nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Greece "Defaults"

4.legs.good

And the world does not end...

http://rt.com/news/moody-s-greece-default-debt-241/

Moody's Investors Service considers Greece to have defaulted per its default definitions. The announcement comes despite Athens reaching a deal with private creditors for a bond exchange that will shave €107 billion from its €350 billion debt.

So why doesn't Ireland "reach an agreement" for some of its debt to be written off?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

My understanding is that Ireland is expecting to reach 119% of GDP, just 1% short of what is deemed the magic figure in unsustainability.

Some people may look at this and regard it as nitpicking but actually there is a perception that the 120% figure is important as a macroeconomic indicator for sustainability, and that any adverse deviation means trouble for the state's perceived health. So we really are sailing close to the wind.

I was going on my inaccurate recollection of the IMF fourth review:

On balance, the debt outlook has improved somewhat from the Third Review. General government gross debt is expected to peak at 118 percent of GDP in 2013, in line with the previous review, but to then decline more rapidly to 111 percent of GDP by 2016, compared with 115 percent earlier.

Fifth review doesn't change that much:

Debt is expected to remain high in the medium term, broadly in line with the Fourth Review forecast. General government debt is projected to peak at 118 percent of GDP in 2013, before declining gradually to about 112 percent by 2016. The outlook is little changed compared with the last review as the downward revision to real GDP growth in 2012 is expected to be offset by a combination of somewhat higher GDP deflator inflation and lower projected interest payments. The debt trajectory is expected to remain below the initial program projection, which peaked at 125 percent of GDP.

Greece's debt without any private sector involvement is very much higher:

Debt, net of collateral, would peak at a very high level of 187 percent of GDP in 2013, decline to 156 percent of GDP by end-2020, and to 142 percent of GDP by end-2030. Debt would also be extremely sensitive to shocks, failing to decline or stabilizing at very high levels under a lower primary balance, lower growth, lower privatization or higher interest rates. Faster macro adjustment would cause debt to peak above 200 percent of GDP. Hence, even small deviations from the macro and program targets would not bode well for debt sustainability.

Again, source is their IMF review, so the figures are hopefully comparable. The hope is, that with PSI, the debt will be at or under 120% by 2020, so despite my inaccurate recollection, the basic point - that the Greek debt write downs are an attempt to get Greece by 2020 to levels we're not expected to reach at all - remains the same!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

maninasia wrote: »

Ok, so does the 115% or the 120% figure include promissory notes, NAMA etc?

Promissory notes, yes - NAMA, no, since NAMA is an off-balance sheet vehicle and also an enterprise, which means that its eventual outcome is unknown at this stage. The NAMA senior bonds are characterised as 'contingent liabilities' by the IMF, and outlined as a possible but unlikely upset to the debt sustainability:

Recognition of contingent liabilities would constitute a one-off increase in the level of debt. Ireland’s contingent fiscal liabilities relate to the covered banks, the IBRC, and NAMA. There is no expectation of losses from these entities as the covered banks have been recapitalized under PCAR 2011, the IBRC meets capital adequacy requirements, and NAMA received assets at heavy discounts—averaging 58 percent—to protect its viability. Under the standard scenario, the assumption of 10 percent of GDP in contingent liabilities by the Irish government would raise the debt-to-GDP ratio to 124 percent in 2012 and cause it to peak at 129 percent in the following year, but starting from 2014 debt would start to decline steadily, reaching 123 percent by 2016. However, the debt trajectory would be higher if the higher debt level resulted in higher interest rates on new market funding.

Our contingent liabilities are, as percentages of of GDP:

Senior NAMA bonds|18.7%
Guarantees for Emergency Liquidity Assistance|9.8%
Deposits Covered by Deposit Protection Scheme|51.0%
Other Bank Liabilities covered by Eligible Liability Scheme|31.3%
Total|110.8%

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

@scofflaw yes I agree this difference is still minor. Personally I think the arbitrary threshold of 120% is a rather pointless one, but as I said I only raise it because it seems to be one that some economists (academic economists though they may mostly be) seem to attach a certain level of importance to it.

Rather more pertinent, I think, is why almost everyone ignores debt:GNP in the Irish scenario. But given the hysteria potential, perhaps that's better left alone anyway.

maninasia wrote: »

Ok, so does the 115% or the 120% figure include promissory notes, NAMA etc?

