Greece exits the wilderness and returns to the markets

It has been labelled by some as the “amazing comeback”. Greece has this morning sold €3 billion of five-year bonds at an interest rate of 4.95% - and the demand exceeded €20 billion.

To be fair, the turnaround in investor sentiment with regards to Greek debt is pretty astonishing and the demand for the first Greek bond issue has outstripped even the most optimistic forecasts. As the newswires pointed out this morning, it increased quite significantly overnight:

But this outcome has left a few people scratching their heads and wondering what this means for Greece and the eurozone – both of which continue to struggle when judged on a broader set of data indicators. Below, we try to address some of these questions in a reader-friendly Q&A.

Why has demand been so strong?

There are a couple of reasons for this, and they have little to do with Greece.

• The bond auction remains small, and the yield fairly decent relative to other peripheral economies and 'junk' or high yield bonds of similar length. And there will always be investors looking for a better return. After all, even in the immediate aftermath of the Greek debt restructuring there were plenty of investors willing to take a punt on the newly formed bonds in the secondary market – and many of them ended up with good returns.
• This links to a broader problem in Europe, and even in developed economies – the shortage of safe assets and the lack of yield. Given the rock-bottom interest rates and dwindling inflation, the level of return available on many financial instruments is not what it used to be, and investors are keen to find new avenues to boost their gains.

But isn’t there a huge amount of risk involved?

Actually, given the structure of the deal and the environment involved, maybe not as much as one would expect (click on the graph to enlarge).

• Firstly, the bonds will be issued under English law. This will stop them being restructured in a similar fashion to the previous Greek bonds, meaning that the investors have significantly stronger legal protection.
• Secondly, the maturity of the debt is quite short, especially relative to the very long term (20+ years) maturity on the loans from the eurozone. This ensures that payment of these bonds falls well before Greece needs to start paying off its official loans – as the graph above highlights.
• Thirdly, the ECB’s promise to purchase government bonds if the crisis escalates again still stands. Furthermore, this has been combined with greater support from the eurozone for Greece and a new aversion to write downs of sovereign debt. 
• All of this means the likelihood of losses on Greek private sector debt has been significantly reduced. It has not been eliminated, but if any write-down were to be forthcoming it would most likely be losses on official sector loans, not least because they now make up 66% of Greek debt.

This has almost come out of nowhere in the past week or two: why such a rush?

• The first, obvious reason is Greece’s need for further funding. The issue of a funding gap this year and over the coming years (estimated to be around €20bn up to 2016) has been well covered. This bond issue, combined with some new fiscal measures and probably the leftover capital in the Greek bank bailout fund, will help fill most of that fiscal gap over the next couple of years. It also potentially paves the way for further debt issues.
• However, there are deeper political reasons. As shown by yesterday’s anti-austerity strikes, this morning's bombing outside the Bank of Greece and the dwindling majority of the government in parliament (which now stands at only two seats), there still is a significant amount of political uncertainty around. The government seems to harbour hopes that this return to the markets will galvanise its support, and act as a symbol of the turnaround it has helped to create.
• Furthermore, with the European elections around the corner and the opposition SYRIZA party looking set to do well, the government seems to believe that this issue could somewhat also boost their support at the polls.

But how much of a turnaround does this really signify for Greece?

While it’s certainly a positive, the macro level data for Greece remains worrying. As the charts below show (courtesy of Natixis), unemployment remains very high. In particular, youth and long-term unemployment are both stubbornly high, and threaten to become a drag on the economy in the longer term. While business activity has stopped its decline, the hope of a swift recovery is yet to be based on clear evidence. There is a long way to go in the structural reform programme, as highlighted by the 329 reforms recommended by the OECD.

More broadly, Greece’s long term strategy for competing and growing in the eurozone remains unclear, and it has zero room to absorb further economic shocks. Citi - forever bearish on Greece - took it upon themselves to be the buzzkill amongst all this optimisim with the chart below (via FT Alphaville). Ultimately, it remains a small symbolic step, especially given the size of the bond issue.

