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 article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

EZB-Chef Draghi enteignet die Sparer nicht

Die EZB reagiert mit ihrer Geldpolitik nur auf die schwache wirtschaftliche Lage. Sie ist nicht dafür zuständig, für hohe Renditen europäischer Sparer zu sorgen. Kapitalerträge hängen von guten wirtschaftlichen Strukturen ab - und für die sind andere verantwortlich.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 30, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
4
12:30

Potential impediments to long-term investment

How can we encourage long-term investment in Europe? Many factors hinder long-term investment but are there risks involved in reviewing existing regulation?

Speakers: Sophie Barbier, Grégory Claeys, Miguel Gil Tertre, Edoardo Reviglio and Sandra Rigot Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Inclusive growth in the European Union

Why is inclusive growth important and how do the EU’s social problems differ from social problems in other parts of the world?

Speakers: Brando Benifei, Monica Brezzi, Bea Cantillon, Zsolt Darvas, Jana Hainsworth, Stefaan Hermans, Barbara Kauffmann, Dalia Marin, Tim Murphy, André Sapir, Reinhilde Veugelers, Luca Visentini and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 29, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

André Sapir
Guntram B. Wolff

The Continental Partnership proposal: a reply to five main criticisms

The proposal for a Continental Partnership (CP) has received a great deal of attention. Two of the authors, André Sapir and Guntram Wolff, clarify some misunderstandings and respond to five key criticisms. They argue that the CP does not offer a way for EU members to restrict freedom of movement, nor is there a great risk of “political contagion”. Indeed, a CP arrangement could be the best route for the remaining EU members to maintain strong economic and security cooperation with the UK, while defending themselves against dumping and vetoes.

By: André Sapir and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 27, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
10
12:30

Financial Times/Bruegel European Forum: Where now for the UK and the EU after the vote for Brexit?

Three months after the results of the UK referendum there is still a lot of uncertainty about the future. The Financial Times and Bruegel bring together a panel to discuss the most crucial questions.

Speakers: Lionel Barber, James Blitz, Maria Demertzis, Sylvie Goulard and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

pc15_16

Low long-term rates: bond bubble or symptom of secular stagnation?

Yields on European sovereign bonds have reached historically low levels in 2016. This secular decline in long-term sovereign yields is not limited to the euro area. Why are interest rates currently so low? Are low long-term trates justified by fundamental factors or is it an artificial phenomenon?

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 26, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
13
08:30

The Euro and the battle of ideas

Why is the Euro in trouble? Are philosophical differences between the founding countries to blame and can those differences be reconciled?

Speakers: Markus K. Brunnermeier, Marco Buti, Maria Demertzis and Harold James Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

written-evidence-house-of-lords-12-9House of Lords

The future of financial services in the UK following the Brexit vote

UK House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Financial Affairs' call for evidence on the future of Financial Services in the UK following the vote to leave the European Union.

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, House of Lords, Parliamentary Testimonies Date: September 15, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Nicolas Véron

The City will decline—and we will be the poorer for it

Just as the City owes much of its current awe-inspiring prosperity to European integration, the brutal realities of Brexit will make it shrink, not thrive. All this is bleak news, not just for the City but for the UK's economy.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 14, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

From crisis management to launching economic growth

What have been the most effective strategies in limiting the impact of the economic crisis in Europe? What challenges lie ahead? Bruegel's 10th anniversary event in Budapest will foster discussion of these important topics.

Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Budapest, Hungary Date: September 14, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Nov
21-22
13:30

Vision Europe Summit 2016

The 2016 Vision Europe Summit is titled "Redesigning European Migration and Refugee Policy" and will be held in Lisbon on 21-22 November 2016.

Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Lisbon
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

cover

What are the prerequisites for a euro-area fiscal capacity?

In this Policy Contribution, Maria Demertzsis and Guntram B. Wolff discuss three progressive steps for strengthening the fiscal framework at the euro-area level. These lead to less interference in national fiscal policymaking thanks to a more credible no-bailout clause, increased risk sharing and different degrees of provision of euro-area-wide public goods and fiscal stabilisation.

By: Maria Demertzis and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 9, 2016
Load more posts