However, Greek Finance Mininster Yannis Stournaras also said yesterday (in a timely statement):
The debt buyback "doesn't mean new capital for banks, given that they have recorded these bonds at lower prices than those that will be offered."
His suggestion then, is that the Greek banks have already
marked their bonds to market prices on their books, meaning that they can sell
them at the low prices involved in the bond buyback without needing new
capital. This may make their participation more likely, but there are plenty of
other reasons why we still see it as difficult and unpredictable. (We also still
question why foreign holders will be involved, particularly previous hold outs
and those who are holding to maturity, see our full analysis here).
Firstly, as Kathimerini reported today, the banks
themselves are not keen to be involved in the buy back. Many feel that they
have already done their part in terms of taking part almost ubiquitously in the
first debt restructuring. If they were to take part in the buyback, they could
seek adjustments in the terms of the recapitalisation and reform – something which
the EU/IMF/ECB troika is unlikely to accept.
Secondly, taking part in such a scheme would need
significant approval within the banks and other financial firms. This means
board level and possibly wider shareholder approval. As the restructuring
earlier this year showed, this takes time, with the process dragging for months.
Given the 13 December deadline to have a bond buyback plan in place (i.e. to
have a firm idea of who will take part, to make sure it is worthwhile) it is not
clear how many bondholders will be in place to participate.
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, is that the banks
need their holdings of bonds (around €22bn) to gain liquidity from the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) through the Greek Central Bank (GCB). Looking at the
GCB balance sheet, it seems broadly that Greek banks posted €247bn in
collateral to gain €123bn in liquidity, an average haircut of 50%. Given that
many of these assets will be loans or securities, sovereign debt (even Greek)
is unlikely to be judged any more harshly than the average. So, if the banks
sold these assets for a 65% write down (as suggested) they could purchase new
assets (maybe other sovereign debt) but would be able to buy less of it (as not
many other assets priced at a 65% discount) meaning they would not be able to
gain as much liquidity under the ELA as with current Greek bonds.
Essentially, this could harm the Greek banks
liquidity position which would further constrain their lending ability and
possibly prompt further deposit flight – both of which would hurt the fragile
Greek economy.
All in all then, this process could still be counterproductive for Greek banks even if they do not book new losses directly and they still could be hesitant to take part voluntarily. However, that is not to say that the political pressure applied behind the scenes will not be enough to force them to voluntarily join. Ultimately, it simply highlights that this policy may deliver a small benefit with some negative side effects but is at best a way of skirting the real issue of whether the eurozone can stomach permanent fiscal transfers to Greece. This will come to the fore again soon.
All in all then, this process could still be counterproductive for Greek banks even if they do not book new losses directly and they still could be hesitant to take part voluntarily. However, that is not to say that the political pressure applied behind the scenes will not be enough to force them to voluntarily join. Ultimately, it simply highlights that this policy may deliver a small benefit with some negative side effects but is at best a way of skirting the real issue of whether the eurozone can stomach permanent fiscal transfers to Greece. This will come to the fore again soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment