Maybe I’m wrong, but every time I look at
the possibility of a Greek exit right now I see it spiraling out of control and
dragging down the entire global economy. I hear and read the arguments of
why it is controllable and they just don’t seem credible. They either
link a Greek devaluation to other devaluations that have little, if anything in
common. They also seem to ignore human nature and how the markets will
likely respond. I think with planning and time, a Greek exit would be
manageable but right now it would create chaos, first within Europe and then
the globe.
The ECB, EFSF and IMF will take massive
losses
The ECB has €50 billion of GGB bonds still
on their books. Those would not get paid at par by Greece if this is an
amicable breakup, but this is quickly heading to a pots and pans thrown in the
kitchen sort of break-up. Why would Greece pay the ECB if they feel like
the ECB drove them out? Don’t forget, not for a second, that most of the
money Greece now gets goes to pay back the ECB and IMF. The EFSF is
totally out of luck. The ECB might be able to offer something to a post
drachma Greece, but the EFSF offers nothing. The IMF has more negotiating
power, as their direct loans had more protection in the first place and they
are likely to provide additional funds post exit, but quite simply Greece won’t
be able to pay them in full on existing loans.
With the ECB, EFSF, and IMF all taking big losses, their credibility is hurt. Worse than that, they have exposure to Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy and the markets (if not the politicians) will become very concerned about those exposures. The IMF may see its alleged firewall crumble before it is ever launched. The ECB, integral to any plan to protect Europe will have lost credibility and many will question their solvency. The EFSF will be hung out to dry and immediately the market will attach all their risk to Germany and France, not making people in those countries particularly happy.
Preparation: The ECB in particular is
acting like a profit center. Does it really need the current coupon it
gets on its SMP portfolio? Does it need to be paid back at original
scheduled maturity date? Paid back at par rather than cost? The ECB
should work proactively with those countries to exchange their bonds for
something that doesn’t cause a loss for the ECB but gives the countries a big
benefit (maturity extension, rebate of bonds purchased at discount, and much
lower coupon). Whatever message the ECB is trying to send by not doing
this seems bizarre to begin with, but insane once you consider the real losses
they will take upon a Grexit. The IMF and EFSF have less flexibility but
can cut rates on their loans, as they too don’t need to generate a profit
either. This takes pressure off all of the countries, has no real “cost”
to any country, and sets a good tone for proper negotiations of what will
happen upon a Grexit down the road.
European Trade Will Decrease Dramatically
Somehow people seem to believe that
switching to the Drachma will increase exports for Greece. That somehow
trade will grow. Just the opposite is likely to occur, and just like bank
“runs” this will hit all the periphery countries immediately.
The standard image is of companies just
waiting to buy new “cheaper” drachma goods from Greece. That just doesn’t
reflect the reality of modern trade. Most companies have existing suppliers
and contracts, so they may not even be able to switch to Greek suppliers in the
short run. But the key word there is “contracts”. Companies depend
on contracts. Do you really think companies will be busy trying to sign
new deals with Greece, a country that just left a currency union, and only
recently retroactively changed its laws for bondholders? Or do you think
lawyers will be figuring out what it means for any existing business, not just
with Greece but with all other periphery countries?
It will mean the latter. Companies
will become extremely concerned with doing business with anyone who might leave
the Euro. They will want to know what happens to their business
arrangements. They will not provide any credit in any form to businesses
in those countries. While someone might be some olives because they are
now cheap, no company is about to buy components for bigger projects from
Greece. If the earthquake in Japan taught manufacturers anything, it is
how critical their supply chain is. You really think many CEO’s will take
the risk of doing business in a country with an uncertain currency, laws that
have been “bent” to serve the country? No, and that is the optimistic
view, as it doesn’t include the risk that Greece faces major disruptions due to
the high cost of things like, um, oil. Greek companies themselves will
likely be mired in confusion over what the Grexit does for them.
The problem will hit Greece the hardest,
but it won’t be isolated to Greece. If you think there is a real risk
that Spain or Italy head down the same path, you will be reluctant to work with
them. You may even be afraid of what exposure they have to Greek
suppliers.
Preparation: Time. Contracts need to
be reviewed. Changes need to be made that deal with the consequences. Alternative
methods of trade finance need to be developed. Most importantly, Spain and Italy have to be doing well enough
that the risk of them leaving is virtually zero. Getting
Spain and Italy on a stable footing is a critical part of any plan to have
Greece leave.
Other Devaluing Countries have been
Resource Rich
While some countries have devalued
successfully, they are typically resource rich. Not only do the countries
typically have a lot of natural resources, with oil at the top of the list,
those industries are typically government controlled. So while the
economy adjusts to the devaluation, the governments typically impose
restrictions on not just capital but on natural resources.
Being able to subsidize individuals and company with raw materials at below market rates has been part of a typical EM country’s devaluation program. Greece is no shape to do that. Greece has to import virtually all of its energy needs. They are at the mercy of the markets and a devalued drachma is not going to help them. This is a huge difference that so far has been overlooked. Without its own supply of critical resources, Greece will be forced to spend inordinate amounts of money to keep the economy merely functioning. That will offset the alleged benefits of increased trade, with I believe in the near term are overstated to begin with.
Being able to subsidize individuals and company with raw materials at below market rates has been part of a typical EM country’s devaluation program. Greece is no shape to do that. Greece has to import virtually all of its energy needs. They are at the mercy of the markets and a devalued drachma is not going to help them. This is a huge difference that so far has been overlooked. Without its own supply of critical resources, Greece will be forced to spend inordinate amounts of money to keep the economy merely functioning. That will offset the alleged benefits of increased trade, with I believe in the near term are overstated to begin with.
