ECB debate comes full circle back to QE again - but substantial obstacles remain

As with many things in the eurozone crisis, we have now come full circle in the discussion of one part of ECB policy – the prospect of Quantitative Easing (QE).

The debate over ECB QE was had when the crisis was at its peak. The motivating factor then was ensuring the euro stayed together. Now the motivating factor is low inflation/fear of deflation and low growth. The ultimate conclusion back then was that QE is not the right policy for the ECB (compared to the Fed or the BoE) for a number of practical and political reasons.

Despite the current motivation behind the debate being different, we think the key constraints still hold, while other issues over the effectiveness of QE have also come into play. Our previous thoughts are here. Below we restate our points and add some new insights.

Hard to target QE on the necessary sovereign debt: As we stressed in our previous post and note on this, any QE in terms of direct primary market purchases of eurozone sovereign debt would have to be shared out according to each countries share of ECB capital – i.e. Germany and France would see the large majority of purchases. This significantly limits any real benefit in the periphery and could worsen the crunch for safe assets in the eurozone with the price of core eurozone sovereign debt being driven even higher (and the returns going further down). The hope would be that this would spur investment in the periphery countries but given the investment patterns in Europe and the upcoming stress tests, it’s clear that demand for periphery debt remains separate from demand for core debt.

QE is very different to OMT: The exact constraints for OMT remain ill defined, but what we do know is that any purchases will be limited to short term (below 3 year maturity) debt on the secondary market, will be subject to the strict constraints of a bailout programme and the purchases will be sterilised.  What form a QE programme would take is also unclear, however, it is likely to involve significant and widespread purchases which come with no conditions and are not sterilised. 

QE on private assets might have little impact in Europe: Unlike the US and even the UK, the European market for securities is far less developed. Furthermore, the corporate sector relies much more heavily on bank loans for funding than on debt issuance (see graph to the right). If the ECB decided on a QE programme to target different securities, the impact on the real economy would be limited by the structure of these markets. This point is driven home by the graph to the right below, which highlights the broad breakdown of assets in the eurozone - significantly dominated by government debt. The ECB could purchase mortgage backed securities, which is one of the more developed markets. However, a significant chunk remain non-performing (or close) and are opaque in terms of what is included inside them and what their true market price is. In all likelihood any purchasing of private sector assets would mostly be a boost to bank balance sheets, however, unless it is sufficient to completely reverse their deleveraging and kick start lending it would probably do more than push up asset prices.

Political obstacles are significant: The programme would need approval in the ECB’s Governing Council. With a quarter already known to be against last month’s rate cut, opposition to such a significant step could grow. Even if it got through the fallout in terms of divisions within the ECB and the political blowback from within Germany could create serious problems for the eurozone. Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann even said earlier today that the ECB should not take further easing steps in the near future after the rate cut.

The overall impact on the real economy is far from clear: the discussion over this point in the US and UK has been substantial, with no clear winner. While QE did likely help to avert a deeper crisis, particularly in the short term, the fact is that there is no clear link between higher inflation or higher growth and asset purchases of the central banks.

For these reasons, we believe QE will be a very last resort for the ECB. It is practically and politically difficult. That said, it still seems like further easing is very much being considered. See for example the Bloomberg story today about the very real possibility of a negative deposit rate (which has weakened the euro significantly). Such a move would itself of course come with drawbacks and difficulties, but we’ll leave them for another post.

ECB preview - is the ECB already seeing the limits of its new communication policy?

The ECB holds its monthly meeting today in what may be seen as the most positive eurozone economic environment for some time.

Having previously been earmarked as a meeting which could see a further rate cut (a prediction which has evaporated due to more positive economic data) this meeting is now likely to be dominated by ECB President Mario Draghi’s attempts to restate his new communication policy.

July saw the launch of this policy, focused on ‘forward guidance’ (forecasting future interest rates) and the potential publishing of minutes of ECB meetings, in an attempt to add a new tool to the ECB’s monetary policy arsenal. However, in recent weeks there have been indications that the ECB may already be seeing the limits of such an approach.

Forward guidance struggles

• As the chart above shows (via Commerzbank) indicators suggest that future overnight short term interest rates are expected to increase, while the borrowing costs for short term bunds and other core eurozone countries have also been creeping up. Expectations of an ECB interest rate increase have also been brought forward significantly, whilst the euro has also been strengthening recently.
• Much of this is off the back of recent good data from the eurozone, of course a positive, but given that the data is far from comprehensive and problems still abound for the eurozone its clear the ECB is not yet ready to change course.
• Of course, given that it is early days for this policy and that the rate moves have been small it is impossible to draw a definitive judgement just yet, but there are signs of limits to the policy.