 Will Greece get to spend this money as it wishes?

That seems hopeful at best. While Greece may have a little more flexibility compared to when the funding comes from official loans, of which almost every penny is clearly assigned, there will be little wiggle room. As even those countries outside bailout programmes have found, the oversight at the eurozone level is now quite significant. Greece’s budget still has to be agreed in tandem with the EU/IMF/ECB Troika, and little flexibility is likely to be allowed, especially since there is already an outstanding funding gap which needs to be filled.

From the archives: The story of the 3% deficit limit

Okay, we know this is not exactly breaking news (the original story is from September 2012), but it came to our attention again and we felt compelled to post on it.

Back in the heyday of the eurozone crisis, Le Parisien interviewed Guy Abeille (see picture), a senior official at the French Finance Ministry who is thought to have 'invented' the 3% deficit-to-GDP limit later enshrined in the EU treaties and the cornerstone of the famed Stability and Growth Pact.

And Monsieur Abeille made some rather extraordinary revelations:

We came up with this number in less than an hour. It was born on the corner of a table, without any theoretical reflection.

It was a night of May 1981. Pierre Bilger, the Budget Director at the time, summoned us. He told us: [French President François] Mitterrand want us to provide him quickly with an easy rule, that sounds as coming from an economist, and can be opposed to the ministers that walk into his office asking for money.

We needed something simple...We were going towards FF 100bn deficit. That represented a deficit of over 2% [of GDP]. 1%? We dropped that number, impossible to achieve. 2%? That put us under too much pressure. 3%? It's a good number, a number that has gone through the ages, it made one think of the Trinity.

Mitterrand wanted a rule, we gave him one. 

In other words, it seems the deficit rule that has made so many politicians lose sleep, especially in the eurozone periphery, was cooked up in less time than it takes to roast a chicken and wasn't based on any economic theory or even best practice.

We also can't help but be reminded of the famed response of  a senior Anglo Irish Bank member when asked how he came up with the original bailout figure for the bank (which proved far too low) - I "picked it out of my a*se". Quite. And it seems he wasn't the first either.

When it comes to Europe, Germany’s political elite and public are deeply divided

On the question of Europe, there is a painful gap between the German political elite and the public.

As our recent YouGov Deutschland poll on German voters’ sentiments on Europe showed, the German public is overwhelmingly against further financial support for the eurozone, and believes that the next Chancellor should back efforts to devolve powers back to the member states.

Now, German business-publication, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, has conducted a similar poll among all 620 members of the German Bundestag. It’s interesting to compare the results:

• Our poll finds that two thirds of Germans reject any eurozone policies that involve putting any more German money on the line: whether it is further loans to the eurocrisis states, debt write downs or debt pooling.
• On the question of joint-liability, DWN finds that two thirds of MPs advocate precisely those measures that are rejected by two-thirds of citizens: bailouts, debt reduction and debt redemption funds.
• Our poll finds that by a margin of two to one (50% in favour, 26% against), the German public thinks the next Chancellor should back efforts to devolve EU powers back to the member states.
• DWN’s poll finds that only 9% of MPs want to devolve power back to the member-states, with 91% saying that more power should go to Brussels.

Unless the German government finds a way to address this imbalance, then it might have a lot more than disgruntled Southern Europeans to deal with post-election.

Eurozone compromise on using ESM to directly recapitalise banks - a stopgap at best?

Eurozone finance ministers finally reached a compromise yesterday which will allow the ESM, the eurozone

bailout fund, to directly recapitalise ailing banks.

This is likely to be an important element of any ‘solution’ to the eurozone crisis, especially since it will probably be incorporated into the plans for a eurozone banking union and single bank resolution fund.