Promissory notes (which were all booked in 2010) and banks are taken into account as has been confirmed above, but what value exactly ought one estimate the NAMA losses to represent?

Can you put a figure on what you may think ought to be added to the net debt position?

The short answer is that while some loss is anticipated, I think most people familiar with the NAMA process are cynical about some of the more theatrical forecasts of losses which have been thrown about (and then counted twice).

Monty Burnz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Promissory notes, yes - NAMA, no

Recognition of contingent liabilities would constitute a one-off increase in the level of debt. Ireland’s contingent fiscal liabilities relate to the covered banks, the IBRC, and NAMA. There is no expectation of losses from these entities as the covered banks have been recapitalized under PCAR 2011, the IBRC meets capital adequacy requirements, and NAMA received assets at heavy discounts—averaging 58 percent—to protect its viability. Under the standard scenario, the assumption of 10 percent of GDP in contingent liabilities by the Irish government would raise the debt-to-GDP ratio to 124 percent in 2012 and cause it to peak at 129 percent in the following year, but starting from 2014 debt would start to decline steadily, reaching 123 percent by 2016.

What do we reckon NAMA will lose in reality? 10 billion?

kippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What do we reckon NAMA will lose in reality? 10 billion?

No one is going to be brave enough to put a figure on it, I'd reckon.

Scofflaw

kippy wrote: »

No one is going to be brave enough to put a figure on it, I'd reckon.

Any estimate would be purely speculative at this stage, I'd say. You can name virtually any figure between their original expenditure and the Moon and claim it as justified.

later12 wrote:

Rather more pertinent, I think, is why almost everyone ignores debt:GNP in the Irish scenario. But given the hysteria potential, perhaps that's better left alone anyway.

Possibly because looking at debt-GNP ratios leads inexorably to looking at things like deficits, social spending or wages in the context of GNP, which would be uncomfortable for some who would otherwise raise the argument. Still, no doubt we'll see it in a suitably misleading and easily-swallowed form during the referendum campaign.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stackerman

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Welcome to boards.

What happens then, Stackerman?

SHIFT scenario
Bank holiday, devaluation of currency, mass default

Note - http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6208-12

So not worth the paper they are printed on, no surprise there :rolleyes:

Switzerland, Germany and others looking for their gold repatriated, and yet we are being fed the line 'all is ok'.

http://m.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/switzerland-wants-its-gold-back-from-the-ny-fed

Even the rats are leaving the ship

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=4&hp

Anyway, just my humble opinion, and I know plenty here will not agree :P

maninasia

Originally Posted by NIMAN

I think the bottom line is that if Greece is able to get such a massive write down of its debts, how come Ireland can't?

Because the bottom line is that Greece needs a massive write down just to have a chance of getting its debt down to levels we're not expected to reach.

Greece is hoping - with the write down and much much more austerity - to get their debt levels down to 120% by 2020, whereas we're expecting to top out at 115% in the next couple of years and then start declining.

It's probably not unfair to say that many people in Ireland don't know when we're well off, either in boom or bust.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for comments earlier. I've not looked at this for a while, how is Ireland going to reach the magical reducing % ratio of debt:GP in 2014. It points to me that

a) We are going to be taking in more revenue than outgoings by 2014
b) The interest rate on the debt is going to drop lower than the economic expansion
c) Inflation increases

I can't see a) happening so quickly.
I can't see b) happening either.
I only have hope for C)

Maybe somebody can explain what I am missing here.

EDIT: I see inflation has been fingered as the saviour above. Good luck savers!

golfwallah

Can anyone summarise the Greek situation and why or why not we in Ireland would want to be in a similar situation – all in simple English without use of Jargon or acronyms?

Some pundits advocate default on the basis that we will get over it in time – others see default as a disaster that will have negative impacts for years to come. Very few explain why in plain English.

Most laypeople can understand that you have to pay your debts. If you don’t, then word gets around and you will find it impossible to borrow for fear of a repeat. They also understand the difference between default (e.g. inability to meet repayment terms on an agreed date) and default plus repudiation (never paying back your debts).