ECB Total Balance sheet (€m)

• The ECB is also seeing its monetary policy being effectively tightened as the Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) loans are repaid, with its balance sheet shrinking (chart above) to its smallest size since the start of 2012, and no signs of banks increasing lending to the real economy to compensate. Again, a positive indicator but not quite what the ECB might have wanted with the introduction of a new tool indicating loose monetary policy for some time.
• External conditions have also not been helping. The Bank of England is facing a similar issue, for similar reasons, while the US Fed has announced the prospect of slowing down its Quantitative Easing programme – the much maligned ‘tapering’. This has unsettled markets and threatens to reduce liquidity globally – so far much of the pain has been felt in emerging markets, but it could yet spill over into peripheral Europe, hitting demand for government and corporate debt and pushing up borrowing costs.

Backing away from minutes

The other part of this new communication strategy was a move towards publishing minutes of ECB Governing Council meetings, with many ECB members issuing support. However, there are indications that this may also come up against problems (as might have been expected).

The concern has always been that divergent views within the ECB (read, from the Bundesbank) would make ECB minutes more trouble than they’re worth. Over the past few weeks we have seen the Bundesbank use its monthly bulletin to warn that rates could still increase and attempt temper the commitment under ‘forward guidance’, while its President, Jens Weidmann, has also warned of the potential "pressure" on decision makers if minutes were published. Additionally, comments from Austrian Central Bank Governor Ewald Nowotny suggested that the ECB might be backing away from the plans (such interventions are rarely made without some approval from the ECB hierarchy as we saw when minutes were proposed):

“My personal view is that of the founding fathers of the ECB…They were very cautious to secure the independence of the ECB by not giving minutes on the individual votes of the members of the Governing Council.”

All these factors then, have worked to expose some of the frailties of the ECB’s guidance policy, not least that it remains much more vague and unfocused than those employed at the US Fed and the BoE. The ECB (with some good reason) is hesitant to get into specifics over the timeline and conditions for keeping rates low – this will clearly hamper the usefulness of this policy tool (and brings us back to questions about how many tools the ECB really has at its disposal).

In fact, there is already talk of using another LTRO to bolster this policy and help stop any upward movement in rates, although given the limited impact of the initial LTROs (beyond avoiding a bank funding crisis) this may not help much.

All that said, the ECB is unlikely to drop its new communication approach in the near future, leaving Draghi the unenviable task of continuously restating the ECB’s commitment to this policy – expect this to begin in earnest at today's meeting.

More of the same expected from the ECB despite eurozone economic malaise

The ECB holds its monthly meeting tomorrow. Below we look at the main topics of discussion, with the ECB weighing some important decisions.

Could the ECB cut its main interest rate again?

• Possibly. It is certainly considering it. As with last month, growth and inflation have remained subdued, providing further incentive and scope for the ECB to cut rates.
• There has not been a significant downturn on either front however, meaning many do not expect further action.

The ECB is considering a negative deposit rate
Most reports suggest the ECB Governing Council is split on this issue. At the least this means it is unlikely to push ahead with it. We also believe the problems and complications outweigh the benefits. There has been much written about this but below we summarise the key points.

Logic: banks are now charged for holding large excess reserves (deposits) with the ECB, this will hopefully encourage them to make loans on the interbank market and make more loans to the real economy rather than holding the money at the ECB.

In favour:

• Banks and investors look for higher returns and begin lending cross borders again. This aids financial integration and could help tackle other issues such as the large Target 2 imbalances.
• Increases the amount of times money is circulated through the economy (the velocity of money) as lenders try to avoid getting stuck with excess cash. This could in theory help boost inflation and growth.

Against:

• Contrary to prevailing logic it could actually cause a drop in liquidity. As excess reserves become more expensive banks begin repaying loans they have taken from the ECB. All the while they are deleveraging (may even speed it up), causing less money to flow to the real economy.
• Rates could actually rise for a number of reasons. Larger number of weaker banks forced onto the interbank market. Banks may simply look to pass on increased costs to consumers.
• If banks do not pass on costs or deal with them, then profits will be hit – in many cases they are already worryingly low.
• Could increase the flood of money to safe assets, particularly from the core eurozone countries. The return on these would become even more negative, increasing their costliness and driving divergence with the rest of the eurozone.
• The large money market fund industry, which plays an important role for liquidity in bond markets, could struggle to stay afloat since it relies on small positive returns on safe short terms assets (see above points).
• The euro is likely to weaken, this combined with the other effects could cause a large outflow of cash to other parts of the world, exacerbating problems.

