Blog Post

Greek glass: half-empty or half-full?

At marathon-meeting yesterday, European finance ministers agreed on a new debt deal for Greece, supported by the staff-level agreement of troika of European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The main elements of the deal are the following: “The adoption by Greece of new instruments to enhance the implementation of […]

By: Date: November 27, 2012 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

At marathon-meeting yesterday, European finance ministers agreed on a new debt deal for Greece, supported by the staff-level agreement of troika of European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The main elements of the deal are the following:

  • The adoption by Greece of new instruments to enhance the implementation of the programme, notably by means of correction mechanisms to safeguard the achievement of both fiscal and privatisation targets, and by stronger budgeting and monitoring rules” – yet no further details are available;

  • A strengthened segregated account for debt servicing – which echoes the German demand for an escrow account;
  • Endorsement of the postponement of a primary surplus target of 4.5% of GDP from 2014 to 2016, which was agreed earlier;
  • Bailing-in subordinated bank bond holders during the bank recapitalisation process;
  • Buy-back of privately held debt at prices “no higher than those at the close on Friday, 23 November 2012”;
  • Reducing the lending rate on bilateral loans from 150 basis points over the 3-month Euribor to 50 basis points (expect by other euro-area countries which are under financial assistance);
  • A lowering by 10 bps of the guarantee fee costs paid by Greece on the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) loans;
  • An extension of the maturities of the bilateral and EFSF loans by 15 years;
  • A deferral of interest payments of Greece on EFSF loans by 10 years – yet no further details are available, such as the repayment schedule of these deferred interest payments;
  • The full transfer of ECB profits to Greece from the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) starting in 2013 (expect the profit which is allocated to other euro-area countries under financial assistance);
  • Further measures will be considered “when Greece reaches an annual primary surplus, as envisaged in the current MoU [Memorandum of Understanding of the financial assistance programme], conditional on full implementation of all conditions contained in the programme”;
  • € 43.7 billion loans will be disbursed to Greece by the EFSF in four tranches during the coming months, conditional on the implementation of the MoU;
  • The IMF will consider the disbursements of its remaining commitments to Greece “once progress has been made on specifying and delivering on the commitments made today, in particular implementation of the debt buybacks” (see the IMF press release here).

It is expected that these measures will reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio from 144% troika’s baseline to 124% by 2020 and below 110% by 2022.[1]

These measures are sensible and broadly in line with my earlier suggestions, but less ambitious. I proposed that in addition to curtaining the fiscal sovereignty of Greece further and some straightforward debt-reducing measures, such as transferring the ECB profits to Greece, extending the maturities of all official loans, and attempting to buy-back privately-held bonds, the official lending rates should be reduced to zero (and Greece should pay back this interest subsidy beyond 2030) and the notional amount of all official loans should be indexed to Greek GDP. Thereby, the debt ratio would have fallen below 100 percent of GDP by 2020 irrespective of GDP developments till then.

The new Greek deal has two readings.

First, there is a major risk in the success of the buy-back initiative and the 124% debt-ratio target by 2020 is not ambitious enough.

  • There is no clarity about the details of the buy-back initiative, apart from the wish to conduct it at prices not higher than the market prices of 23 November 2012 (which were between 25 and 34 cents to the euro for the various maturity new Greek bonds; see the annex of my paper for details about the new Greek bonds). Since the new Greek bonds are under the English law and are safeguarded with a co-financing agreement with EFSF, the incentives for bond holders to sell their holdings at such low prices would likely be low. The IMF conditioned its continued support to Greece on the success of the buy-back initiative, among others.
  • Also, the earlier 120 percent of GDP debt target by 2020 has proved to be inadequate for restoring trust and thereby limiting the probability of a Greek euro exit. A reiteration of a similar target is unlikely to help, as I argued here. That could just prolong economic and social misery and the uncertainty about Greek euro membership.

But there is a second reading of deal as well.

  • European lenders expressed their strong determination to keep Greece inside the euro area and suggested considering “further measures and assistance” when Greece will reach a primary surplus, conditional on the fulfilment of the financial assistance programme conditions. This could improve market sentiment and thereby support a quick rebound in output, because deep contractions used to be followed by quick recoveries and the Greek GDP has collapsed by almost a quarter.

