The state of Europe after the Eurozone crisis - a round up of developments

The longest recession in 40 years in Europe appears to have stabilised, but the search for recovery continues. Greece is taking delivery of a third bailout from the Eurozone, albeit tiny in comparison to previous loans. However, exports, consumer spending and corporate investment are still low, hinting that a recovery is still some way off. 

In the banking sector, Basel III minimum leverage ratios are being welcomed, having been recognised as a buffer against future crises. In the US, for example, minimum leverage requirements well in excess of 3% have been proposed, hinting that the Basel requirements are still seen as inadequate. It does also hint that the implementation of a globally comparable leverage ratio - as set out in Basel III - is unlikely to be met with uniform regulations around the world. 

In the EU, an agreement reached between the Member States on June 27th 2013 on a proposed directive states that in future financial crises, bank and financial institution bail-ins will be the default position, preserving depositors' money and sparing the taxpayer. Bail-outs are not ruled out, however, as the agreement gives national governments substantial flexibility to determine how best to resolve a situation. As such, governments can still determine that a taxpayer-funded bail-out is the best solution, and considering that the agreement on bail-ins is not likely to come in to force until 2018, there is still plenty of time for taxpayers to be left firmly on the hook.  Moreover, S&P considers that EU member governments with sufficient financial capacity will continue to support major creditors of systemically important banks, at least until balance sheets recover, and banks are made more resolvable through structural reforms. 

While mortgage agreements and real estate sales are increasing again in the US, the same is beginning to take place in the UK. US new home sales were up 7.9% in August, and were up 13% on the year. (Source: Census Bureau, from S&P Ratings Direct). Lower interest rates in the UK have been partly responsible for the increase in lending, along with the Bank of England "Funding for Lending" scheme which aims to target lending to the real economy, in particular SMEs. Moreover, the govenrment-backed mortgage scheme, has also aimed to boost lending to those who could otherwise not afford to get on the housing ladder, although this has been met with accusations that it will only fuel, rather than address, the housing bubble.

This all sounds remarkably positive, given the travails of the past few years. However a recent report by S&P on the state of the Eurozone is less optimistic. The report concludes that slowdowns in emerging markets, and an economic rebalancing in China, may "start to reduce the credit support provided by global diversification in recent years". The mantra that a diversified economy will weather economic storms better may prove little use should China - along with other developing economies - slow down their consumption, leaving demand stagnant throughout the global economy.

China's growth has slowed noticeably and perhaps more significantly, expectations for China's growth have also fallen. The consensus is that forecasts have fallen by one percentage point over the last year to 7.5%, however this continues to decline. This compares to a GDP of over 9% in 2010-2011, and although the Chinese leadership seems comfortable with current figures, their focus will be on balancing internal demand and consumption with international trade. 

A Eurozone slump, along with negative US fiscal policy developments, slower growth in China or a disorderly reduction in quantitative easing are currently the top risks for global credit conditions. This has had implications for European sovereign creditworthiness, along with corporate credit ratings above the sovereign. Corporate trends in Europe are still mainly negative. Fifty-six percent of S&P rating actions in the second quarter of 2013 were ratings downgrades, while over two-thirds of industry sectors carry "stable-to-negative" or "negative" outlooks. Moreover, S&P expects the Eurozone to remain in recession for the rest of 2013 and has downgraded its real GDP forecast from minus 0.5% to minus 0.8% for this quarter. The ratings agency expects a weak recovery in 2014 with a GDP of 0.8%, but expects that potential growth will remain impaired long in to the future. Furthermore, according to S&P, there is still a one in three possibility that the Eurozone could experience a sharper and deeper recession in the remainder of 2013 that could last into 2014, seeing the recovery pushed back even further into the future. Owing to the structural nature and depth of the Eurozone crisis, the agency estimates that it is unlikely for a recovery to occur earlier, or for GDP figures to improve substantially in the short to mid term. 