What about all the talk of boosting lending to small businesses?
This focuses around the creation of a new market for securitised loans to small businesses. The logic being: banks make these loans, package them together into securities and then sell them on to other banks and investors. There is a clear demand for quality assets which provide a decent return meaning there could be demand for such securities.

However, the ECB has backed away from grand plans on this issue. As we pointed out previously it was always very hesitant about purchasing such securities itself, with the Bundesbank in particular opposed to such action.

More of the same seems likely
With things ticking over the ECB is likely to hold off on any further drastic action at its meeting tomorrow. It will continue to emphasise that monetary policy will remain loose for some time (the concept of forward guidance which it began to adopt last month to some extent). It may also put more flesh on the bones of schemes to work with the European Investment Bank (EIB) to boost lending to small businesses. Some easing of the collateral rules as we predicted last month is also a definite possibility.

As we’ve said before, the ECB continues to look constrained. It does of course have a few more tools, however, they are in many cases quite extreme and have potential side effects. These are best suited to very extreme scenarios (euro break-up) rather than the wider malaise and long term endemic crisis which the eurozone now faces, particularly given that often (as we are now seeing with banking union) any ECB action sparks complacency and inaction on the part of politicians.

ECB increasingly likely to cut rates but running short of tools to help the eurozone economy

The ECB looks set to cut its main interest rate by 0.25% to 0.5% on Thursday (while keeping the deposit rate at 0% due to concerns about distortionary effects of negative rates).

Why is the ECB considering cutting rates?

• The obvious answer is that the crisis is clearly dragging on and the eurozone economy is struggling. But, that has been true for some time, so why now?
• Economic activity has been particularly bad (see right hand graph below), while forecasts have been continuously downgraded.
• In particular, annual inflation has dropped well below the ECB’s target of 2%, while unemployment has continued to rise (left hand graph below, click to enlarge).

Will it have any impact?

• Not really. On the margin it will help reduce costs for those banks which borrow heavily from the ECB and consumers with variable rate loans and mortgages – but the impact will be very limited.

• The usual mechanism through which a rate cut is transmitted to the market is broken. See for example the overnight lending in the eurozone. It remains at a very low levels. That said, rates are also at record lows. Why is this? Well, most likely because only the strongest banks are borrowing on these markets. For this reason the cut will not filter through to where it’s most needed since lending rates are already completely detached from it and focus more on the risks of the banks involved.

• As has been well documented, rates in the south and the north are also significantly different, particularly in terms of lending to businesses. Clearly, these have also diverged from the current ECB rates which are already incredibly low. Cutting further is unlikely to impact this.

What other tools does the ECB have?

Communication: ECB indicates willingness to keep monetary policy loose and step in to aid markets if needed. This has been used effectively by the Fed.
Probability: High, especially in coordination with rate cut.
Effectiveness: Minimal boost since it is already being pursued to some extent, more to reassure markets.

Easing collateral rules: ECB widens the range of assets which it accepts as collateral in exchange for its loans. May also decrease the 'haircut' applied to the value of the loans (thereby increasing their worth as collateral). This is likely to be targeted on SME loans and securities made up of SME loans.
Probability: High, if not this month then in June, particularly if economic data continues to be poor. Effectiveness: Limited, could help bank funding but unlikely to boost SME lending significantly. More risk taken onto ECB balance sheet, likely to widen divisions with Bundesbank. Has been done previously and had little impact.

Outright purchases of SME loans and securities: ECB purchases securities of bundled SME loans, similar to the purchases it made under the Covered Bond Purchase Programme and the Securities Markets Programme.
Probability: Very low. Draghi has previously suggested he sees it more as the job of institutions such as the EIB to help SMEs. Furthermore, the level of SME ABS is limited since they rely heavily on bank loans for funding (another reason why the ECB believes a rate cut could help, at least in theory).
Effectiveness: Limited, especially given that the market for such products is not huge. It would also increase the risk taken directly onto the ECB balance sheet (more so than easing collateral) and would provoke an outcry in Germany for overstepping the acceptable level of central bank intervention. Furthermore, such direct purchases are much harder to unwind than loan related policies which expire naturally, selling off these assets will be tough.

A version of the UK 'Funding for Lending' scheme: not really an option for the ECB at this time, contrary to popular belief. The various national regulations and structures aside it is practically impossible since the ECB already applies full allotment (unlimited lending).
Probability: Very low.
Effectiveness: Potentially counterproductive as the ECB would need to end its programme of full allotment in order to then make liquidity dependent on the amount of loans made by banks.

