April 15, 2024

European Central Bank Holds Rate Steady but Hints at a July Increase

The euro fell against the dollar, however, after Jean-Claude Trichet, the central bank president, continued a disagreement with the German government by rejecting any suggestion that creditors of Greece should be required to share the burden of a rescue plan.

“We are not in favor of restructuring, haircuts and so forth,” Mr. Trichet said at a news conference after the bank’s governing council met about monetary policy.

His statements were an implicit rebuke to Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, who said on Wednesday that holders of Greek bonds should swap them for debt that the country would have longer to repay.

The Bank of England, meanwhile, kept its main interest rate at a record low amid concerns that the country’s economy was still too weak to cope with higher borrowing costs.

In the 17-nation euro zone, which does not include Britain, the European Central Bank has been more focused on inflation, which has been pushed up by rising food and energy prices.

“Strong vigilance is warranted,” Mr. Trichet said. That language seemed to indicate that a rate increase in July is probable, though the bank always leaves its options open.

Central bank economists slightly lowered their forecast for inflation next year, suggesting that the bank might feel less pressure to raise rates quickly.

On Thursday, the European Central Bank left its benchmark rate at 1.25 percent, after raising it in April from 1 percent, the first increase in two years. Inflation in the euro area was 2.7 percent in May.

“When I compare inflation today to interest rates, I see a negative number,” Mr. Trichet said.

The benchmark rate in Britain was left at 0.5 percent, and Britain’s bank also kept the size of its asset purchase plan unchanged at £200 billion, or about $327 billion.

The European Central Bank said it would continue its emergency support of euro zone banks by granting them unlimited low-interest loans at least through September.

With Germany, Europe’s largest economy, growing so quickly that some economists fear overheating, the central bank has been trying to nudge interest rates back to levels that would be normal in an upturn.

But the Greek debt crisis still threatens growth in the euro zone as a whole.

Economies in Spain, Ireland and other so-called peripheral countries remain sluggish. Higher rates could make it harder for those countries to recover.

Mr. Trichet argued that the best way to help the European economy was to make sure that prices were contained.

“It is good for all countries,” he said.

Questions about Greece dominated the news conference, and Mr. Trichet showed no sign of being willing to consider a Greek restructuring unless it was done voluntarily by creditors — an outcome that is difficult to imagine.

He implied that any restructuring of Greek debt might prompt the bank to stop accepting the country’s bonds as collateral.

A move like that could be fatal for some Greek banks that depend on low-cost loans from the central bank.

“It is difficult to see how this debate will be resolved,” said Marie Diron, senior economic advisor at Ernst Young, the consulting firm.

“Someone, either the E.C.B. or the German government, needs to make some concessions to reach a compromise,” she wrote in a note.

“And this needs to happen soon as time is running out for Greece to refinance its debt.”

Greece reported that its economy shrank far more than expected at the start of 2011.

That could signal that a second wave of austerity measures demanded by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund would impose even more pain on a fractious society.

Gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of 5.5 percent in the first three months of this year, the official numbers showed, far more than an earlier estimate of 4.8 percent.

Though it does not belong to the euro zone, Britain also remains fragile economically.

Consumer confidence worsened in April as more people claimed unemployment benefits and as wage increases lagged behind inflation.

Spending cuts and tax increases that are part of the government’s austerity program made households even more reluctant to spend.

The British economy stagnated in the six months through the end of March. The Bank of England governor, Mervyn A. King, has warned that inflation could accelerate to about 5 percent in the short term before cooling off again.

Higher consumer prices, partly a result of higher commodity prices, have also contributed to slowing household spending.

“The story of weak growth is still going to continue for a while,” said James Knightley, a senior economist in London for ING Financial Markets.

Some economists had predicted that British rates would rise in May this year, but as the economic outlook deteriorated they have pushed that back. Mr. Knightley said he expects an increase as early as this November.

The Bank of England did not issue a statement Thursday. But Paul Fisher, an official at the bank, argued last week that raising interest rates should be delayed until the economy was stronger.