With default alone you can negotiate with your creditors for a debt re-structuring or even debt reduction, although this would have a knock on effect on your future cost of borrowing. Default plus repudiation, i.e. “burning the bond holders” sounds much more serious and I can’t see anyone loaning us money if that happened – even if it was limited to repudiating private bank debt (regarded by many external lenders as legitimate national debt because it was run up under the Government Regulation regime, which later proved to be non-existent).

How on earth are ordinary people expected to understand this stuff, let alone make rational decisions on it, if it isn’t made easy to understand by those, who have such an understanding?

Barak Obama seems to have the knack of summarising complex issues, so the ordinary Mums & Dads can understand them. He always makes it look like something he just explained off the top of his head. But I guess the real answer is that he, or more likely his staff, study these issues in detail and then take the time to explain them from the ordinary man’s perspective.

Any volunteers out there?:)

K-9

golfwallah wrote: »

Most laypeople can understand that you have to pay your debts. If you don’t, then word gets around and you will find it impossible to borrow for fear of a repeat. They also understand the difference between default (e.g. inability to meet repayment terms on an agreed date) and default plus repudiation (never paying back your debts).

With default alone you can negotiate with your creditors for a debt re-structuring or even debt reduction, although this would have a knock on effect on your future cost of borrowing. Default plus repudiation, i.e. “burning the bond holders” sounds much more serious and I can’t see anyone loaning us money if that happened – even if it was limited to repudiating private bank debt (regarded by many external lenders as legitimate national debt because it was run up under the Government Regulation regime, which later proved to be non-existent).

Tbh, I think you've pretty much summarised it yourself pretty well there.

Iceland is an example of a country that repudiated on debts because well, it had no option, it was much very much on its own and taking on bank debt many times the size of its over inflated GDP was inconceivable, even to the markets. It still has had to bear consequences and for all the talk about their success, they are about the same as us economically.

Our politicians seem to be going for a long term strategy. Got a reduction by about 3% on the EU loan money and are hoping something more manageable can be negotiated on Anglo etc. Its a very slow process though and doesn't make headlines or last long in the publics consciousness.

golfwallah

K-9 wrote: »

Our politicians seem to be going for a long term strategy. Got a reduction by about 3% on the EU loan money and are hoping something more manageable can be negotiated on Anglo etc. Its a very slow process though and doesn't make headlines or last long in the publics consciousness.

Agreed, but perhaps the reason it doesn't last long in the public consciousness is failure by Government to communicate these issues simply to the public.

This requires developing a planned communication strategy and then implementing it in a consistent manner through multiple communications channels.

That way, people will gradually get the message and start behaving in a rational manner to help get the country out of its debt crisis as quickly as possible.

Government Ministers would be better served taking a look at Barack Obama's communication strategy and adapting this approach to their own policies rather than relying on sound-bites (or copying passages from his speeches - although, it is said that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery").

golfwallah

Leaflet just in the door from Fine Gael inviting all to "a public info meeting on the fiscal compact treaty" in Grand Hotel, Malahide, Monday, 26th March at 8PM.

I expect this is just the early stages of giving ordinary folk a better idea of what is going on .... good to see something happening on the communications front .... I guess there will be lots more to come (on both sides of the argument).

Report card - "showing some improvement but must keep up the hard work".

djpbarry

golfwallah wrote: »

Agreed, but perhaps the reason it doesn't last long in the public consciousness is failure by Government to communicate these issues simply to the public.

This requires developing a planned communication strategy and then implementing it in a consistent manner through multiple communications channels.

The information is out there for anyone who wants to find it - you can take a horse to water...

golfwallah wrote: »

That way, people will gradually get the message and start behaving in a rational manner to help get the country out of its debt crisis as quickly as possible.

Wow, you have a lot of faith in humanity.

golfwallah

djpbarry wrote: »

The information is out there for anyone who wants to find it - you can take a horse to water...

Agreed, a lot of information is "out there", if you are motivated enough and have the wherewithal to get it.

My experience, which may be different to yours, is that most people have no idea about all this stuff. But you will find a select few interested in any subject and, human nature being what it is, these folk find it easier to talk among themselves, using jargon, and other "secret" terms (know only by the select few).

Human beings get to know stuff through communication - not instinct, sense of smell, etc. Therefore, complex issues need to be made simple to understand by the "ordinary Moms & Pops" as Barrack Obama describes them - not in a condescending way but in a way to inform and empower them.