These are to name but a few options being reviewed currently. Other options such as working with the European Investment Bank to promote SME lending would need political assistance, while options such as 'Quantative Easing' aren't viable for the ECB, as we discussed here.

So for all the talk of the rate cut, it will likely have a very minimal impact. The ECB could look to combine it with other policies but the painful reality is that, when it comes to boost lending to the real economy, the ECB has very few options. Constraints from the Bundesbank and concerns over the progression to banking union mean the ECB will likely continue to put the onus on governments to make reforms to boos the economy.

Conflict of interest (rates): clamour for ECB rate cut grows but Germany remains wary

The last few days have seen a shifting of consensus in the ECB rate cuts debate.

Recent economic data in the eurozone has been particularly bad, with private sector activity slowing more than expected. However, potentially more importantly, this effect has been seen in Germany and some of the stronger northern countries as well.

In response to this data most banks and analysts shifted their expectations and now forecast an ECB rate cut in May or June.

The thinking goes that, a slowing economy in these countries (and therefore lower inflation) will give the ECB more scope to cut rates without fear of it having disproportionate effects on the stronger economies. After all, the ECB is meant to find a balance that suits all countries (although it rarely does, hence the flaw of one-size-fits-all monetary policy).

As always on central banking issues though, Germany remains the key player.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has now waded in to debate about possible ECB action. Speaking at the conference organised by Sparkassen association this morning, Merkel said:

"The ECB is obviously in a difficult position. For Germany it would actually have to raise rates slightly at the moment, but for other countries it would have to do even more for more liquidity to be made available and especially for liquidity to reach corporate financing."

"If we want to get back to a bearable interest rate level, then we have to get over this internal division of the euro zone."

In a country where central bank independence is worshiped, politicians usually stay well clear of commentating on monetary policy, so Merkel's comments are quite extraordinary. Perhaps they were prompted by increasing noise coming out of the French government over what it sees as the need for the ECB to take a more activist approach, despite a genetlemen's agreement between the two governments not to discuss ECB policy in public.

German ECB board member Joerg Asmussen also weighed in yesterday saying:

"Monetary policy is not an all-purpose weapon for any kind of economic illness…Due to impaired monetary policy transmission, the pass-through of rate cuts to the periphery would be limited, and this is where they are most needed.

At the same time, rate cuts would further relax already unprecedentedly easy financing conditions in the core. This is not per se a problem – but interest rates that are too low for too long can eventually lead to distortions. In particular:

• to a misallocation of resources, which ultimately leads to lower potential growth,
• to excessive capital inflows into a number of emerging economies with exchange rate effects and credit risks,
• and to reduced incentives for governments, banks, and corporates to adjust."

For numerous reasons, it seems that a rate cut should not be taken for granted after all. Asmussen is  right that given the broken transmission mechanism and market fragmentation, any cut will have limited effect on the economies where it's meant to provide a boost. But more importantly, there is still a view in Germany that lower rates could have a harmful effect particularly by pumping up an asset and property bubble – similar to those seen when newly low ECB rates were introduced in the south during the euro's creation.

That said, the wave of voices calling for some ECB action is growing, particularly given the wider debate on austerity. It will be tricky to balance this with the demands of the northern countries.

Once again the ECB finds itself stuck as the main player in an increasingly political debate.

When ideology meets economic reality (Part II): Bundesbank says EU financial transaction tax could make banks more reliant on cheap ECB money

As was made evident by the internal memo about the EU financial transaction tax (FTT) - that we exclusively published yesterday - there are plenty of concerns amongst the supposed champions of the idea.

Today, another heavyweight institution raised the alarm: Die Bundesbank.

This could come across as a niche issue, as with most central banking issues. But as with most central banking issues it could also be of vital political importance in Germany.

As we noted in our flash analysis on the UK’s FTT challenge last Friday, the proposal could have a worrying impact on ECB monetary policy:

Increasing banks’ reliance on cheap ECB cash: With central bank lending exempt from the FTT but the market channels to obtain liquidity hit hard, the FTT actually provides a perverse incentive for banks to borrow cheap money from the ECB and central banks. This runs completely contrary to efforts in the Eurozone to get banks off ECB liquidity and could instead further entrench market fragmentation.

