April 26, 2024

Inside Europe: Playing the Long Game in Berlin

BRUSSELS — If there are two words that tense the jaws of European policy makers and prompt a concerned sucking of teeth, they are “treaty change.”

It is not unlike telling a nervous driver midroute that a different map is required to reach the destination: No one is sure whether the outcome will be road rage, a car crash or a smoother, if longer, journey.

So when the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, spoke his mind during a meeting in Dublin on April 13 and said a change to the E.U. treaty was necessary if Europe were to build a full banking union, there was more than a little angst in the corridors of Brussels.

In Mr. Schäuble’s view, a banking union — originally a three-step plan to create a single euro zone banking supervisor, a unified system for resolving problem banks and a single deposit-guarantee program — makes sense only if there are strict rules for restructuring and winding up failing banks.

Since those measures are not explicitly laid out in existing law, some changes would have to be made to the fundamental underpinning of the Union, he argued.

“If we want European institutions for that,” said Mr. Schäuble, a lawyer who measures his words carefully, “we will need a treaty change.”

As with all Schäublerian pronouncements over the past three years, the first question on the lips of policy makers was whether he was speaking just for himself, as he often does, or also for his boss, Chancellor Angela Merkel, and thus represented a new red line.

In this case, the answer remains unclear. Ms. Merkel has not expressed a definitive position on the issue, at least not in public. And senior officials in Brussels who have regular contact with Berlin say they do not know how to read the signals emanating from the chancellery.

But in a sign last week that Ms. Merkel has her doubts about where things are headed, especially as she seeks to win a third term in September elections, she ruled out the deposit-guarantee part of the banking plan “for now.”

That, in itself, was not a huge surprise.

The idea of a fund through which euro zone countries would effectively cross-guarantee one another’s deposits was always going to make Germany and other northern Europe countries queasy, as it could force them to bail out a string of shaky, highly indebted banking systems to the south.

But it was the first time Ms. Merkel had been so explicit. And it renewed doubts about her overall commitment to a banking union, which many see as the most important initiative Europe has undertaken to resolve the crisis.

So what does Germany want? Is it really seeking treaty change, or is Mr. Schäuble just bringing up the idea to stall a banking union? And if Germany were to get a treaty change, would it suddenly like a banking union more?

When quizzed, hesitant policy makers in Brussels — after clenching their jaws and sucking their teeth — shrug. They wish they knew what Germany really wanted.

But they are more certain of two things: German elections are coming up, and Germany’s constitutional court will probably have to be consulted on the details of a banking union, especially on the single set of procedures for wrapping up failed banks.

“Germany has always had cold feet about banking union,” said one E.U. official, convinced that Berlin was determined to stall until after the Sept. 22 vote, if not long beyond.

Yet the reason the words “treaty change” cause so much consternation is not so much connected with a banking union itself. It is about the interplay of member states and the very real risk that a minor opening of the treaty could lead to a full-scale renegotiation of all 27 nations’ ties to the Union — the dreaded opening of a Pandora’s Box.

The European Commission has said it is “100 percent sure” that it has the legal grounds to implement a banking union without changing the treaty.

But if Germany is convinced otherwise and other member states follow its lead, it may be impossible to move ahead without tinkering with the fundamental law, a trying and cumbersome process that depending on how it is done, can take 18 months or more.

That immediately raises questions of timing.

With Germany in election mode until September, no serious discussions on either banking union or treaty change will take place until the end of the year, at the earliest.

But the next round of European Parliament elections will be in May 2014, and the European Commission and European Council will be reappointed only a few months later, making it all but impossible to make progress on any substantive issue until the new leadership is in place.

That moves the debate into early 2015, which puts the matter in close proximity to the next British election, expected in the spring of that year.

Prime Minister David Cameron wants to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the Union. And he has promised voters a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union. That promise is already causing consternation from Berlin to Budapest.

Mr. Cameron’s call to “renegotiate” is another way of saying “treaty change.” But what the British prime minister wants from an altered treaty is very different from what is sought by Germany, let alone France, Italy, Poland or the Netherlands, most of whom are deeply ambivalent about the issue.