The International Monetary Fund on Monday backed Prime Minister David Cameron’s plan to cut Britain’s budget deficit, which had been criticized by the opposition Labour Party as too strict and harming the economic recovery.

Though it was a formality, the central bank officially endorsed Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy, as successor to Mr. Trichet, whose eight-year term expires at the end of October.

European leaders are expected to officially nominate Mr. Draghi this month. In a statement, the central bank called Mr. Draghi, “a person of recognized standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters.”

Jack Ewing reported from Frankfurt and Julia Werdigier from London.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/business/global/10rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

E.C.B. Signals Interest Rate Increase in July

However, the euro fell against the dollar after Jean-Claude Trichet, the E.C.B. president, set up a conflict with the German government by rejecting any suggestion that creditors of Greece should be forced to share the burden of a rescue plan.

“We are not in favor of restructuring, haircuts and so forth,” Mr. Trichet said at a press conference following the E.C.B. governing council’s monthly meeting on monetary policy.

His statements were an implicit rebuke to Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, who said Wednesday that holders of Greek bonds should swap them for debt that the country would have longer to repay.

“President Trichet has gone on a collision course with the German government,” Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank in Frankfurt, said in a note following the press conference.

The Bank of England, meanwhile, kept its main interest rate at a record low amid concerns that the country’s economy was still too weak to cope with higher borrowing costs.

In the 17-country euro zone, the E.C.B. has been more fixated on inflation, which has been pushed up by rising food and energy prices.

“Strong vigilance is warranted,” Mr. Trichet said. That language would indicate that a rate increase in July is probable, though the bank always leaves its options open. At the same time, E.C.B. economists slightly lowered their forecast for inflation next year, suggesting that the bank may feel less pressure to raise rates quickly.

On Thursday, the E.C.B. left its benchmark rate at 1.25 percent, after raising it in April from 1 percent, the first increase in two years. Inflation in the euro area was 2.7 percent in May. “When I compare inflation today to interest rates I see a negative number,” Mr. Trichet said.

The benchmark rate in Britain was left at 0.5 percent and the central bank also kept the size of its asset purchase plan unchanged at £200 billion, or about $328 billion.

The E.C.B. said it would continue its emergency support of euro area banks by continuing to grant them unlimited low-interest loans at least through September.

With Germany, Europe’s largest economy, growing so quickly that some economists fear overheating, the E.C.B. has been trying to nudge interest rates back to levels that would be normal in an upturn. But the bank faces a dilemma because the Greek debt crisis still threatens growth in the euro zone as a whole. Economies in Spain, Ireland and other so-called peripheral countries remain sluggish. Higher rates could make it harder for those countries to recover.

Mr. Trichet argued that the best way to help the European economy was to make sure that prices were contained. “It is good for all countries,” he said.

Questions about Greece dominated the E.C.B. press conference, but Mr. Trichet showed no sign of being willing to consider a Greek restructuring, unless it was completely voluntary on the part of creditors — a scenario that is difficult to imagine.

On the contrary, he implied that any restructuring of Greek debt might prompt the bank to stop accepting the country’s bonds as collateral, a move that could be fatal for some Greek banks that depend on cheap E.C.B. loans.

“It is difficult to see how this debate will be resolved,” said Marie Diron, senior economic advisor to Ernst Young, the consulting firm. “Someone, either the E.C.B. or the German government, needs to make some concessions to reach a compromise,” she said in a note. “And this needs to happen soon as time is running out for Greece to refinance its debt.”

Though it does not belong to the euro area, Britain also remains fragile economically. Consumer confidence worsened in April as more people claimed unemployment benefits and as wage increases lagged behind inflation, weighing on living standards. Spending cuts and tax increases that are part of the government’s austerity program made households even more reluctant to spend.

“The story of weak growth is still going to continue for a while,” said James Knightley, a senior economist in London for ING Financial Markets.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=13163fb6d786339552afca7ab6483cfe

Economix: Is Goldman Sachs Too Big to Fail?

Today's Economist

Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is the co-author of “13 Bankers.”

If Goldman Sachs were to hit a hypothetical financial rock, would it be allowed to fail — to go bankrupt as did Lehman — or would it and its creditors be bailed out?

