operations, and perhaps even the activation of swap lines. Still, I suspect markets have underpriced the risk of dislocations in coming days. In addition to poor positioning by investors that came back into risk assets on hopes of a deal and limited market liquidity, markets can now no longer avoid acknowledging that substantial loses will need to be borne on Greek assets. Questions may also be raised about debt sustainability in other periphery countries. Any sense of a loss of political resolve elsewhere in the periphery also will be a source of contagion. My expectation is that the rise in sovereign spreads will be modest, with the main contagion seen on assets the ECB does not buy under its QE program. That could include bank stocks and high yield bonds. The euro should see a significant depreciation against the dollar, reflecting expectations of extended monetary easing from the ECB with a safe-haven effect towards the United States. This safe-haven effect could be counterbalanced if markets believe the turmoil in Europe will delay the Fed’s plans for an interest rate increase. The referendum freezes negotiations, but neither a “yes” nor a “no” vote creates a clear path to a deal. Early polls suggest a small advantage for the yes position–that Greece should agree with creditors on a package—but local analysts caution against reading too much into these early reads. In particular, it may be much easier to campaign against austerity (with government support) than for tough reforms. Much will depend on the reaction to the bank controls, and opinion polls will drive markets in coming days. There is a broad consensus that a no vote on July 5 would strengthen the government’s resistance to a deal and make an eventual Grexit more likely. Even if the referendum passes on July 5, it is unclear that it would lead to rapid agreement on a new package. First, the government has rejected the terms on the table, so that trust that they would implement any agreement is low. Further, the financial package offered last week would have expired once the current program ends on June 30. Of course, creditors could offer those terms again, but that would require a new program and new parliamentary approvals, substantially raising the political impediments to a deal. In sum, time is short to avoid exit. The week after the referendum could be decisive.
Budget, Debt, and Deficits
A Roadmap for Ukraine
U.S. and European efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis seem to be finding their stride in recent days. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter ended months of “will they won’t they?” by announcing earlier this week that the U.S. would be sending heavy weaponry into Eastern Europe, and late last week EU leaders declared that EU sanctions against Russia would remain in place through the end of 2016, quelling months of anxiety around whether EU resolve on sanctions would hold. But surely if, as Carter put it, the real test is whether the U.S. and its NATO partners deliver on commitments to “stand up to Russia’s actions and their attempts to reestablish a Soviet-era sphere of influence,” then among the strongest measures of success regarding Ukraine will be whether the country remains capable of steering its own fate economically. As we have written elsewhere, transatlantic diplomacy suffers from a muscle imbalance when it comes to Ukraine. Far too much of the focus of U.S.-European attention has been on punishing Russia and deterring future aggression; the U.S., Europe, and allies need to do much more to support Ukraine’s economy, and they need to do so soon. Further, of what little international attention has remained focused on the economic dimensions of this crisis, the overwhelming share has fixated narrowly on the negotiations now underway between the Ukrainian government and its private creditors, which remain deadlocked. This is understandable—it’s a high-profile negotiation, significant amounts are involved, and the outcome is central to the country’s fate. But without a larger U.S.-EU economic vision for Ukraine to anchor it, even the most successful outcome to the current debt negotiations will likely be forgotten to history, swallowed by an ending in which no one—neither Washington, Brussels, Kiev, nor Moscow— comes off well. What, then, to do? Clearing the fastest possible path for Ukraine to return to market access requires five basic ingredients: a credible reform plan; secure medium-term financing; a reduction of government debt to viable levels; leaders capable of delivering those reforms; and a public which is willing to go along. In the view of some analysts, the pricetag for all of this is in the range of $40–50 billion over the next three to four years—not a small sum, but hardly imposing when compared to the hundreds of billions expended on lesser strategic priorities (e.g. keeping Greece in the eurozone). If Greece and other eurozone crises teach us anything, though, it is this: finding the right ratios of these five ingredients proves to be as or more important as securing a certain topline amount of short-term external financing. To their credit, Western leaders recognized almost immediately that, as willing partners in Kiev go, it won’t get better than the team currently in place. But what they fail to appreciate is that this is not a static point: it is true that Ukraine has its most serious reform-minded economic team since it gained independence twenty-four years ago. The current government has made meaningful