Business ETC uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Column: Low rate of lending to Germany has put them in driving seat

The gap between those who can access the markets and those who can’t continues to wide, writes Nick Leeson…

Nick Leeson

IT’S BEEN A crazy week in the financial markets. The euro touched its lowest level against the dollar since July 2010 as the European bloc’s sovereign-debt crisis deepened in Spain, Greece and even Scandinavia. Against a backdrop of falling markets though, the strangest and possibly most significant event occurred; investors have poured huge sums of money into German Bunds (bonds issued by the German government).

There’s nothing initially surprising in that but the rate – or rather the low rate – at which they are willing to lend money to the German government is astounding. The debentures of the German government are considered Europe’s safest assets. Berlin’s borrowing costs, unlike the rest of Europe, have therefore fallen to record lows.

Initially it seems counter intuitive. Yields on Germany’s benchmark 10-year debt have fallen further than those of other investments traditionally regarded as ‘safe-haven’ investments, the unprecedented moves in the yields have even left US treasuries and the more traditional safety
measure of gold in the shade. The scale of this “flight to quality” was truly brought home to the rest of Europe on Wednesday by the sale of Germany’s first zero-coupon two-year bond, which investors snapped up at a sliver of a discount, to give it a record low yield of just 7 basis points.

In other words, Berlin is paying next to nothing to issue debt.

“The gap between those who can access the market and those who can’t is set to be driven further apart”

Thirty-year bond yields fell below 2 per cent for the first time. Ireland, Greece and Portugal have no access to the debt market and Italy, Spain and a host of other countries are paying exorbitant rates. The gap between those who can access and those who can’t is set to be driven further apart.

Some analysts argue that Bunds are an effective hedge against a full eurozone collapse and break-up, as Germany’s debts would probably be redenominated into Deutschmarks, which would appreciate in value. That may or may not be case but it is not surprising therefore that a feature of the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll was the belief Germany is having a dominating influence on the direction of the European Union. They are that powerful.

We are going to have to face the fact that Government or Sovereign debt is longer what it was; we are moving into a new era. I had the misfortune of catching the last twenty minutes of an RTÉ debate on the Fiscal Treaty early last week. I found it quite alarming. The economic policies of the main protagonists of a ‘No’ vote would be more at home on the script of a Hollywood movie than proven economic reality. It’d be like suggesting that Jedward can win the Eurovision because they can sing, they can’t.

Burning bondholders, voting ‘No’ and returning early to the bond markets won’t happen because it can’t. It’s time that people started to accept that. A series of decisions have been taken, they all have consequences and the sooner those consequences are dealt with, the earlier a path to recovery will start. Nobody can turn back the clocks.

“They will not be queuing up to lend money”

In simple terms, as far as the lenders are concerned, Ireland is a country with a litany of Circuit Court judgements, a credit history that even I would struggle to compete with and a recent history that shows government after government failing to deal with the problems. Add in a Central Bank that threw away the rule book, a regulator that failed spectacularly and a housing market that is still in decline and nobody dare call the bottom… You do not have to be an economist to understand that Ireland’s return to the bond markets is not going to be easy. They will not be queuing up to lend money. Handing money to the German government with no coupon is akin to hiding your money under the mattress. It’s not going to increase in value but it is as safe as you can make it.

There was an opportunity to burn the bond holders; I was an early advocate of doing both that and seeking a process of debt forgiveness. The opportunity is now long gone. You cannot prevaricate and take your time in financial markets, you rarely get a second chance. If you don’t act decisively, you simply don’t act and get forced around as the Irish government has been. Equally so, when you have a bad credit history, it takes a lot of hard work, pain and time to make it better.

The opportunity existed several years ago to burn the bond holders but that opportunity has now long passed as the bailout has introduced conditions to ensure that they are paid. Personally I find it even more galling when you imagine that those same bond holders that were ‘risk on’ when investing in Irish debt are now ‘risk off’ and are likely plying the same money that was repaid by the Irish Government into German Bunds with very little benefit. I can’t logically see these or any other potential investors lending heavily or at preferential rates to the Irish any time soon or at least until the credit history improves.

So voting ‘No’ and excluding this country from the cheapest form of Funding, the ESM, is ridiculous and potentially crippling for the nation. Austerity continues whichever way you vote. I accept the argument that the ESM is under-funded but as we all now with austerity and taxes, it is far easier to add than to take away, that is what I expect to happen. When you have no choice left, you have to make the right choice.