Below we summarise and analyse (in bold italics) the key points of the agreement:

€60bn limit: ESM funds available for direct bank recaps will be limited to €60bn out of the total €500bn, since this method of funding eats up the capital of the ESM more quickly. Given the size of the eurozone banking sector – around €34 trillion or 360% of eurozone GDP – this seems far from sufficient.

Burden sharing: National governments will have to contribute 20% of the funds for the first two years and 10% thereafter. Furthermore, ESM funds can only be injected once the bank has reached a core tier one capital buffer of 4.5% - any recapitalisation to achieve this minimum level will also fall on national governments. This is a logical compromise, but it means that the link between sovereigns and banks is not completely broken. It is only "diluted" (as EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn put it). Combined with the above funding limit, this places some tight constraints on the level of capital injection possible.

Strict conditions: The funds can only be used for banks which are deemed 'saveable' and have no other alternative. These banks must also be systemically important (in the relevant member state at least). It must also be impossible for the member state to bailout the bank on its own without harming its fiscal sustainability. There must also be independent stress tests performed ahead of any ESM contribution. Any contribution will come with strict conditions both on the bank and possibly on the member state.

Bail-ins: The agreement states that “sufficient contributions from existing shareholders and creditors of the beneficiary institution”will need to be explored. This suggests that the final agreement on the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive will play an important role in determining how and when this fund is tapped. The emphasis on bail-ins is of course positive but until related plans are settled uncertainty will remain.

Final liability: A subsidiary of the ESM will be set up to directly purchase equity in ailing banks. This allows final liability for the rescue programme to rest with the ESM rather than states.

Retroactive use (legacy assets): The funds can be used to retroactively takeover the burden of previous bank bailouts, although this will be decided on a case-by-case basis. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble described this as "a concession to our Irish friends". This gives hope to Ireland that the cost of its bank bailout can be shifted. However, given the above limits and the conditions, this still seems a distant prospect.

At first look then, it is positive that an agreement has been reached but this looks to be a stopgap at best. It is clearly tightly constrained by the limits on lending but also by the conditions – in particular the need for a strict independent stress test which could eat up precious time in a crisis. The hurdles to retroactive use are also significant – there is far from sufficient funds to cover for the Irish, Spanish and Greek bank bail-outs (up to €125bn in total), while opening a country's economy to further oversight is far from desirable.

To be fair, given how tied in this is with the single bank resolution mechanism, banking union and the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, it may be too early to fully assess how effective it might be. It's also worth noting that the plan will likely need approval from some national parliaments, notably the Bundestag (H/T Bruegel).

The most conerning point is probably that if this is a precursor to the eurozone's single resolution mechanism, it is likely to fall short of fully breaking the dangerous sovereign banking loop in the eurozone.

Bernd Lucke sets out his alternative for Germany and the EU

The new German anti-euro party Alternative für Deutschland’s radically different take on the eurozone compared with the rest of the German political establishment has generated a lot of interest both inside Germany and beyond. As such it was no surprise that today’s Q&A session with AfD leader Bernd Lucke (hosted by the Bruges Group in Westminster) was packed. Here are a few key points from the event:

On the formation of AfD and its prospects 

Lucke admitted that as a young Economics professor in 1999 he supported the euro because he believed it would lead to structural reforms in Southern European countries, and because he took the ‘no bailout clause’ in the Maastricht Treaty at face value. It was the breaking of this that led him to leave the CDU and eventually establish AfD.

He also said that the German political system is structured to keep out new parties – including state subsidies for established parties - with the Greens being the only successful entrant onto the scene in recent years. However he said he was encouraged by polls suggesting AfD’s potential support could be as high as 30%, and that the key would be attracting lower educated blue collar workers in particular.

On the Eurozone

Lucke said that he had reached the conclusion that the current eurozone policy was fatally “mis-conceived” and would never work because financial markets’ fears of a sovereign default could never be squared with the kind of tough conditionality necessary to ensure that member states met their obligations with regards to structural reforms and fiscal consolidation (the failure of the fiscal pact to enforce its 3% deficit limit suggests he could have a point).