Which of the two readings will be shared by the private sector? My fear is that the first one will dominate. In that case, as I argued earlier, investment could be deterred further, the gradual capital outflow could continue, economic performance could remain weak, employment could fall further, and the social pressure on the government and the parliament could increase. In the wake of a prolonged contraction, the current coalition government may collapse, leading to domestic political paralysis and the chain of events leading to a euro-exit with disastrous consequences inside and outside Greece.

A perfect implementation and a lot of luck will be needed for turning the sentiment from the first to the second reading.

[1] Note: my own baseline calculation indicated a debt-to-GDP ratio of 146% by 2020, quite close to the troika’s baseline of 144%.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Lessons for the euro from early US monetary and financial history

The United States has a monetary union that many look to when considering the future of the EU. But how easy was it really to create such a union and what can Europe learn from the US process?

Speakers: Jeffry Frieden and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 25, 2016
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

The European Deposit Insurance SchemeEuropean Parliament

The European Deposit Insurance Scheme

Statement prepared for the European Parliament’s ECON Committee Public Hearing of 23 May.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament, Parliamentary Testimonies Date: May 23, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
Silvia Merler

Sovereign bond holdings in the euro area - the impact of QE

Since the announcement of the QE programme by the European Central Bank (ECB) on 22 January 2015, national central banks have been buying government and national agency bonds. In this post we look at the effect of QE on sectoral holdings of government bonds, based on our recently updated dataset.

By: Pia Hüttl and Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Grégory Claeys
Alvaro Leandro

Assessing the Juncker Plan after one year

With the Juncker Plan, the European Commission intends to support valuable risky projects by expanding the risk capacity of the EIB. But has the new European Fund for Strategic Investments really been used to finance 'additional' projects?

By: Grégory Claeys and Alvaro Leandro Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 17, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jun
27
08:30

Britain and the EU after the referendum

No matter the result, the UK's referendum on EU membership will be an important moment for Britain and Europe. The days after the result will offer an opportunity to reflect on what has happened, and what has changed.

Speakers: Sylvie Goulard, André Sapir, Philipp Steinberg and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

European financing for the European refugee crisis

Protecting the EU's external borders is a shared task, which can be most effectively carried out if paid for with common funding. A tax on carbon combined with borrowing could fund refugee policy and also help the EU achieve its climate goals.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 11, 2016
Read article

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas
Pia Hüttl

Is Greek public debt unsustainable?

Greek public debt does not look sustainable if the country has to return to market borrowing at the end of the third bail-out programme, but could be sustainable if preferential ESM funding continues in the long-term. Our advice is to offer hope for Greece in the form of delayed fiscal adjustment toward a target of 2.5% of GDP primary balance and adopt various measures to ease the debt burden, for the benefit of both Greece and its official lenders.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Pia Hüttl Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 7, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
jaume

Northern Ireland and EU funds

EU funding for the UK has risen considerably since 2000, but funding predominantly goes to rural and less developed areas, meaning that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales receive more funding relative to their GDP than England.

By: Pia Hüttl and Jaume Martí Romero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 3, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Fighting corruption: from headlines to real impact

Despite recent efforts to tackle corruption there is not much evidence that these strategies are producing results. Why is this the case and what can we do to improve the situation?

Speakers: Carl Dolan, Mihaly Fazekas, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi and Alessio Terzi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 28, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Active labour market policies, what works?

How are Europe's labour markets performing, and what policies can best help them function?

Speakers: Alfonso Arpaia, Clyde Caruana, Grégory Claeys, Dan Finn, Regina Konle-Seidl, Alfred Mifsud, Godwin Mifsud, Edward Scicluna and Paul Swaim Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Mediterranean Conference Centre Triq l-Isptar, Valletta, Malta Date: April 27, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Understanding HM Treasury’s Brexit analysis

What’s at stake: The UK will hold a referendum on its membership of the EU on June 23rd 2016. Her Majesty’s Treasury released an assessment of the impact of Brexit finding that the economy would be between 3 and 7% smaller in 2030 if the UK left the EU than it would be if it stayed in.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 25, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

jaume

Are regional governments causing deficit overshooting in Spain?

Spain once again missed its deficit target in 2015 and it seems unlikely that 2016 will be any better. The central government has pointed to regional deficits as being the cause of the fiscal slippage. However, regional governments claim that their deficit is due to under-financing and overly strict deficit targets.

By: Jaume Martí Romero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 19, 2016
Load more posts