This is a point which has been rarely made in the FTT debate but whose implications for Germany - already deeply worried about weak banks over-reliance on cheap ECB funding - could be huge. Sure enough, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann today raised concerns over this very issue. In a speech in Dresden, he said:

The introduction of the tax has basically been decided but the unintended side effects could be considerable: In its currently envisaged form, the tax will cover asset-backed money market funds, so-called repo firms, and significantly damage the repo market. However, the repo market has a central role in ensuring the equalisation of liquidity between commercial banks.

If it does not function correctly, the corresponding institutions are diverted onto the Eurosystem, and the Central Banks remain massively and permanently involved in the liquidity equalisation between the Banks.

From a monetary policy perspective, the financial transactions tax in its current form is therefore to be viewed very critically, and it shows how important it is to precisely test a regulatory scheme before its introduction. This however takes a bit of time.

Exactly as we warned. More banks - particularly in the southern eurozone - borrowing from the ECB would not only increase German exposure to the crisis (ultimately, the ECB is taxpayer-backed). But it also negatively impacts the independence of ECB monetary policy since it will hamper the central bank's ability to exit its abnormal liquidity operations and therefore impact its ability to control policy.

This also gets to the heart of what we (and others) have been saying about the FTT.  Although the headline goals and figures look nice, the multitude of side effects (for financial markets, for pensions and even for central banks) mean the real impact of the FTT is far beyond what is envisaged or what can be effectively managed by the regulation.

Watch this space. This could become a big issue in Germany.

The inbuilt political stand-off in the ECB's bond-buying programme

One of the many sub-stories of the Italian election is how it calls into question the ECB's bond-buying programme - the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Not so much because of the ECB's ability to expand its balance sheet and stand behind Italy and Spain (though there's a clear cost to that). The reason is another one: unpredictable politics.

This is something we highlighted immediately following Mario Draghi's announcement to launch the OMT, in September 2012. We said:

"It will also be virtually impossible for the ECB to impose effective conditionality on debtor countries, meaning that the ECB can only hope that a series of unpredictable political decisions in member states will go in its favour."

To inject such conditionality, the OMT was linked to the European Stability Mechanism - the eurozone's permanent bailout fund - which comes with strict conditions (or at least is supposed to). To tap the OMT, a country has to be on an ESM programme. But, in effect, this made the OMT - despite it being run by an independent central bank - hostage to parliamentary and electoral politics.

As we argued in our analysis on the German Constitutional Court ruling on the ESM - a few days after the OMT announcement in September last year:

"...the ruling and the role of the Bundestag highlights that activating the OMT will be challenging, since in order to qualify for ECB bond-buying, a country must first get funding from the ESM – and be subject to conditions. If the Bundestag agrees to activate more bailouts, it will most certainly push for harsher conditions than what debtor countries – most importantly Spain – are willing to accept. In the long-term, under current arrangements of linking ESM and OMT, the latter is also effectively capped and subject to a Bundestag veto."

Well, enter the Italian elections (and Beppe). Discussing the election results, we told the Telegraph on Monday that:

“People have forgotten that the OMT cannot be triggered without a vote in the German Bundestag. This is going to be a huge problem, and we may be back to the political stand-off between the North and South of Europe,”

And in our flash analysis yesterday, looking at the Italian election results, we noted:

“A fragmented, anti-austerity Italian parliament could also make it far more difficult for the country to tap the ECB’s OMT. This is because it would need to access the European Stability Mechanism simultaneously, meaning a series of strict conditions – which Berlusconi and others could resist – and approval from several Northern Eurozone parliaments, including from the Bundestag.”

Other analysts are now waking up to this issue as well.

Then again, if it ever came to a point where Italy actually needed to tap the OMT, things might be so bad that politicians on both sides (probably during a panic-stricken weekend) could be scared into accepting whatever ESM-deal that could be struck.

But it all goes to show that in the eurozone, there's no escaping the politics.

ECB publishes details of SMP purchases

The ECB has just released details on its holdings of government bonds bought under the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) for the first time, see table below (click to enlarge):

To be honest, the figures are much as expected – although the holdings of Greek bonds will have decreased due to a fair amount of the holdings maturing (circa €10bn over the course of the SMP). The holdings of Italian bonds are interesting, given that we knew the ECB purchased almost €145bn of Spanish and Italian bonds, it is possibly a bit surprising that the level of Italian bonds outweighs Spanish so significantly (although it does broadly match the relative size of their debt markets). Still it highlights that necessary intervention to simply keep yields in these countries to below 7% was still very sizeable.

The move is positive for the transparency of the ECB (if a little late). Let us hope this is the start of a trend rather than a one off…

A vote of confidence? Banks start repaying ECB long term loans

This morning saw the start of the on-going process of repayments of the loans given by the ECB to European banks under the Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) (see here for details).

