But first, something different. Remember, we've long been critical of the ECB's backhanded QE, which has created a range of zombie banks in weaker euro economies (reliant on ECB funding to survive). See here, here, here, here, here and countless other examples of when we're looked at this issue. So it's odd that we're now literally taking the 'oh it's not so bad' view in a discussion about whether the ECB is 'bailing out' banks. Well, at least UK banks.
This after the Left Foot Forward blog claimed, and then re-stated, that "the EU" is bailing out UK banks, after Loyd's (now confirmed) and possibly RBS (unconfirmed) accessed funding from the LTRO 2 (see here for background on this issue). We still do not see how this constitutes a 'bailout'. Again, these UK banks are merely saving cash through avoiding an extra exchange rate charge and borrowing at cheaper rates, rather than relying on more expensive (but still available) sources of funding. While the money will only be used to fund their European operations. This just isn't a 'bailout' in any sense of the word.
The Left Foot Forward provides a politically interesting interpretation, but, we believe, also misunderstands some crucial points:
- If it amounts to a bailout, it's a contender for the smallest one in history. €15bn (if that's the final amount) is equivalent to a tiny amount of the UK's banking sector, the assets of which amount to numerous times the size of UK GDP (around £1.5 trn). €15bn is hardly the difference between life or death for UK banks and surely not enough to signal the need for a complete change in approach.We could go round and round discussing the intricacies of the problems facing banks in Europe but ultimately there are endemic structural problems which cannot be solved by simply throwing more liquidity at the problem - in either the UK or the Eurozone.
- Lower collateral requirements are not directly tied in with the LTRO, as the Left Foot Forward blog suggests. It's a separate policy (just announced at the same time), but was not in place for the first LTRO, so to claim this is the whole motivation for the LTRO is a misnomer. It may allow UK banks to use assets which may not be accepted elsewhere, but is that enough for it to be considered a bailout? The only instance where this association would work is if UK banks had already used all other collateral worthy assets to gain liquidity - this simply is not the case. In fact the main choice for UK banks is whether the reduced cost is enough to offset the negative 'stigma' of using the LTRO.
On the wider point about QE style interventions, the blog is also confused. Does it want a UK LTRO or lower collateral requirements or both and would this be instead of QE or on top of it?
- Here we would say that the BoE already did its (more direct) version of the LTRO with the Special Liquidity Scheme and its ‘Quantitative Easing’ (QE) programme. It's still overshooting its inflation target by some way, throwing more liquidity into the system seems impractical and risky.
- Furthermore, money in the system has increased steadily in both Europe and the UK but lending has not, which is a problem. But increasing liquidity will not solve this. As results from January show, lending in the eurozone still fell despite the December LTRO. It fell by less than the previous month but still not a resounding victory for the theory that the LTRO is a clear cure to all the lending problems in the wider economy.