A recent report by Moody's affirms the provisional AA1 rating of the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) based on the contractual elements, including the "irrevocable and unconditional" guarantees by the Eurozone member states, as well as their creditworthiness and commitments to the EFSF. The strong political commitment of Eurozone member states to the Fund is also important, as Moody's assesses that any default would entail "significant pecuniary and political costs" for Europe. However, the rating is subject to a negative outlook, reflecting the negative outlooks on euro area sovereigns that are guarantors to the Fund. The three largest shareholders in the fund, Germany, the Netherlands and France, all have negative outlooks, with Finland being the only eurozone country with a stable outlook currently. 

It's Finally Happened - Moody's Downgrades the UK

Moody's finally confirmed market rumours this evening and downgraded the UK's government bond rating from AAA to AA1. It cited several factors, including the sluggish growth outlook for medium-long term, anticipating that weak growth will last into the second half of the decade, posing challenges for the government's fiscal consolidation programme. The consequences of this include the government's "high and rising debt burden" which reduces the capacity for shock absorption on the government's balance sheets. Importantly, because of the extended time frame of the fiscal consolidation plans, taking them into the next parliament, the level of risk involved has increased. Now, instead of peaking in 2014, Moody's expects the UK's gross general debt to GDP to peak in 2016 at 96 per cent, which is up from just over 90 per cent now.

Despite these problems, Moody's stresses that the UK still retains high creditworthiness, due to its competitive, well-diversified economy, previous and future fiscal consolidation and robust institutional structure. It's favourable debt structures, bond maturity lengths, and the resulting reduced interest rate risk on UK debt are all additional factors in the UK's favour. Moody's seems to believe that the government's fiscal consolidation plan will, in time, be fulfilled, given the UK's underlying economic strengths. The ratings agency does mention that the UK's exposure to the Eurozone is an issue that may become more urgent depending on how the crisis in that area progresses, however the contagion is stated to be mitigated by the UK's independent monetary policy and the status of sterling as a global reserve currency.

Moody's had changed the outlook from stable to negative in February 2012, however today's downgrade shifts the outlook back to stable. Speaking this evening in response to the downgrade, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne took the news as a "stark reminder" of the troubles being faced by Britain, and vowed to "redouble" his efforts to reduce the deficit and maintain historically low interest rates for families. Interestingly, the downgrade comes less than a month ahead of the Chancellor's budget on March 20th in which he will outline fiscal policy for the coming months. 

But will the downgrade actually make any real difference? 

The short answer to this is, well, economically no, but politically, maybe. For a start, bond markets are usually a couple of months ahead of ratings agencies when it comes to anticipating difficulties and slow growth prospects, and sterling has fallen significantly against the dollar over the past few months. This has the advantage of making exports cheaper, helping the UK economy, but it tends to signal that all is not well for economic outlooks (regardless of rumours of currency wars). More to the point, rumours have been circulating for some weeks - some even publicly - that the UK is on the verge of a downgrade. The announcement tonight by Moody's should not have surprised anyone. Will bond yields increase dramatically when the markets open on Monday morning? Unlikely. And considering the role call of countries who have been downgraded over the past few years, the UK is simply the latest to join the list.

But the political issue is slightly trickier. Like other political leaders across the western world, Osborne staked a good deal of political capital on maintaining the AAA rating. I recently posted about the French reaction to their downgrade from AAA. But it's loss in the UK may prove to be a double-edged sword. While it may force reappraisal of fiscal policy, it might also give the Chancellor some room to breathe and reassess his options.