The ECB announced that 278 banks have already pledged to repay €137.2bn. This compared to the 523 banks in total that borrowed around €190bn in net liquidity from the first LTRO at the end of 2011. The amount repaid was above expectations – below we assess why this may have been and what it could mean for the eurozone.

Why have banks decided to repay so much so early?

- A big motivating factor is reputation. It is clear that banks which repay early can highlight that they have access to market funding at low levels and have a sustainable business model.

- Although the loans seem cheap with the low ECB rate they require lots of collateral (to which haircuts are applied). This cost mounts up and some banks (particularly in northern countries) can now borrow on the markets more cheaply. ECB funding is also secured (against the aforementioned collateral) this ties up lots of banks assets, many may prefer to seek unsecured market funding, even if it is a bit more costly.

- Having huge amounts of excess liquidity just parked at the ECB is not efficient or effective. It also distorts bank balance sheets and may detract from other goals such as deleveraging or recapitalisation (more on this in a minute).

What does this mean, if anything, for the eurozone?

- There are fears over a two-tier banking system between those stronger banks funding themselves on the market and those reliant on the ECB. We would add that this furthers the divergence in the eurozone since the split is broadly along the existing strong/weak country divides.

- If the move is to aid banks in deleveraging this could perversely have a negative effect on the eurozone, with banks decreasing lending and reducing demand for euro (particularly peripheral) assets.

- That said the net impact on liquidity is limited, with excess liquidity in the system still at almost €700bn. It may need a further €200bn to be removed before the impact is substantially felt in terms of borrowing costs and demand for assets in the eurozone.

- There could well be a confidence boost from the higher than expected repayment. However, if this furthers a strengthening in the euro there could be growing concerns that it could begin to hamper exports in the weaker economies (a key driver of growth when both public and private sector are limited spending). This also furthers tensions within the one-size-fits-all monetary policy.

So, there are some clear reasons for repaying the loans early, although what it means for the eurozone and the impact it could have is far from clear (this is partly because the actual impact of the LTRO beyond helping banks fund themselves is far from clear). 

One more thing: many analysts are now making a song and dance about the reduction in the size of the ECB balance sheet - seeing it as a great positive. Which it is of course. But strangely, the same people always made the point that the ECB's expanding balance sheet, really wasn't that importance. So which is it?

In any case, as we said at the start, this is a rolling process and the full impact will not be clear for some time. The most important point to watch now is the location of the banks which announce that they have repaid. If it turns out to be solely northern banks, we could see some divergence emerging in the banking system, at just a time when eurozone 'bank union' plans are trying to unify it.

Draghi getting ahead of himself: are we really seeing a “normal situation” in eurozone financial markets?

In his monthly press conference on the 10 January 2013 ECB President Mario Draghi struck a relatively upbeat tone on eurozone, in particular arguing that the eurozone was returning to a “normal situation, from a financial viewpoint”. Don’t get ahead of yourself there, Mario.

True, he also warned against a slowdown in fiscal consolidation and structural reforms due to political complacency, but hinting that we’re now back to a normal finacial market situation seems particularly premature.

Firstly, to state the obvious, the ECB is still massively propping up the financial system in the eurozone. The ECB balance sheet stands at a massive €2.96 trillion up from around €1.5 trillion at the start of 2008. The ECB’s liquidity provision to banks across Europe has slowed in recent months but it remains exorbitantly high, to the point where many banks (particularly in struggling countries) are almost exclusively relying on the ECB for funding. In fact ECB exposure to the PIIGS totalled €1.08 trillion in November 2012. This is by no means normal (or at least shouldn't be).

There is also still significantly limited activity in the interbank lending market, with overnight volumes still near record lows (click graph to enlarge).

Data from the BIS also highlights that longer term bank lending and investment from stronger to weaker states continues to be dramatically below its peak (click to enlarge).

There are many other indicators, such as the limited lending to both businesses and households across the eurozone and the divergence in borrowing costs within different economies (for corporates as well as sovereigns).

Still, the situation in the Eurozone has clearly improved. Some factors, such as the capital outflow from southern to northern countries, have stabilised while others, such as the outflow of deposits from certain banking systems, have shown positive improvement. But we are still miles from being in what many would regard as a “normal situation”.