downpayments on its reform commitments, passing anti-corruption legislation last October, standing up a new anti-corruption agency this past spring, and curbing jaw-dropping energy subsidies—one of the greatest sources of the country’s corruption— over recent months. Yet, it’s not enough. Support at home is eroding. Local opinion polls point to sharp declines in support for the Kiev government over the past year. Whereas nearly half of Ukrainian respondents viewed the Kiev government as having a positive influence a year ago, that figure is now down to one-third. More striking, this shift is particularly strong in western Ukraine, where those who view the government as a bad influence has jumped from 28 to 54 percent. This suggests that, in calibrating the right ratios—in determining how and how aggressively to push on the debt negotiations and on the broader reform agenda—Western policymakers would do well to see their task as defined, above all, by doing what is necessary to help the current Ukrainian government shore up support. So far, the IMF appears to understand this. The Fund is hosting a rare trilateral meeting of Ukraine and private creditors’ representatives in Washington this week in a hands-on bid to bridge the gaps between the two sides. The Fund also helpfully bolstered Kiev’s negotiating position by signaling last week that it was prepared to release the next tranche of its bailout even if Kiev suspended debt servicing. And it reacted warmly to Ukraine’s offer to issue securities linked to future growth in return for private creditors accepting a writedown in debt, what IMF head Christine Lagarde softly applauded as Ukraine’s “continued efforts to reach a collaborative agreement with all creditors.” The next step is for the government itself to meet with creditors, without conditions, to move the negotiations forward. Just as the Fund is doing its part to see that Ukraine emerges from the current creditor negotiations with a sustainable debt load, so too must the United States, EU, and other Western leaders do theirs: coming together around a common, detailed roadmap that does everything possible to support and hold the Ukrainian government to its own stated priorities. These include shrinking the bureaucracy, eliminating dozens of inspection agencies, improving the caliber of civil servants, and unifying all energy prices at the market level, which would eliminate the greatest cause of top-level corruption. There is no single correct answer as to what such a roadmap must entail. We’ve compiled a few suggestions and ideas all sides might do well to consider (many of which build on recommendations contained in an excellent report by the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies): Prioritize energy efficiency reforms. The United States, the EU, and international financial institutions should triage energy efficiency and electricity sector reforms atop their various potential conditions for further assistance. Model legislation, drafted with the assistance of the European Energy Community, already exists for both reform areas (the European Energy Community had a similarly leading role in the drafting of Ukraine’s recently passed gas reforms); all these electricity and energy efficiency reforms need is the inducement of Western financing. Provide secure, multi-year financing. There is clear evidence of an emerging financing gap in the current IMF program, which should be addressed quickly. The IMF is unlikely to want to significantly expand its financial commitment, but shifting money from one year to the other or covering up the gap with optimistic economic assumptions is not the answer. Substantial multi-year financing commitments from major governments, in support of a strong reform effort, is the best way to restore confidence and stabilize the exchange rate. Do more to expose the beneficiaries of corruption and wasteful subsidies and leverage the government’s footprint in the economy for good. All sides seem to agree that financial and material assistance should be conditioned on progress in reforming the legal system, including requiring clear strategies for monitoring reform implementation. Western efforts should put more concerted focus on taxation of oligarchic assets and confiscation of illegally amassed wealth, though, as the rightful entry points for encouraging broader public tax compliance. Finally, given the Ukrainian government’s large presence in the economy, Kiev might harness its outsized procurement power to lead by example, setting new transparency and anti-corruption standards for all entities doing business with the Ukrainian government. Use government land to establish special economic zones, which might be backed by Western trade and investment preferences. To be attractive to investment, any such government-sponsored economic zone or park must provide clear ownership rights, good transport connections, abundant and reliable energy and water supply. They must also enjoy the full support of local and regional government bodies. Ukraine’s many state owned enterprises possess underutilized industrial land, which could be quickly repurposed in this way. Western governments could sweeten the inducement by lending these zones special trade and investment preferences. Revitalize the FDI agency InvestUkraine, preferably as an independent agency reporting to the prime minister. Several newer EU member states boast successful investment agencies (especially PAIiIZ in Poland and Czech Invest in the