Preparation: Stockpiling. Greece
needs to build supplies of essential raw materials. It will eat up
additional money, but better to buy in Euros than Drachma. Also, if the
conversion can be done smoothly, maybe you only see a 10%-25% devaluation, making
the risk lower and far better than some estimates of an immediate 50%-75% drop
in value.
Other Devaluing Countries weren’t part of
a Fragile Currency Union
It ultimately keeps coming back to Spain
and Italy. If every other member of the EU was doing fine, the impact of
a Grexit would be much lower. The impact on the ECB, EFSF, and IMF would
be bad, but tolerable if they weren’t immediately going to take losses on
Portugal and Ireland, and have to face potential consequences from Spain and
Italy.
Trade with Greece would drop, but other
companies wouldn’t be that concerned about continuing to do business with Spain
and Italy on standard terms. While they are weak, prudent businesses will
treat them more like Greece than might be warranted, but companies will be
careful. What executive would want to lose money on a Spanish business
venture when everyone will say in hindsight it should have been obvious they
were also going to fail.
The horrible state of Portugal and
Ireland, the weakened state of Spain and Italy, the ignored but dubious state
of Cyprus, Slovakia and other small members make the ramifications of one
country leaving that much more difficult to deal with. If Greece was truly an isolated
case, then fine, but it isn’t. The countries are
all too similar, all too tied to the ECB and EFSF, and ultimately those
connections are what making a Grexit a far bigger deal than it would be
otherwise.
Preparation: Determining which countries
need to leave will be key. If Portugal really needs to leave as well, it
should be done in conjunction with leaving. Spain and Italy have to be made to
appear to be “rock solid” members of the EU. The contagion risk of doing
anything while Spain and Italy are so weak is just too big. If they
ultimately have to leave, then I think the planning and preparation is that
much harder.
Currency Runs
This is already hitting. It isn’t
just bank runs, it is the willingness of companies to do business with these
countries. It is showing up in the bond markets. The activity has
been frantic with huge amounts of money flowing out of countries that aren’t
just weak, but out of those with perceived currency risk.
I don’t think anyone truly believes
Belgium is a great credit. The Belgium 5 year bonds traded at 5.6% in November
of last year. They are currently at 1.8%. This is Belgium, the home
of Dexia, the land without a government, and yet they are trading much better
than other members of the November 5% club. That is at least in part
because people believe they will stay in the “good” currency union.
This currency risk is visibly playing
havoc with the bond markets, and I suspect it is playing almost as much havoc
in corporate board rooms we just don’t get to witness it on a daily and
immediate basis.
This currency run is more than just a run
on bank deposits. It is a run on doing business within countries. It’s an
inability to get trade credit which is necessary to be competitive. It’s
deals that aren’t getting closed because whether admitted to or not, the companies
are nervous about the future.
The problem with “runs” is that they
become emotional and self-fulfilling. It is relatively easy to take a
stab at the solvency of a bank. The data isn’t great, but at some level
you can convince yourself BBVA is safe. They have enough capital, enough
support, etc., that their solvency risk is manageable. Spanish branches
of Deutsche Bank are even easier to get comfortable with from a solvency
perspective. Bankia, right now appears to be teetering on insolvency, but with
recapitalization, the depositors can get comfortable again. Addressing
solvency is painful because it will involve the governments taking stakes in
banks, but it is relatively solvable. Dealing with conversion risk is
much harder. If my money sits in a deposit account at BBVA, Bankia, or
Spanish branch of DB, the currency conversion risk is the same. The only
way to protect myself is to take the money out. It isn’t quite the same
for companies doing business, but it isn’t that dissimilar.
Preparation: Getting the bank
recapitalizations done would be helpful. Eliminating the immediate
solvency risk would help. One of the many EU institutions (EBRD? EIB?)
needs to come up with some new form of trade credit support. Not just for
Greece, but for all of the at risk countries. Ultimately, getting Spain
and Italy back from the brink is key, but finalizing the much talked about,
little done, bank recapitalizations and ensuring the availability of trade
credit would start to calm the tension.
Decoupling is a Myth
As we saw after Lehman and then to a
lesser extent after the earthquake in Japan global trade is very fragile.
A Grexit would immediately affect the entire periphery. It would disrupt
supply chains (like Japan) and impact credit (like Lehman). From there it
quickly spreads to the rest of Europe and the U.S. and China. Some of the
contagion will be over concerns about the banks in those countries and their
exposures, which won’t be calmed as easily by an ECB and IMF with huge volumes
of bad loans on their books. It will also occur because their customers
won’t be buying their goods.
A butterfly flapping its wings may or may
not cause a rainstorm in New York, but a Grexit will make people look at the
post Lehman collapse as the good old days.
A Grexit is So Bad That it Won’t Happen
Again, I fail to see the optimistic case
of a Grexit. Every time I try and play through scenarios where the IMF
and ECB come to the rescue, it seems like it will be far too little and far too
late. Maybe the powers that be are smarter and have figured out a plan,
but given their track record, that is hard to believe. The more they look
at the situation, the more I am convinced they will see not only how
potentially awful the situation becomes, but that the cost to avoiding it right
now are relatively small, and with proper preparation a Grexit can be managed
down the road.
I still think we should have had more
Lehman moments. In fact, not letting the AIG moment occur was probably a
bigger mistake, but most politicians have taken the lesson never to let a
“Lehman” happen again, so once they see that Greece is Lehman on steroids, they
will back down and figure out enough to give Europe and the markets a solid
kick.
No comments:
Post a Comment