Instead, he argued that the Southern member states should leave immediately in order to allow for the devaluation of their new currencies, after which the remaining member states could decide whether to maintain a currency union between themselves or to go for a full break up.

On the UK and the EU

Lucke said that despite his opposition to the euro, he was not opposed to EU integration, adding that as a German he valued its role as a peace project. He even suggested that he was not opposed to transfers between European states per se but that the current system was flawed – for example indirect transfers via the ECB’s bond buying programmes, which happen without democratic approval. However, he added that there was much to be reformed about the EU from its overbearing bureaucracy and appetite for regulation which stifle economic growth to its undemocratic practices. He added that as such he broadly supported David Cameron’s critique, and that he valued British ‘euroscepticism’ as a positive force in ensuring better decisions being reached at the EU level.

Cypriot parliament narrowly approves bailout deal but plenty of hurdles yet to overcome

The Cypriot parliament has officially approved the bailout deal that the government agreed with its eurozone partners and the IMF. (See here for our previous thoughts on the deal).

A rejection of the deal would probably have led to a Cypriot exit from the eurozone. Given such serious consequences it was an incredibly close run vote with 29 in favour versus 27 against (often for such votes politicians shy away from risky decisions).

We’re yet to get the final breakdown of the votes but here are the early predictions (we will update this with final figures when we have them):

The government is likely to breathe a sigh of relief but it should not view this as the end – it is surely only the end of the beginning at best.

As we have noted at length before, the prospects for Cyprus are bleak. Growth is set to crumble over the next few years, while capital controls remain in place, keeping it at the edge of the eurozone (with close to a separate currency since Cypriot euros are clearly no longer worth the same as euros elsewhere). As recently as last Thursday, the controls were extended for 16 days and despite being eased at points, there is no clear plan for how or when they can be removed (strangely the responsibility for the rules seems to have switched from the Central Bank to the Ministry of Finance while the lengths of the extensions have ranged from 3 days to 16 days at random intervals – not effectively a decisive or clear policy approach).

Despite the vote being approved it is also clear that politics in Cyprus remains fractured. 29 MPs feel strongly in favour of the bailout programme and the associated actions, while 27 MPs were effectively willing to see Cyprus leave the euro rather than implementing the bailout deal. Meanwhile, the rift between the Central Bank and the government shows little signs of abating.

Surely, effective reform and governance will be tough in the future, especially as the anti-austerity feeling amongst the general public rises.

For a taste of this just see the quote from Green MP George Perdikis after the vote:

“A 'yes' from Cyprus's parliament is by far the biggest defeat in our 8,000-year history. Its democratically elected representatives have a gun to their head to agree to a deal of enslavement.” 

The Cypriot government has negotiated a large hurdle but the biggest challenges may yet be to come.

No backing down: Germany comes out swinging over claims it is the neighbourhood bully

Given all the Germany-bashing over the last week, in the wake of the Cyprus bailout deal (some of it completely ridiculous), it's easy to forget that the Germans themselves are remarkably united over the agreement. In fact, the feeling is that Germany, collectively, just got a fair bit more assertive over its eurozone policy.

On Friday, before a new agreement was finally reached and with Cyprus’ euro membership on the line, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – reportedly in an angry mood - told MPs from her coalition parties that it was wrong for Cyprus to "test" Europe and that while she preferred to see to see Cyprus stay in the single currency but was prepared for an exit.

And with respect to anti-German sentiments, speaking to ZDF this morning, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble bluntly stated that:

“It is always the case, also in the classroom: When you sometimes have better results, the others, who have difficulties, can be a bit jealous.” 

German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP) called on EU leaders to show more solidarity with Germany, claiming that:

"I wish that that the individuals at the highest levels of the EU including the President of the Commission and the President of the Council also display solidarity with us and defend the Germans against unjust accusations".