Undoubtedly it marks a recognition by a CRA that the deficit reduction plan is not working as successfully as planned, and that plans for growth haven't produced the desired results. Fiscal policy to get Britain moving after the recession focused around shifting from domestic consumption to an export-oriented base. But as nearly 40 per cent of UK exports are destined for Europe, the ongoing recessions there are less than encouraging. You simply cannot build growth by exporting to contracting economies. The good news is that the markets still appear to have faith in the political and economic ambitions of the UK government. Bond yields remain persistently low, despite some warning of a collapse in the bond markets as seen by Greece. The economic reputation of the UK remains intact, but questions are likely to be asked over the coming days about the political will to stick to austerity, especially given the backlash against pure austerity in other parts of the world, notably Japan and France. It will be interesting to see, therefore, if the Chancellor's "plan A" will be "tweaked" slightly to take account of the latest developments, and shift slightly away from austerity towards growth.

The Politics of Ratings, and the Politics of Avoiding Ratings

A while back I wrote a post about the muddling of finance and politics. The Eurozone crisis had seen France stripped of its AAA rating, and the move hadn't been taken well in France or the rest of the Eurozone. In particular, there was a significant, and very public, "answer back" from the French government and central bank, claiming that the UK should be downgraded first. 

These downgrades, along with those of Italy and Greece, had been notable for the significant political rhetoric behind the ratings. As was plainly cited at the time, the lack of political leadership and consensus was one of the main factors behind the downgrades, making the CRAs political commentators as well as risk assessors. This has never been denied by the CRAs. In their sovereign rating methodologies, each of the Big Three provide for political risk factors to be included in the assessment, along with "other factors" that the analyst might deem relevant. (Standard & Poor's sovereign rating methodology can be found here, and Moody's methodology is here. Interestingly, Moody's is currently seeking feedback to proposed "refinements" of its sovereign rating methodology. More on this in a later post).

The problem now, though, is that the US is facing the same. The fiscal cliff negotiations that played out in the final minutes of 2012 displayed to the world how divided the US legislature really is when it comes to solving the fiscal problems facing the US. Maybe "problems" is an understatement? 

In August 2011, Standard & Poor's downgraded the US one notch from AAA to AA+. This was the first downgrade in US history and stunned Washington. S&P cited - unsurprisingly - the large debt burden, but also the political stalemate that made tough decisions to tackle the deficit nigh on impossible. It seems that Moody's and Fitch, however, are looking very closely at their top ratings in the US. Fitch, speaking during the negotiations, reminded us that failure to raise the debt ceiling would exacerbate uncertainty over US fiscal policy and send the US into an unnecessary recession. It stated that this could erode medium-term growth potential and financial stability, leading to an increased likelihood that the US would lose its AAA status. Moody's, taking a similar line, has also expressed concern about the lack of political consensus to come up with a credible long term debt reduction plan. It stated that the current AAA rating will only be confirmed if current negotiations lead to a long term strategy that reduces debt to GDP ratio. 

The political aspect of downgrades of Berlusconi's Italy centred on the lack of credibility of the leader. But in the US, the political agenda is not the issue, so much as the lack of ability to reach a suitable agreement. Politics may not be the issue, but it got in the way of finding a solution to the real, underlying problem. The fiscal cliff may have been avoided, but the issues surrounding debt levels remain. It is estimated that without action, the US debt will reach $25 trillion by 2022. Moody's statement that only a reduction in the deficit will lower the likelihood of a downgrade seems rather trite considering the figures. For now, the country remains on "negative outlook".

Cyprus Downgraded

Today, Fitch Inc downgraded Cyprus to junk status - as the country officially the EU for a bail out. Cyprus had been relying on Russia for funds, but has been forced to approach Europe for €1.8billion, approximately equivalent to 10% of that country's GDP, and making it the fifth EU member state to request funds. Cyprus, which is the EU's third smallest economy, cited exposure to Greek debts, and the need to recapitalise Cyprus Popular Bank.

The bailout request comes ahead of Cyprus assuming the Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2012. It follows Spain's request for €100billion, finalised on June 9th. This will be jointly met by the EFSF and the ESM, creating a headache for lenders and future investors as only one of the funds has preferred investor status. However markets have judged neither fund as containing sufficient money to solve Eurozone woes, with blame increasingly falling at Germany's door for failure to take action.

