We argue,
beyond the headline-grabbing rhetoric, the comparisons simply don't stack up. Firstly, the majority of those peddling this myth have a significant vested interest in avoiding a Greek default or restructuring. It was the European Central Bank that first floated the Lehman analogy. Why? Sheer self-interest. By propping up Greek banks and the Greek state, the ECB has taken on €190bn worth of Greek assets, which would face radical write-downs should Greece default.We go on to sayMany commercial banks across Europe have joined the chorus of scaremongers ("liquidity will dry up", "contagion will spread", "savings will be wiped out", etc) for much the same reason. The banks' passion for more bailouts is not altruistic, but stems from the desire to ensure that profits remain private, while losses continue to be socialised.
But here lies the crucial difference. Unlike with Lehman, both governments and the financial markets have had over a year to prepare for a potential Greek default, with plenty of warnings leading up to last year's (first) breaking point. Even as late as February this year, investors could have walked away from Greek bonds with only 20% losses (as they continued to trade at 80% of their nominal value) – a good deal considering the mess Greece is in. A Greek default would not reveal a new hidden world of risk. Neither are the connections to Greek debt within Europe's banking sector as substantial, despite remaining opaque. But rather than finding new ways to safeguard banks' exposure to Greece, shouldn't we really be asking why these banks haven't reduced their exposure to Greece and deleveraged?
On top of this, the Lehman crisis was the tip of a huge iceberg. It revealed banks' huge exposures to the US mortgage market – large parts of which turned out to be bust. Again, note the contrast to Greece. The problems with the eurozone periphery are well documented but are also country specific.Noting that the risk of contagion from a Greek default is very real but cannot be compared to that following the Lehman collapse, we conclude,
Ultimately, if a country with a GDP of only 2.5% of the European economy can bring down the entire system, that's probably a sign that the system is fundamentally flawed. Regrettably, politicians are using the misguided comparisons with Lehman Brothers as an excuse to ignore and perpetuate Europe's real problem: an unhealthy, undercapitalised banking system and a monetary union based on the premise that political leaders' commitment alone could make economic and democratic realities disappear.Read the full article here.Now that's what you call playing with fire.
3 comments:
Lehman might have been too big to fail. Greece is not too big to fail. The whole Greek economy is only 1.9% of European GDP; the cost to Europe in pretending to prop it up, only up to now, has been far greater. And the cost will continue to grow until Greece leaves the Euro and starts to be able to earn its own living.
Everyone must know that Greece will never be able to pay off her debts! How much money do the banks, eurozone want to pay into a bottomless pit to save the banks and the Euro? The EU/IMF/ECB show their utter stupidity, lose all credibility, to pretend that they are saving Greece!
Greek politicians should take the money, call a general election, let the new government promptly default, while there's cash in hand . Greece needs to leave the Euro at whatever cost , it will be the lesser of evils .
Is it too much to hope for, the collapse of the Euro , bankruptcy of the ECB and the failure of the EU ?
I detect a smoke screen.while everyone is worrying about Greece [which is manageable]they are not looking at some of the bigger economies like Spain which will not be,they have lots to worry about
Post a Comment