So when can we expect a “normal situation” to return? Well, with interbank channels having been absent for so long it is hard to expect a rapid turnaround. The ECB is also not expected to exit its massive liquidity provision anytime soon (and even when it does, it will likely be a gradual process), so this will continue to dictate the market. Plenty of other factors (economic growth, unemployment, social stability) also continue to fuel imbalances in the eurozone, so don’t expect cross-border lending or investment in struggling eurozone economies to return to pre-crisis level in the next few months or even years.

This is where the banking union is supposed to come in. However, as we have noted before, the current plans don’t a cross border backstop or a cross border resolution structure for failing banks, for example, so won’t really help in that respect.

Unfortunately, Draghi’s prematurely upbeat comments may have the perverse effect of encouraging the kind of political complacency which he warned about later on in his press conference.

Draghi: Germany's new bogeyman?

As a follow up to our previous blog outlining the unprecendented level of anger in Germany to the ECB's decision to purchase government bonds,  we have picked out a couple of the headlines in the German press today:

Die Welt's front page went with: "Slippery slope: ECB buys government bonds indefinitely"

The rest of the paper was also full of articles with rather more provocative headlines.

The ever entertaining Bild went for: "Blank cheque for debt-states? Has Draghi killed the euro?"

What is striking is that this must be one of the most unified media backlashes against a policy decision (certainly by a central banker!) in recent history. We wonder how things will progress once large bond purchases actually begin or if the ECB were ever to face losses.

The Eurozone’s new quick fix risks papering over much deeper cracks

In today's City AM, we argue:

With European politicians still nursing their holiday sunburns, speculation has already returned to the Eurozone crisis. Unsurprisingly, the focus is again on European Central Bank (ECB) intervention, not least because its president Mario Draghi’s commitment to “do whatever it takes” to save the euro may now require him to follow through.

The main plan being mooted is for the ECB to cap the difference in borrowing costs between stronger and weaker Eurozone nations. The logic is that growing yield spreads drive investor fear, do not represent the true strength of these economies, and threaten a self-fulfilling bond run. Germany is naturally wary.

The plan would place the ECB directly in the realm of fiscal policy and political decision-making – a dangerous and almost untenable position for an unelected, independent central bank. Bond spreads are ultimately the market’s judgement of the fiscal policy and domestic politics of each Eurozone country. Any failure or uncertainty in either area would see the level of ECB bond-buying directly influenced by national governments’ decisions. This is even more concerning given that, if borrowing costs have an effective cap, the incentive for governments to reform quickly and effectively would be severely reduced.

The oft-cited upside is that the ECB’s unlimited commitment would be enough to deter investors from challenging the ceiling on borrowing costs, meaning that the ECB may not be required to intervene much at all. But this impact may be overstated.

Take the peg between the Swiss franc and the euro, equipped with its own “unlimited” backstop from the Swiss National Bank (SNB). The SNB has had to defend the peg, causing it to accumulate reserves equal to 65 per cent of Swiss GDP. Clearly markets didn’t take the bank at its word. It’s not clear that the ECB would be any more successful, especially in the face of similar safe haven flows into northern Eurozone countries, and investors’ desire to offload risky assets at a decent price. Don’t forget that the ECB has also seen its own credibility dented over the past two years.

It’s been contended that current borrowing costs are irrational and therefore warrant ECB intervention. While yields may not accurately represent the economic fundamentals of each nation, they are a result of markets trying to price in the domestic and European political risk, as well as the structural flaws in the Eurozone. Using the ECB to try to “correct” these issues would damage the price determination mechanism in markets.

This leads us to another area of potential political controversy. The ECB would be taking a huge step towards risk and debt pooling by allowing an EU institution to redistribute problems around the Eurozone – since all Eurozone members stand behind the ECB. Such a huge decision, integral to the future of the Eurozone and Europe, should not be taken by an unelected apolitical institution.

The fact that such a decision can’t be made at the intergovernmental level is a sign that the Eurozone is not ready for such a move. Using the ECB to force the pace of integration may well backfire. It seems many have forgotten the problems caused by pushing ahead with an unfinished economic and monetary union, lacking clear political will, in the first place.

On top of all of this, such a move stands on incredibly shaky legal ground (thanks to its clearly defined statute, which stops it from financing sovereign states). It also fails to offer a solution. This is why intervention has little support in Germany.

The spreads in borrowing costs are a symptom of the crisis rather than a cause, although they have admittedly made things more difficult. However, artificially forcing them together will only paper over deeper problems. The best such a move can do is to buy time.

With the ECB already having bought Eurozone leaders two years, which were promptly wasted, we must ask whether this latest proposition is worthwhile.