Moody's recently downgraded Spain's sovereign debt to one notch above junk status, and has kept the rating on review for further possible downgrade, although Moody's assigns the lowest rating to that country. It's banks have so far held on to ratings at least one notch above this, due to profitable overseas businesses.

Taking a Stand - Nation States Reclaiming Sovereignty, or Political Posturing?

Arguments that sovereignty has shifted from the nation state (in its post-Westphalian glory) to "the markets" are not new. The sovereignty of the markets and their ability to shape government policy and borrowing are well documented. What is less frequently noted is the role played by the "gatekeepers", or "gateopeners" to the markets. This is a term popularized by Professor John C. Coffee to describe those actors who regulate entry to - and exit from - the market. Credit rating agencies are prime examples of gatekeepers. While most issues and financial products require at least two ratings, government oversight of the markets in the form of ratings-based regulation further entrenched, and legitimised the role of the CRAs. As such, it is not a great stretch to argue that sovereignty has shifted from the nation state (perhaps via the markets) into the hands of gatekeepers to the markets. This has been the de facto situation for several years, and went largely unnoticed - or at least largely unchallenged.

It is also easy to argue that the sovereign debt rating is not simply a requirement for market access, but a political statement and quantifier of the strength and direction of government of a particular state. Yet recent comments by the French finance minister, Francois Barron, regarding the 'political' intentions of threatened downgrades question whether politics may be attempting to re-appropriate the discourse which has become the preserve of markets over the past decades. In December 2011, while France was threatened with the loss of its AAA rating, he stated on the French radio station Europe 1 that the French economy was in a better shape than the UK's. He was speaking after the French Prime Minister Francois Fillon and the French Central Bank Chief Christian Noyer both pointed to comparative weakness in the UK economy and outlook. Mr. Noyer went on to say that the U.K. should be downgraded before France.

In an interview with the French paper Le Telegramme, Mr. Noyer stated "A downgrade doesn't seem justified to me when you look at the economic fundamentals." He went on to say "Or else a downgrade should come first for the UK, which has a greater deficit, as much debt, more inflation, and less growth than us, and collapsing credit." He finished by stating that "Our British friends have a higher deficit and more debt, and I would say that the ratings agencies have not yet noted that."

These claims have been echoed by a senior lawmaker in Angela Merkel's party. Michael Fuchs, a CDU lawmaker and deputy parliamentary floor leader, is quoted as saying "It isn't fair that Standard & Poor's concerns itself for example with France and Austria, but why don't they do it with England." He went on to state that "It's simply not fair to leave England its AAA rating with a stable [outlook], while other countries get a downgrade, this is not right."

In other interesting developments, Italian prosecutors have announced that they are investigating Standard & Poor's recent downgrade of Italy, in particular whether crimes of market manipulation and illicit use of privileged information were committed when S&P's reports were released in May, June and July 2011, prompting a sell-off of Italian assets. The probe has been extended to include the January downgrade, however Standard & Poor's rigorously denies the claims.

As noted in a previous post, the UK is at much less risk of default than the Eurozone states for the simple reason that the Bank of England has signaled its willingness to print more money. However the interesting point here is whether these statements reflect a willingness on the part of governments to engage with credit rating agencies on a political and to reclaim the political debate. In other words, are governments now willing to play the agencies at their own game?

Sovereign rating methodologies - now publicized on Standard and Poor's and Moody's websites in a transparency drive - has always comprised an element of political assessment. The downgrades of Italy that eventually prompted Berlusconi's political demise were perhaps the most overt in their political reflections, however the assessment is present in any sovereign bond rating. What Eurozone leaders don't seem to realize is the effect their lack of political will is directly impacting on their ratings. Were Chancellor Merkel to seize the proverbial bull by the horns, arguably we would not be seeing the rounds of ratings downgrades that we are. European integration in the 1970s and 1908s stalled, and was referred to as a period of "eurosclerosis". Europe is once again seized with indecision, and is paying the price.