Read previous columns by Nick Leeson>

Read next:

Comments (52 Comments)

  • Oh god that picture is haunting me. That smirk, that feckin smirk, argggghhhhhh.

    Reply
  • David Mc Williams punk economics lessons 1-3 have been explaining how all this is perfect for Germany! And they were filmed last year!
    Why would Germany want to halt the austerity?
    Watch them.

    Reply
  • Your sub heading should read ‘continues to widen’ I presume ..

    Reply
  • I wonder would it make sense now to kick Germany out of the Euro, allowing interest rates to be set at a rate other than what suits them.

    Reply
  • It would be a lot easier to make a decision on the treaty if either side were honest but there are threats, lies and bullying on both sides and I’m left frustrated and angry at the misinformation on an important decision for this country. I can barely read or listen to another argument about it and if another person demands that I vote one way or another I’ll scream – I’ll vote which way I want thank you very much, i simply need a good an honest reason for it.

    Reply
  • I’m sickened that the debate has completely ignored the threat to Irish and European democracy contained in this treaty and esm. the esm has full immunity from prosecution, its staff have full immunity from prosecution, its records are fully secret, its assets are fully secret. all of Europe’s budgets will need to be approved by Brussels under threat of sanctions from the eu courts. I can’t believe that we are going to throw away our economic independance forever for the sake of some cheap cash to tide us over for a few years that mighnt even be there when Spain and Italy go down the swanny.

    Reply
    • I’ve said it before but its true that the treaty could be blank to be filled out later and you would still get a strong yes vote of government and FF supporters… Not labour (FG Lite)obviously as they have No party support left, they’re finished. Treasonus fuppers.

      Reply
  • Denmark has allowed two of it’s banks to go to the wall, burned it’s bondholders and are paying a lower yield on their bond that Germany.
    Nick Leeson is correct that we will not be able to return to the markets, but not why we can’t return.
    The reason we can’t return to the markets is because we hold more debt than our economy can bear. Per capita Ireland is the most indebted nation on the planet.
    The yes sides solution is to correct the public finances deficit by pushing it onto Irish citizens who are already crippled with debt. And pile more debt via ESM on top of already unsustainable depth.
    When a nation reaches this level of depth there is only one solution. That is restructuring. Any proposal that involves more debt is not a solution. A nation cannnot borrow it’s way out of a depth crisis.
    Politicans refuse to countenance any suggestion of restructuring because they do not want to impose any loses on banks. This is a deeply flawed philosophy. The financial health of the banks has continued to detoriate since the onset of the crisis. Not only have government interventions heaped more pain on society, resulted in continued economic contraction and failed to prevent the spread of the crisis. They haven’t even benefitted the banks, which they have tried to save at all costs.
    This lunacy has to stop. Politicans have to be forced to face reality. Without restructuring there is no solution.
    Iceland had no option, but to go down this road. It was painful, but now it’s economy is recovering and Iceland is back in the markets.
    Vote no for common sense.
    http://www.independent.ie/business/world/denmark-burns-bondholders-shuns-euro-and-markets-love-it-3119809.html

    Reply
  • The idea that European rates support Germany and the more powerful economies in Europe is hardly new and was true throughout the “tiger” years. When Ireland could have used higher rates to arrest the uncontrolled growth, rates were kept low throughout the Eurozone to suit Germany and France. Sure no one noticed then because everyone was high on the hog and not thinking about the future.

    Of course that isn’t the only cause of the crash, the crash is global and in some ways unavoidable (without global thinking and certain amount of hindsight).

    But if the smaller countries had been able to control base rates in the way they could have without centralised rates then countries like Ireland could have, with foresight, moderacy and control, at least have tempered the final collision.

    If you hit the brakes before you hit the wall it’s generally a better outcome than if you hit them after the vehicle has come to a complete stop of its own volition.

    But Germany has always been in the driving seat, maybe it’s time to hit the eject button?

    Reply
  • Apologies to the writer but Ireland is in this mess thanks to the Nick Leesons of this world playing fast and loose with other peoples money, only difference is Barings bank was let go under whereas the ECB and the irish government decided to crucify ordinary people with anglos debts.

    So, given a choice between the advice of David Mc Williams who is famous for getting things right, and Nick Leeson, whos famous for getting things monumentally wrong, I’ll stick with Mc Williams.