Meanwhile the opposition SPD and Greens have said they will both vote to approve the deal. It is not just German politicians who are being increasingly assertive. In our daily monitoring of the German press, we've sensed a hardening of tone and rhetoric throughout the crisis, not least in response to the overtly anti-German tone of many of the anti-austerity protests in the south. Referring specifically to the Nazi-themed nature of the protests, Ulrich Clauß argues in Die Welt that:

“In terms of the endemic prevalence of corruption in government and administration and in close to all parties in their respective parliamentary spectrums, these countries rank alongside third-world dictatorships. On the whole we are talking about countries in which ‘good governance’ seems to be an alien concept… in terms of political culture, there is an extreme divide between North and South in Europe.”

Writing in FAZ, Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger argues that:

“The Cypriots like to see themselves as the victims. It is not however their European partners who are responsible for the mess they are in… In the crisis countries many blame their plight less on corrupt elites and bad policies but on the alleged lack of solidarity in the North for which read: neo-hegemonic Germany.”

Last week, following the Cypriot parliament’s rejection of the original bailout agreement, Bild columnist Hugo Müller-Vogg argued in a piece entitled “We’re the scapegoats” that:

“Politicians there have acted extremely irresponsibly. Now they are extremely brazen in their demands from those who have solidly managed their economies. Moreover, they insult those who are supposed to help them. Without German guarantees there would be no bailout fund. But of all things we Germans are being hit in the crisis countries not only criticism but even open hatred… If it was not an issue of Europe’s future, there would only be one appropriate response: deal with your own mess”.

Writing in Die Welt, Director of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics Thomas Straubhaar describes the Cypriot bailout deal as a “turning-point” in the eurozone crisis, arguing that:

“Up until now, the bankrupt countries have been able to use fear of a domino effect to extort Europe. That is now over because the strong eurozone countries have the better hand – and they should not be afraid to play it”.

The implications of a Germany more prepared to assert its viewpoint has huge implications for the future of the eurozone and the EU as a whole. Remember who holds the cheque book...

Do the Cypriot elections pave a clear path to a Cypriot bailout?

How big of a problem can a country accounting for 0.2% of eurozone GDP possibly be? Well, potentially pretty big it seems.

As expected Nicos Anastasiades, the centre right candidate, was yesterday elected President of Cyprus winning 57.5% of the vote in the runoff election – the highest vote share in 30 years. Anastasiades, along with other eurozone leaders, has said he is keen to move quickly towards finalising the Cypriot bailout which was first requested in June 2012 – meaning it has been in the pipeline for 8 months. Usually the fresh election of a reform minded government with a large majority paves a clear path for a bailout. While, it is true that the previous communist President Demetris Christofias has been an obstacle to finalising a bailout by refusing to countenance any privatisations, the path to a bailout is still littered with hurdles.

The first hurdle is the banking sector which needs a massive recap of €10bn (50% of GDP). Over the past decade it has swelled to seven times the size of Cypriot GDP, mostly off the back of a huge inflow of foreign (mainly Russian) money attracted by the low tax rate and reported lax financial regulation. Unfortunately, despite requiring a significant restructuring and overhaul, for which taxpayers should not foot the bill, there is a very limited amount of bank debt to ‘bail-in’ (circa €3bn against €128bn of assets). This leaves few options. One is writing down depositors, although the threat of contagion and the unprecedented nature of this means it remains someway off for now.

The second issue is fiscal. Cypriot debt has been increasing rapidly, already standing at around 84% of GDP. Adding the burden of a €17bn bailout would take it to 140% - far from sustainable. However, restructuring the sovereign debt is not much easier than the bank debt. Around half is issued under UK law, meaning the Cypriot parliament cannot simply pass a law restructuring it (as Greece did). The other half is predominantly held by shaky Cypriot banks making any write down counterproductive as these banks would simply need an even larger recapitalisation. The rest takes the form of official loans to EU countries and institutions – unlikely to take losses, as Greece has proven.