The alternative, of leaving everything to the experts, is not in my view good for the long term good of our democratic system.

djpbarry wrote: »

Wow, you have a lot of faith in humanity.

Yes, funny enough, I find that if you go to the trouble of explaining complex things to people in a simple manner, that they can understand, they will respond sensibly. The lessons of poor communications in previous referenda, whereby "no brainer" issues have been rejected by an uninformed electorate, are there for all to see.:)

Tazz T

later12 wrote: »

My understanding is that Ireland is expecting to reach 119% of GDP, just 1% short of what is deemed the magic figure in unsustainability.

http://ntma.ie/Publications/2012/InvestorPresentationIrelandOnRecoveryPathFeb2012.pdf

Some people may look at this and regard it as nitpicking but actually there is a perception that the 120% figure is important as a macroeconomic indicator for sustainability, and that any adverse deviation means trouble for the state's perceived health. So we really are sailing close to the wind.

anyone who actually believes these figure forecasts will happen is insane.

Unemployment has not peaked. With all the creative accounting in the world, those figures aren't going to happen next year.

djpbarry

golfwallah wrote: »

Agreed, a lot of information is "out there", if you are motivated enough and have the wherewithal to get it.

I think the problem is lack of motivation rather than lack of wherewithal. For example, information on the organisational structure of the EU is very easy to come by, but most people (both here in the UK and in Ireland) seem to have a very poor grasp of how the EU is governed.

golfwallah wrote: »

Yes, funny enough, I find that if you go to the trouble of explaining complex things to people in a simple manner, that they can understand, they will respond sensibly.

The problem there is that you're assuming people want things explained to them.

Tazz T wrote: »

Unemployment has not peaked.

It may not have peaked, but it's certainly plateaued.

golfwallah

djpbarry wrote: »

I think the problem is lack of motivation rather than lack of wherewithal. For example, information on the organisational structure of the EU is very easy to come by, but most people (both here in the UK and in Ireland) seem to have a very poor grasp of how the EU is governed.

Certainly, lack of motivation is a big factor but there is a substantial segment of the electorate, who for many reasons would find it very hard to find information on any subject, EU or otherwise, even if they wanted to.

Like any market, the electorate is not just one amorphous mass, it consists of many segments and Government needs to work out how best to communicate with each segment. It's not a case of "one size fits all".

For example, the segment that's computer literate are reachable through Social Media (Google and Facebook have very well developed techniques for getting messages across to people, based on their interests), Websites, etc., some will call into the nearest citizens' advice bureau for information and read up on it, others want it explained at meetings, some are too busy with other issues in their lives, etc., etc.

Government can quite easily bring the required marketing and communications expertise to bear, to better inform people, if they want to.:)

djpbarry wrote: »

The problem there is that you're assuming people want things explained to them.

Not quite. As outlined above, the electorate consists of diverse interest groups, some of whom simply don't want to know.

And that's OK too, as you only need a majority to vote for any issue or candidate to be successful - not everyone.:)

later12

Tazz T wrote: »

anyone who actually believes these figure forecasts will happen is insane.

Is that a medical opinion? This table merely represents a number of macroeconomic projections using technical assumptions and other Euro area projections. Nothing quite as exciting as insanity, I'm afraid.

People who adhere to a position that its assumptions are unreasonable, or have been shown to be slightly off, might be quite justified. However you seem to attach a level of incredulity to these Department of Finance assumptions which I would suggest is more emotive than based in logical criticism.

Using the most updated figures available to us, for example, it is clear that Reuters Consensus must also be insane, because it projects Irish growth at slightly more optimistic levels than the Department of Finance from 2013, with the IMF and other organisations just a few points behind from that period out.

These are just indicators of what investors, consumers and Government may expect, using available data. They are not intended to be set in stone.

djpbarry

The CSO has just confirmed that the Irish economy grew by 0.7% in 2011.

They must be insane.

4.legs.good

Yet the "real economy" continues to shrink, GNP shrank by -2.5%

Oh and we are technically again in a recession having had 2 quarters of negative GDP growth, we are going down the second leg of what seems to be a W shaped recession (I sure hope it does not endup to be a saw shaped recession for next decade)

Ignore the real data and fall for government mandated spin much?