    Reply
  • The markets are up….. the markets are down……….. pound is strong……. euro is weak… Blah Blah Blah, Do we have to hear every day how the markets are doing, Personally I couldn’t give a rats ar*e how they are doing. I understand the importance of the currency strengths and the rate at which we can borrow, but do we have to hear every day, there up, there down. As far as I can see spectulators putting pressure on currency for their own benefits are a real part of the whole problem. The media feeding in to this and adding anxiety to the general population suits them fine.

    Reply
  • I would like to once more point out, that we did not request initial program and it is a silly argument from the vote yes campaigners to threaten non access to a 2nd program as the main reason to vote yes. Just this morning Micheal Martin admitted we were forced into the first program by the ECB to save the Euro. Mario Draghai continues to refuse to release the letter JCT wrote to the late Brian Lenihan making threats about bad events he would make come to fruition, unless we took a program. So to now suggest that the same won’t happen when Europe stand to lose more is simply harebrained considering past events. VOTE NO!

    Reply
    • I think I will vote no at the moment.
      If we are to access the ESM for a 2nd bailout which is certain unless we are given major growth initiatives to boost the local economy. To access this fund we will need to first put 11 billion into it. All the countries contribute so there is a fund. However Ireland will not have this money to offer so straight away our bargaining power is v small and we would be forced into whatever austerity Germany deems necessary. We will have no say. I am also concerned about the wording of the referendum where to me it seems the ESM will be above the law of Ireland and we could not take a case against it. If the worst came to the worst in 2014 our budget deficit will be about 8 billion, meaning we would have to balance the budget overnight if we werent to access a second bailout. But is this a better option rather than crippling ourselves by another longterm bailout. If this treaty is passed our corporate tax rate will also be on the table and will be one of the conditions of a 2nd bailout. The gov hasnt said it wont happen nor will it have any bargaining power. A Yes vote may be easier in the short term but a No vote may be better in the long term.

      Reply
  • Bravo that was probably the most well explained argument for voting yes ive read to date….. listening to Joan Burton push for the yes vote is swinging me to vote No such is the emptiness of her argument. This article is superb

    Reply
    • As always a very clear and well written piece from Nick, in common sense terms and without much of the bluster and claptrap that has infected both the yes and no campaigns to date.

      Unfortunately Nick, you can now expect a series of ad hominem attacks about your past life from those who disagree with your opinion, as demonstrated by Diarmuid above (himself a person who has consistently accused others of playing the man and not the ball).

      Reply
    • I am not playing the man, I am merely stating a simple fact that offers some context as to the credibility of such a voice! I am NOT making up lies about someone like the Yes side have been!

      Reply
    • Diarmaid – you made a specific and uncomplementary reference to the past life of the author. How is this not playing the man?
      Anyone who spends any time on the Journal can see that you frequently engage in ad hominem attacks whilst criticizing others for doing the very same.

      Reply
    • Yes I did, a past life that bears huge weight on the credibility of his argument. I disagree with your assertions about me but you’re entitled to your opinion.

      Reply
    • Diarmaid, lets call a spade a spade. Instead of addressing the argument itself, you intimated that given his past history the author was not a fit person to put forward any argument. It would be hard to find a much clearer case of playing the man instead of the ball.

      Reply
    • Yes that’s exactly what I mean. Would we welcome Seanie Fitz to the debate today on a sovereign issue tell me?

      Reply
    • I’d quite happily listen to anyones point of view and consider their argument purely on its merits.
      Letting personalities become a factor is very narrow-minded.
      “I may not agree with his opinion but I’d fight to the death to defend his right to state it”…

      Reply
    • So, if Seanie Fitz joined the no side, you would not attack his credibility like you have done to me this morning?

      Reply
    • censored 29/05/12 #

      mattoid, you’re attacking people’s right to have an opinion on Nick Leeson while defending their right to have opinions. Confused?

      It’s still a foolish argument. We borrowed money from our neighbours in order to pay off some strangers (the original bondholders). Now we’re broke, and as much as we’d dearly love to pay those neighbours back we still can’t afford it. It’s in the best interests of all involved to find a constructive solution.

      Reply
    • mattoid 30/05/12 #

      @Censored
      Not a bit confused.
      He’s perfectly entitled to have an opinion about Nick Leeson – that’s his own business.
      What is disingenuous though is to refuse to address the points that Nick has made purely because of who he is rather than on the merits or otherwise of the piece itself.
      Get it?