The confluence of the above problems ultimately makes this a very tricky political decision. The Cypriot bailout and the presence of large Russian deposits and lax financial regulation (in Germany’s view at least) is now becoming a topic in the upcoming German elections. As we noted in today’s press summary, a DPA poll over the weekend showed that 63% of Germans are opposed to a Cypriot bailout whereas only 16% are in favour. The SPD has also made this a point on which to differentiate themselves from the governing CDU. On the other hand the politics in Cyprus are also tricky. Many in the country are expecting a show of solidarity from the eurozone given that half of the bank recap needs are a result of Cyprus wilfully taking part in the Greek debt restructuring. And is Cyprus really systemically important, given its tiny size? Many would say it is not, however, as the problems above highlight there is substantial potential for contagion, not least because any radical solution would challenge the view that Greece is “unique and exceptional”.

Taken together, this represents a minefield of issues to negotiate when formulating the Cypriot bailout. Unfortunately, the technical and legal challenges balanced with the fragile turnaround in the eurozone mean that at this point in time it looks likely that eurozone taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill once again – albeit with very strict conditions and a significant financial overhaul. Potentially the most worrying thing about this bailout is how familiar the problems all seem. The banking issues are similar to those in Ireland and Spain, the fiscal challenges to those in Greece and the political ones, well, to everywhere. One thing that the Cyprus issue makes abundantly clear is that the eurozone lacks any new tools to overcome these very familiar problems. Of all the issues mentioned above, that may be the most ominous for the future of the euro.

Tackling the slow, painful decline: A bad day of economic data for the eurozone

Some have said the worst of the eurozone crisis is over – this morning’s economic data did not provide much support to their argument.

 

Top of the list are the growth figures for the eurozone in Q4 2012 – as a whole the bloc contracted by a massive 0.6%. Maybe not a huge surprise but still worse than most expected. Furthermore, there were few glimmers of hope. 

As the graph above shows, Germany posted a contraction of 0.6%, Italy 0.9% and Portugal a massive 1.8% (more on this in a minute). France’s 0.3% contraction looked relatively mild, although it confirmed that the French economy saw zero growth in 2012 – it also put pay to any hopes of the French government achieving its growth projections for 2013 or its deficit target (see here for more on this). For all of these countries, this was the worst quarterly growth performance in almost four years (2009Q1).

The Italian statistics agency confirmed that growth for 2012 was -2.2%, a timely reminder of Italy’s real problem – an endemic and chronic lack of economic growth. The absence of any credible policy for correcting this in the current electoral campaign should be of grave concern to all of Europe.

Portugal was undoubtedly the stand out performer, but not in a good way. The 1.8% contraction in the final quarter brought the annual real terms contraction in 2012 to 3.2%. This result, along with the German contraction (which was put down to a collapse in European demand for German exports), highlights the substantial risk of expecting export lead recoveries to materialise when the entire eurozone is in a recession. The stumbling growth in the US and China at the end of 2012 likely created a further drag.

In fact, the only countries to provide any strongly positive data were the smaller central and eastern European economies – particularly Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Some would highlight that these are the countries that have already completed a significant round of structural reforms and internal devaluation. In any case, they are far from large enough to help pull the rest of the eurozone out of its current slump.

Meanwhile, the Greek statistics agency Elstat also released its figures for Greek unemployment in November 2012. Overall unemployment reached 27%. As we have noted many times before, this far outstrips the EU/IMF/ECB troika estimate for the end of 2012 which was 24.4% (this is even after it was revised upwards significantly in the IMF’s January report on Greece).

More worryingly though, youth unemployment has reached a whopping 61.7%. Think about that figure - it's absolutely extraordinary, especially when compared to the fact that it was only 28% three years ago. We can’t help but wonder how long such high levels of unemployment can be sustained before the political and economic impact becomes too heavy for the state to carry alone (i.e. before Greece demands further eurozone funding and concessions on its reform programme). Again, the risk is that the very fabric of Greek society could start disintegrating under such sustained pressure.

