I hate to say it, but I fear that we are in for a new round of euro zone troubles.
My key concern is that monetary conditions in the euro zone remains far to tight, which among other things is reflected in the continued very low level of inflation expectations in the euro zone. Hence, it is clear that the markets do not expect the ECB to deliver 2% inflation any time soon. As a consequence, nominal GDP growth also remains very weak across the euro zone.
And with weak nominal GDP growth public finance concerns are again returning to the euro zone. This is from Reuters:
Spain plans to ask the European Commission for an extra year to meet its public deficit targets, El Pais reported on Sunday, after missing the mark with its 2015 deficit and raising the prospect of further spending cuts to narrow the budget gap.
The country last month reported a 2015 deficit of 5 percent of economic output, one of the largest in Europe and above the EU-agreed target of 4.2 percent. To reduce that to the 2016 target of 2.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the Spanish government will need to find about 23 billion euros ($25 billion) through tax increases or spending cuts.
The economy ministry declined to comment on the newspaper report, which cited government sources as saying that acting Economy Minister Luis de Guindos would include revised economic projections in the stability program to be presented to Parliament on April 19.
And Spain is not the only euro zone country with renewed budget concerns. Hence, on Friday Italy’s government cut it growth forecast for 2017 and increased it deficit forecast. Portugal is facing a similar problem – and things surely do not look well in Greece either.
So soon public finances problem with be back on the agenda for the European markets, but it is important to realize that this to a very large extent is a result of overly tighten monetary conditions. As I have said over and over again – Europe’s “debt” crisis is really a nominal GDP crisis. With no nominal GDP growth there is no public revenue growth and public debt ratios will continue to increase.
So why are we not seeing any NGDP growth in the euro zone?
Overall I see four reasons:
- Global monetary conditions are tightening on the back of tightening of monetary conditions from the Fed and the PBoC.
- Regulatory overkill in the European banking sector – particularly the implementation of the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), which since mid-2014 has caused a sharp drop in the euro zone money multiplier, which effectively is a major tightening of monetary conditions in the euro zone.
- Continued fiscal austerity measures to meet EU demand is also adding to the negative aggregate demand pressure.
- And finally, the three factor above would not be important had the ECB been credibly committed to its 2% inflation target. However, has increasingly become clear that the ECB is very, very reluctant in implemented the needed massive quantitative easing warranted to offset the three negative factors described above (tighter global monetary conditions, regulatory overkill and fiscal austerity). Instead the ECB continues to fool around with odd credit policies and negative interest rates.
Therefore, urgent action seems needed to avoid a new “euro spasm” in the near-future and I would focus on two factors:
- Suspend the implementation across of the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio until we have seen at least 24 months of consecutive 4% nominal GDP growth in the euro zone. Presently the implementation of the LCR is killing the European money market, which eventually will be draining the overall European economy for liquidity.
- The ECB needs a firm commitment to increasing nominal GDP growth and to bring inflation expectations back to at least 2% on all relevant time horizons. Furthermore, the ECB need to strongly signal that the central bank will increase the euro zone money base to fully offset any negative impact on overall broad money growth from the massive tightening of banking regulation in Europe.
So will we get that? Very likely not and the signs that we are moving toward renewed euro troubles are increasing. A good example is the re-escalation of currency inflows in to the Danish krone. Hence, the krone, which is pegged to the euro, has been under increasing appreciation pressures in recent weeks and Danish bond yields have as a consequence come down significantly.
This at least partly is a reflection of “safe haven” flows and fears regarding the future of the euro zone. These concerns are probably further exacerbated by Brexit concerns.
Finally, there has been signs of renewed banking distress in Europe with particularly concerns over Deutsche Bank increasing.
So be careful out there – soon with my might be in for euro troubles again.
Christopher Mahoney
/ April 11, 2016Europe has one central problem: the Bundesbank.
David de los Ángeles Buendía
/ April 11, 2016Dr. Chrsitensen,
There are two entirely different questions:
1) Is the monetary policy or *stance* for the central bank too tight for health economic growth.
2) Are the monetary *conditions* in the credit market too tight for healthy economic growth?
In 2008 the monetary stance of the Federal Reserve Bank was quite loose. Interest rates were low and falling[1]. However monetary conditions were extremely tight.
The ease of money, or more specifically credit, is the ability of borrowers to get credit from a lender. Lenders do not lend money because of the availability of reserves. They lend because they anticipate that the borrower will repay the loan with interest on time.Consider the case of General Electric in 2008. There was plenty of money to be lent in the last quarter of 2008 but GE could not borrow any it[2]. No one wanted to lend them money. The problem was not a lack of money and there were plenty of bank reserves. The problem was a lack of confidence, lenders were afraid that GE collapse and the lenders would lose the value of the loan.The same is true every day. Simply because money is available to be lent, does not mean that every borrower will get a loan. Presumably the lender considered the borrower “credit worthy” and that is why the loan was made, not because of the quantity of bank reserves.
[1] http://bit.ly/1N4CTQr
[2] http://tinyurl.com/gvgmwtr