      Reply
  • Japan’s economy imploded in 1990.
    They choose the path Ireland is now taking. Japan would not allow banks to fail. They would not entertain any talk of restructuring. Japan’s economy has not returned to growth in two decades. It’s banks, which did not fail, are now in poorer health than they were 22 years ago.

    In Europe, Parallels to Japan’s ‘Lost Decade’
    The New York Times | May 03, 2012 | 10:35 PM EDT
    Parallels abound between Europe’s current debt crisis and Japan’s so-called Lost Decade, when the Asian country’s economy imploded in the 1990s.

    Both regions experienced real estate booms ahead of their financial crises, consumers took on large levels of debt and domestic banks built up unsustainable loan-to-deposit ratios as they sought to feed local demand for borrowing.

    Recently, analysts at Barclays examined whether Europe’s debt crisis would affect local banks the same way that Japan’s economic downturn hurt that country’s financial institutions.

    Their conclusions are not happy reading for European banks, which are trying to pare back lending, increase capital reserves and reduce risky trading activity in investment banking units.”

    If Ireland ratifies this treaty we are choosing the Japanese economic solution. An anemic economy that exists to service zombie banks.

    If we oppose this treaty, we can force the issue of restructuring onto the negotiating table.

    Reply
  • Germany might be smiling now but with the collapse of the euro which is a train wreck coming down the line, how long will it be before the German economy is destroyed too.
    Germany needs European markets to sell into but the market is getting smaller and smaller by the day and my guess is a lot of trouble for Germany.
    So print the bloody money.

    Reply
  • So because Europe is becoming less democratic and more screwed up, we should now integrate more with that system as Germany exudes its authority, at the behest of a man who brought down a bank of his own? That’s great logic on a Tuesday morning!

    Reply
    • I think David may have unwittingly strengthened Nick’s argument. As nick stated, Ireland has a credit history akin to his own. It will take us time to rebuild the trust of money lenders, in the meantime we have limited options to access cheap borrowings. now if people are still attacking Nick’s credibility 18 or so years since the collapse of his former employers, how will it before Ireland restores credibility?

      Reply
  • i read that Ireland paid back a bond of 2.25 billion euro yesterday and that these bonds were bough for have the price. therefore this investor doubled his investment.

    http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=11994

    if that is the case why cant we buy back these bonds at half price? can someone explain why we cannot do this?

    Reply
  • I’m voting Yes; the choice is awful but I prefer certainty to chaos and the wild unpredictable future that the nutty far left offer. Sure if we want to become Moldova vote No, if you want a secure economic future then reject the mad hair brained solutions offered by the radical nutters of SF/ULA

    Reply
    • Funny that: Libertas, Declan Ganley, Shane Ross, David McWilliams, Eddie Hobbs, Constantin Gurdgiev amongst others don’t strike me as being nutty left wingers, but I am open to correction on that should you know more than I?

      Reply
    • Certainty, Spain’s Sovereign debt would be 1 Trillion. Our deficit will be 9 billion for 2014 and you want us to sign up to borrowing 11billion to give to fund ESM which will be oversubscribed by the time we get to it to maybe cover 9 billion. Sure we would be funding ourselves.

      Reply
    • Yes doesn’t provide certainty. Nothing provides certainty. No doesn’t provide certainty either.

      As for the “nutty far left”, Nigel Farrago was over supporting No. You can call the man nutty and I’ll agree with you, far left? Not so much.

      What’s happening is that the Centrists are following Europe like meek little lambs. The non centrists aren’t. If Ireland had a right wing party (and I only partially understand why it doesn’t) that party wouldn’t be backing a Yes vote now.

      If you do want certainty there’s only one route available to you and I wouldn’t be so crass as to suggest it.

      Reply
    • Neither are the BNP or UKIP nutty left wingers and they back the no vote… they are however nutty.

      Reply
    • Damocles 29/05/12 #

      Ther BNP’s fiscal policies are firmly socialist.

      Reply
    • So we’re those of the National Socialists but you wouldn’t call them anything other than far right!

      Reply
    • Damocles 29/05/12 #

      Joseph McGranaghan, The National Socialists were authoritarian while being fairly centrist on economic policy. The BNP are authoritarian socialists.

      Like many you conflate authoritarianism with the right wing. Was, for instance, Stalin right wing?

      You should probably spend some time studying the political compass analysis as your traditional left/right meme is rather outdated.