Czech Republic), which may serve as good sources of technical support to a similarly-revamped Ukrainian investment agency. Regional investment agencies in territorial-administrative units are necessary to direct investors to concrete leads and may also offer a vehicle for increasing the competence of oblasts and municipalities across the country. Catalyze public sector reforms through a salary top-up fund. Ukrainian officials are quick to note that they are not lacking in Western advice. Rather, what they need is a cohort of reliable, capable civil servants who are up to the task of translating this advice into long-term change. Western assistance dollars should strongly consider a ‘top-up fund’ where, in exchange for acting on public sector restructuring plans, the Ukrainian government would receive outside funding to help it pay the competitive salaries necessary to recruit top domestic talent. Jennifer M. Harris is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  
Europe
Déjà vu in Greece
Here we go again. The counterproposal from Greece’s creditors has been leaked, and it underscores how far apart the two sides remain on a range of issues: VAT, corporate taxes, and especially pensions. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been called to Brussels to join European finance ministers in a marathon push today to negotiate a compromise that will release critically needed funding. We heard reports today of Greek backtracking, of the IMF’s deep resistance to the Greek proposals, and the prime minister’s questioning of his creditors’ motives. This is a dynamic we have become all too familiar with. It doesn’t preclude a deal, but it makes it harder to get to “yes” and contributes to short-term, kick-the-can solutions. If a deal can be agreed tonight, it would be confirmed by leaders tomorrow, then debated in the Greek parliament during an emergency, three-day weekend session and be voted on Monday. There is substantial “deal risk” that parliament could reject the deal and the government fall or be forced to call a referendum. Even in the best scenario, bailout funds would not be disbursed until (still-to-be-agreed) prior actions are met, suggesting that the IMF (and other) payments would be delayed. There is a tragic irony to this fiscal déjà vu, both in the inability of the negotiations to make progress except at the edge of the cliff, and more substantively in the overreliance on fiscal adjustment. The Greek proposal offers €8 billion in new taxes to close the fiscal gap but avoids for the most part the structural reforms to the state that could offer hope for a return to long-term growth. Aside from a gradual increase in the retirement age and adjustment to the early retirement program, the vast majority—around 90 percent—of the €8 billion in adjustment for 2015–16 offered by the Greek government comes from higher taxes and fees. This has been the story since 2010: an excessive reliance on fiscal tightening through taxes and cuts to discretionary spending, and an unwillingness to attack vested interests in the Greek system. Until now, this happened because the Greek government agreed to a comprehensive program, then only delivered on the fiscal; here it seems to be a willingness to raise taxes in return for avoiding hard choices elsewhere. The result is a massive fiscal adjustment, a deep recession, and destabilized politics. A bridge to nowhere. While European leaders initially welcomed the offer because it broke the impasse and raised hopes of a deal later this week, the growing recognition that it is at best a stopgap measure—essentially a bridge to renewed negotiations over debt relief and reform in the fall--has contributed to the tough counterproposal this afternoon, one it is very difficult to see Syriza accepting. Further, the credibility of the Greek proposal rests on its commitment to enhanced tax collection and enforcement, on which the record of this and past Greek governments is not good. In the meantime, in the absence of a deal it is expected that the European Central Bank (ECB) would limit access to emergency financing, which has been increased by €9 billion over the past week to €89 billion. Since European creditors are unlikely to see most of their exposure to Greece returned whether Greece stays inside or outside the eurozone, this is a direct fiscal transfer that is neither economically or politically sustainable and a decision here would be decisive. That is why, unsurprisingly, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and his Irish counterpart, Michael Noonan, are among those reportedly pressing for curbs on emergency liquidity for Greek banks unless capital controls are imposed. Over the longer term, we know what the best hope for sustainable growth within the eurozone looks like: The IMF has come up with a comprehensive plan including substantial debt relief that it believes can reestablish sustainable finances and growth. I do believe it could work, but am deeply skeptical that this Greek government can and would commit to and implement this program. As a result, I’m increasingly convinced that exit (after a period of bank controls and default) and devaluation is more likely to restore growth. It isn’t an easy option, and one should take no comfort from hypothetical calculations of large primary surpluses at full employment. If they exited, the depreciation would need to be substantial, the dislocations large, and the resultant economy not the one we have today. But it would be competitive.  