I posed this question on Sunday to four experts (Erik Berglof, Claudio Borio, Garry Schinasi and Andrew Sheng) from various international organizations at the Institute for New Economic Thinking Conference, known as INET, in Bretton Woods, N.H. — and to a room full of people who are close to policy thinking both in the United States and in Europe. (Let me note, in the spirit of disclosure, that I’m on the advisory board of INET, which covered my travel expenses to the conference.)

In both the public interactions (you can view the video) and in private conversations, my interpretation of what was said and not said was unambiguous: Goldman Sachs would be bailed out (again).

This is very bad news – although admittedly not at all surprising.

Why wouldn’t policy makers allow Goldman Sachs to fail?

The simple answer is that it is too big. Goldman’s balance sheet fluctuates at around $900 billion; about one and a half times the size of Lehman when it failed. All sensible proposals to reduce the size of firms like Goldman – including the Brown-Kaufman amendment to Dodd-Frank financial legislation – have been defeated, and regulators show no interest in tackling Goldman’s size directly.

The largest financial institution allowed to go bankrupt post-Lehman was CIT Group, which was about an $80 billion financial institution. Some people thought CIT should be bailed out; fortunately they did not prevail, and CIT restructured its debts in November and December 2009 without any discernible disruptive effect on the economy.

Supposedly, Dodd-Frank expanded the resolution powers of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation so it could handle the orderly wind-down of a firm like Goldman, imposing losses on creditors as appropriate, without having to go through regular corporate bankruptcy. (After more than two years and more than $1 billion in legal fees, Lehman’s debts are still not fully sorted out.)

At a news conference at INET on Friday evening – which I attended – Lawrence H. Summers, the former head of the National Economic Council, emphasized the importance of this resolution authority.

But the resolution authority would not helpful in the case of Goldman Sachs, a global bank that operates on a vast scale across borders. Such a case would require a cross-border resolution authority, meaning some form of commitment among governments. As this does not exist and will not exist in the foreseeable future, Goldman is, as a practical matter, essentially exempt from resolution.

If a bank like Goldman were in trouble, there remain the same unappealing options that existed for Lehman in September 2008 – either to let it fail outright or to provide some form of unsavory bailout.

The market knows this and most people – including everyone I’ve spoken to in the last year or so – regards Goldman and other big banks as implicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury.

This lowers Goldman’s cost of funds, allows it to borrow more, and encourages Goldman executives – as well as the people running JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and other large bank-holding companies – to become even larger.

No one I talked with at the INET conference even tried to persuade me to the contrary.

Given that this is the case, the only reasonable way forward is to follow the lead of Prof. Anat Admati and her colleagues in pressing hard for much higher capital requirements for Goldman and all other big banks. If they have more capital, they are more able to absorb losses – this would make both their equity and their debt safer.

Professor Admati was at the same INET session (her video is on the same page) and made the case that Basel III does not go far enough in terms of requiring financial institutions to have more capital.

Claudio Borio from the Bank for International Settlements argued strongly that requiring countercyclical capital buffers – that would go up in good times and down in bad times – could help stabilize financial systems.

But when pressed by Professor Admati on the numbers, he fell back on defending the current plans, which look likely to raise capital requirements to no more than 10 percent of Tier 1 capital (a measure of banks’ equity and other loss-absorbing liabilities relative to risk-weighted assets).

Given that financial institutions in the United States lost 7 percent of risk-weighted assets during this cycle – and next time could be even worse – the Basel III numbers are in no way reassuring. Tier 1 capital at the level proposed by Basel III is simply not sufficient.

Even among smart and dedicated public servants, there is a disconcerting tendency to believe bankers when the latter claim that “equity is expensive” – meaning that higher capital requirements would have a significant negative social cost, like lowering growth.

But the industry’s work on this topic – produced by the Institute of International Finance last summer – has been completely debunked by the Admati team.

Intellectually speaking, the bankers have no clothes. Unfortunately, the officials in charge of making policy on this issue are still unwilling to think through the implications. Capital requirements need to be much higher.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f45a74b3c361e162b85a170274b3a146