      Reply
    • Damacoles, no I think it’s you that is mistaken, your position on the traditional left right axis is defined by much more than your economic policy. Both extremes tend to be appealing to the working classes in a time of crisis so both tend to have socialist policies, especially the Nazis, they spent so much in their time before the war that certain speculators have claimed that without the gains a victory would have provided them they would have gone bust, hardly a centrist policy. The defining policy is often that of worldview with the extreme right being insular concentrating on their nation and it’s advancement at the expense of other nations/races and the left being more about the advancement of their political agenda hense the Marxist ideas of world socialism and world revolution. I do agree that a simple left right analysis can be simplistic, I’ve often felt a circle would be more apt as the far left and far right do at times become perilously similar.

      Reply
  • Great article

    Reply
  • Shame on the 75 people that voted this comment up. A bit of reasonable debate is fine but that simplistic statements and nationalistic stereotypes don’t help anyone.
    I’m sure the German public love their tax money going into the likes of Ireland in the middle of a global recession.

    Reply
  • Thanks Nick, great piece, and sadly very true.

    Reply
    • Denmark has allowed two of it’s banks to go to the wall, burned it’s bondholders and are paying a lower yield on their bond that Germany.
      Nick Leeson is correct that we will not be able to return to the markets, but not why we can’t return.
      The reason we can’t return to the markets is because we hold more debt than our economy can bear. Per capita Ireland is the most indebted nation on the planet.
      The yes sides solution is to correct the public finances deficit by pushing it onto Irish citizens who are already crippled with debt. And pile more debt via ESM on top of already unsustainable depth.
      When a nation reaches this level of depth there is only one solution. That is restructuring. Any proposal that involves more debt is not a solution. A nation cannnot borrow it’s way out of a depth crisis.
      Politicans refuse to countenance any suggestion of restructuring because they do not want to impose any loses on banks. This is a deeply flawed philosophy. The financial health of the banks has continued to detoriate since the onset of the crisis. Not only have government interventions heaped more pain on society, resulted in continued economic contraction and failed to prevent the spread of the crisis. They haven’t even benefitted the banks, which they have tried to save at all costs.
      This lunacy has to stop. Politicans have to be forced to face reality. Without restructuring there is no solution.
      Iceland had no option, but to go down this road. It was painful, but now it’s economy is recovering and Iceland is back in the markets.
      Vote no for common sense.
      http://www.independent.ie/business/world/denmark-burns-bondholders-shuns-euro-and-markets-love-it-3119809.html

      Reply
    • Japan’s economy imploded in 1990.
      They choose the path Ireland is now taking. Japan would not allow banks to fail. They would not entertain any talk of restructuring. Japan’s economy has not returned to growth in two decades. It’s banks, which did not fail, are now in poorer health than they were 22 years ago.
      In Europe, Parallels to Japan’s ‘Lost Decade’
      The New York Times | May 03, 2012 | 10:35 PM EDT
      Parallels abound between Europe’s current debt crisis and Japan’s so-called Lost Decade, when the Asian country’s economy imploded in the 1990s.
      Both regions experienced real estate booms ahead of their financial crises, consumers took on large levels of debt and domestic banks built up unsustainable loan-to-deposit ratios as they sought to feed local demand for borrowing.
      Recently, analysts at Barclays examined whether Europe’s debt crisis would affect local banks the same way that Japan’s economic downturn hurt that country’s financial institutions.
      Their conclusions are not happy reading for European banks, which are trying to pare back lending, increase capital reserves and reduce risky trading activity in investment banking units.”
      If Ireland ratifies this treaty we are choosing the Japanese economic solution. An anemic economy that exists to service zombie banks.
      If we oppose this treaty, we can force the issue of restructuring onto the negotiating table.

      Reply
    • Two brilliant examples of why we should vote No Sean.

      Reply
  • @seano’keefe What you said is true. But the facts are we’ve already decided to take the Japanese route (or rather it’s been decided for us). The only thing you got wrong is what we’re voting on. We aren’t making any decisions about what route to take, how to manage the banks or how best to return to the markets. We’re voting on some rules about budget management and I think it’s doing a disservice to people by pretending otherwise, like most of the No side are doing. Only this morning people were talking on the bus about “voting no because I don’t want water charges”. This is not what this treaty is about. People should vote on the treaty’s exact content, not what they think it might be about. If people did this, I’m quite sure the answer would be yes by a fairly massive margin.

    Reply
  • censored 29/05/12 #

    Please commission an article from Seanie Fitzpatrick. I’m sure he is also in favour of a yes vote.

    Reply

Add New Comment