There is, as of yet, no definitive answer. But the first move must be at the intergovernmental level. Until progress is made there, any move by the ECB would simply jeopardise its fundamental mandate, putting more money at risk and dragging the crisis on further, all without any clear end in sight. The ball is firmly in Eurozone leaders’ court and should stay there.

Super Mario lets the markets (and maybe not just them) down - for now

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and his Spanish counterpart Mariano Rajoy would have done well not to choke on their working lunch in Madrid while listening to ECB President Mario Draghi's press conference. In fact, in spite of last week's remarks that the ECB would do "whatever it takes" to save the euro (indeed, without overstepping its mandate), Draghi has today effectively said that the ECB is not going to do anything at all - at least for the moment.

As usual, some 45 minutes ahead of the start of Draghi's press conference, the decision on interest rates was made public and...nothing. They were all left unchanged. But interest rates were the side-show today, after all. Everyone was expecting an announcement on the purchases of eurozone debt on the secondary markets. And this is what Draghi told the press in his opening remarks,

[Eurozone] governments must stand ready to activate the EFSF/ESM in the bond market when exceptional financial market circumstances and risks to financial stability exist – with strict and effective conditionality in line with the established guidelines. The adherence of governments to their commitments and the fulfilment by the EFSF/ESM of their role are necessary conditions. 

 And then,

The [ECB's] Governing Council, within its mandate to maintain price stability over the medium term and in observance of its independence in determining monetary policy, may undertake outright open market operations of a size adequate to reach its objective. In this context, the concerns of private investors about seniority will be addressed. Furthermore, the Governing Council may consider undertaking further non-standard monetary policy measures according to what is required to repair monetary policy transmission. Over the coming weeks, we will design the appropriate modalities for such policy measures.

Which, in practice, means:

• If Spain (or Italy) believe they need help to bring down their borrowing costs, they should tap the eurozone's bailout funds and accept the conditions attached to an EFSF/ESM bond-buying programme - rather than just waiting for the ECB to intervene;

• The ECB may consider buying bonds in coordination with the eurozone's rescue funds, if and when these have already been triggered following a request by a eurozone country. However, as Draghi stressed, the EFSF buying bonds is a "necessary", but not in itself a "sufficient" condition for the ECB to resume its purchases;

• On a more positive note, though, Draghi left open the question whether potential ECB bond purchases would, in future, be limited or unlimited. 

Not quite what Madrid and Rome were hoping for. Interestingly, Draghi also said that the very cautious outcomes of today's meeting - which the ECB President himself described as mere "guidance", and not "decisions" - had failed to obtain unanimity within the ECB's Governing Council, as one member (Bundesbank Chief Jens Weidmann anyone?) had expressed reservations.

Needless to say, the impact of Draghi's words on the markets has been immediate, and huge. Spain's stock markets index, Ibex, went down by almost 5% while the press conference was still under way, while Italy's FTSE Mib index has gone down by 3.4%.

But most importantly, the interest rate on Spain's ten-year bonds is now again worryingly close to 7% - a level widely seen as unsustainable. Monti and Rajoy are due to hold a joint press conference shortly, we will keep you up to date on our Twitter feed @OpenEurope.

A successful ECB adjustment? Not exactly...

A very technical post, so we apologise in advance, but there is an interesting debate going on regarding the ECB’s decision to cut its deposit rate to 0%.

The move essentially means that banks will no longer receive any return (previously 0.25%) for depositing money (usually excess cash) in the ECB overnight. The hope is that banks will instead lend this money out on the interbank market or use the money to purchase new assets, as they did before the financial and eurozone crises, thereby eventually boosting the level of lending to the real economy.

The past few weeks have seen a debate over what the impact of this move would be. Last night was the first night that the new rate came into effect and, as expected, the level of deposits at the ECB fell significantly – by €483bn. However, the far more important is figuring out where the money went.

As the graph below shows, the money did not in fact make its way to the interbank market or into many new assets, but simply stayed at the ECB but under another heading, ‘current account holdings’.

'Current account holdings' refer to the main financial accounts through which banks conduct their dealings with the ECB. If they wish to access the deposit facility, funds must be transferred from the current account to this facility. Usually this is beneficial as it results in a slightly higher interest rate. However, now both accounts deliver no return.

So clearly, this money has merely been passed from one ECB account to another. That is not to say that it will not leave the ECB and that the deposit rate change will have no impact, but simply that it is yet to happen. After all this is only the first night where the new rate is in effect. That said, we are sceptical of how much impact the new lower deposit rate can actually boost lending, rather than simply boosting demand for already scarce assets (e.g. German short term debt), but we will discuss this in more detail in further posts.