  • Europe
    Eurogroup statement on Greece
    Here it is (via the Guardian): "The Eurogroup broadly welcomed a new version of the reform plan submitted by the Greek authorities this morning, before the Eurogroup meeting, and considered it to be a positive step in the process. The Eurogroup asked the institutions (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) to start analysing the new proposal and together with the Greek authorities work out a list of prior actions with a view to reaching a final agreement on the reform plan later this week. The Eurogroup might hold another meeting this week. " It is hard to be optimistic about this: the emphasis on “prior actions” highlights the lack of trust between the sides and means that Greek “red lines” will need to be crossed before it receives cash. That is a high hurdle.
  • Europe
    Greece: Still No Deal
    European finance ministers met earlier today and afterwards stated that new proposals from the Greek government were "broadly comprehensive" and "a solid basis" for restarting talks, but made clear that the Greek plan was far from complete and received too late for a deal to be concluded today. Markets had rallied earlier on hopes of a deal. But they fell back on comments from German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble and others who saw little new in the Greek proposal, suggesting significant splits among creditors. Leaders meet this evening, but it now appears that critical decisions will wait for the next finance ministers’ gathering, likely Thursday. Separately, the European Central Bank’s (ECB) board again expanded emergency assistance by 2 billion euros to Greek banks after weekend ATM withdrawals and orders for today reportedly exceeded 1.4 billion euros. With today’s modestly constructive statements though, it will be difficult for the ECB to cut off access to Greek banks over the next few days even in the face of broad insolvency in the Greek financial system. The new Greek proposal reportedly includes concessions on the value added tax (VAT) and a small move to limit the early retirement schemes that are a major contributor to the pension deficit. There appears to be broad consensus among creditors—if there is a deal—to provide financing to cover upcoming debt maturities, and they have signaled their willingness to commit to debt restructuring if Greece adheres to the program. But there appear to be many gaps in the Greek proposal, and a lot that can go wrong over the next few days. I would also expect pressure to mount on Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras back home.  Already, minority coalition partner ANEL said cutting the 30 percent VAT discount for the Greek islands, one of the most egregious examples of fiscal excess, would be reason to leave the government. It is also worth commenting on the dynamic between finance ministers and leaders. One recurring feature of the European crisis negotiations of the past several years is the desire of finance ministers to prevent their leaders from giving away too much to get last minute deals.  Consequently, even if the aim is to encourage negotiations, ministers will be wary to suggest a deal is close and will insist that negotiations remain with them. Negative comments from Finance Minister Schauble and others need to be interpreted in that light, and are likely to successfully dampen any hopes for a breakthrough at the leaders’ summit tonight. We will need to wait for more details on the Greek proposal.  If there is to be a deal, we know what it should look like to generate sustained Greek growth within the eurozone. But it is hard to be more optimistic this morning that the parties are closer to concluding such a deal.  The IMF in particular is likely to be quite disappointed with where negotiations seem to be headed. I share that concern, and fear that any deal being discussed is a "bridge to nowhere".  The risks of banking controls and default appear to remain high.