There has been plenty of optimism around the eurozone recently, some of it warranted and we should relish this. But this data should be a timely reminder of, arguably, the biggest challenge of them all for the eurozone: how to reverse the trend of slow, grinding decline.

If EU leaders thought for one minute that there were room for complacency, they can think again.

Buying back Greece: another ad hoc deal or a step towards a solution?

Early on Tuesday morning the eurozone and the IMF reached an agreement which has been widely billed as their most comprehensive package to aid Greece. Now that the dust has settled somewhat, Open Europe has published a new flash analysis assessing the key components of the deal.

For all the talk and all the figures flying around there is still only one that really matters – 124% debt to GDP ratio in 2020, clearly this is not sustainable. Further measures will be needed and the ad hoc nature of this deal, particularly the way it skirts the big decisions, suggests that fears over a ‘Grexit’ will return as soon as Greece begins missing its targets once again.

Although reaching some deal was better than nothing, there are still significant doubts over the deal. The mixture of measures do provide some short term relief but in most cases fail to solve any of Greece's real solvency problems. The policy with the most unanswered questions is probably the most important one - the debt buy back.  A key question is: who actually owns Greek debt now? Below we break down the shares of Greek debt (click to enlarge):

We expect that the only bonds actually eligible for the buyback would be those held by foreign financial institutions (€30bn). However many of these bondholders may be reluctant to take part for a multitude of reasons.

See here for the full analysis.

Looking to the New Year?

With trouble flaring up in Greece once more and the backstop of the ECB’s bond-buying (OMT) in place, Spain has slipped off the radar slightly. It now seems likely that any request for a sovereign bailout (of one form or another) will be pushed back until the New Year.

However, interestingly, Spain returned to the debt markets this week despite having its funding costs covered this year. It successfully sold almost €5bn worth of short-term debt on Tuesday and almost €3.9bn of medium and long-term debt yesterday.

This could mean many things, not least that the Spanish government is concerned about its cash position or the potential for unexpected costs (a regional or bank bailout for example), but we’re willing to give Spain the benefit of the doubt and see it as prudent planning to get a head start in covering its funding needs next year. This comes as somewhat of a relief given that gross Spanish funding needs could run between €150bn and €200bn next year.

On a separate, and slightly less positive note, the European Commission has, in a working document, questioned why the Spanish government has, in substance, refrained from intervening in those Spanish regions which are "clearly at risk of missing their fiscal targets in 2012" - despite legislating earlier this year to give itself such power? It is an interesting question, we would hazard a guess that the Spanish government is not ready to face the political consequences of such an action.

We can’t exactly blame them on this front but it raises the question of where their threshold is and what the repercussion of such an action would be.

As per usual from Spain then, a bit of a mixed bag, but at least it seems to be planning for next year. Now if only it took a longer term approach to its banking sector and labour market reforms…

Meanwhile, in the Far North

One of the consequences of the eurozone crisis is that media, pundits and market analysts have been forced to become experts of what previously would have been seen as the most obscure political events. Thus, the Finnish local elections now have international significance (although they are still not making any headlines) as they serve as a barometer for the extent to which "Europe" as an election issue can trickle through to the local level. The theory being that the closer the issue gets to citizens, the harder for EU leaders to sell more integration.

An opinion poll for Finnish public broadcaster Yle puts the anti-bailout (True) Finns party at 17.2% - three times higher than in local election in 2008. Compared to 2008, all parties except for the Green party and the (True) Finns party would lose voters.

With a majority of voters from all Finnish parties - apart from the small Swedish People's Party - seemingly opposing more eurozone bailouts, expect Finland to remain assertive. Starting with the rumoured leveraging of the ESM.