Mr. Schäuble knows that. And so while his reference to treaty change in Ireland may genuinely have been about laying the proper legal groundwork for the future of a banking union, it is equally likely that it was a good way of kicking up a storm that delays a banking union until well after the September election and perhaps even longer.

No wonder officials in Brussels are clenching their jaws.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/business/global/30iht-inside30.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Strategies: Why Are Investors Still Lining Up for Bonds?

“Who the hell knew it was so powerful?” he said. “If it gets nervous, everybody has to calm it down. If I’m ever reincarnated, I want to come back as the bond market,” Mr. Carville continued. “Then everybody will be afraid of me and have to do what I say.”

But where is that fearsome bond market now? It has been docile, to say the least. Consider these events.

In mid-April, Standard Poor’s placed United States debt on negative watch, saying there was a one in three chance that over the next few years it would actually downgrade the Treasury’s pristine triple-A rating. The agency cited concerns about the ability of Congress and the White House to agree on a plan to reduce the budget deficit.

On May 16, the Treasury hit its statutory debt ceiling — the point at which the government cannot borrow more money without Congressional action. But Congress didn’t act. To keep the government operating and bondholders paid, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner announced a series of maneuvers that bought some time. The clock is ticking, however. If Congress doesn’t enact legislation by Aug. 2, he said, the United States will default on its debt.

Has this melodrama shaken the bond market? Not a bit.

Since April 18, the prices of Treasuries haven’t fallen. To the contrary. They’ve risen while yields, which move in the opposite direction, have plummeted. On Friday, the 10-year Treasury yield dipped as low as 3.05 percent, its trough for the year. Despite a mounting debt burden and a dithering government, Treasuries have rallied.

Factor in the pronouncements of the Federal Reserve, and the situation is even more puzzling. In its program of “quantitative easing,” aimed at stimulating the economy and driving up asset prices — QE2, as it has been called — the Fed has been buying longer-term Treasuries. But it says it will end the program on schedule next month.

Any economics student knows that when you cut demand — in this case, when the Fed ends QE2 — all things being equal, prices ought to decline. And yet, despite the Fed’s announcement, prices have risen and yields have fallen to extraordinarily low levels. Inflation-protected Treasuries, also known as TIPS — those with terms ranging up to six years — actually have negative real yields, meaning their yields are even less than the rate of inflation. Buyers are essentially paying the Treasury for the privilege of owning them.

“There’s something wrong with this picture,” said Scott Minerd, chief investment officer of Guggenheim Partners. He adds, however, that the picture is bigger than this. “Examine the rest of the world for a moment,” he said in a recent interview. “Compare it to everyplace else, and the United States starts to look a lot better and a lot of this starts to make more sense.”

Europe and Japan, the two other large advanced economies, face crises that are, arguably, far more acute. In the aftermath of an earthquake, a tsunami and a still unfolding nuclear disaster, Japan is struggling through a recession.

In Europe, the probabilities have risen that Greece will need another bailout or will need to restructure its debt or default on it. Ireland and Portugal, which have also needed bailouts, are also troubled, and the European Union has so far been unable to come up with a solution. Leaders of the Group of 8 nations meeting in Deauville, France, on Thursday and Friday failed to make significant headway on these issues.

Meanwhile, growth in red-hot emerging market countries like China has begun to slow, as their central bankers raise interest rates to limit inflation.

Given the alternatives, the bond market has found United States debt quite appealing. The market is convinced that in the end, Washington politicians will trim the budget deficit, Mr. Minerd said. If that perception were to change, the market would react with vehemence, he said. “I think everyone expects that Congress will come to its senses before it’s too late,” he said.

With signs that economic growth is slowing — rattling the stock and commodity markets — the Fed is likely to hold interest rates near zero for months, he said, and Treasury yields are likely to dip even lower, meaning more profits for bond traders.

By this summer, industrial growth will be visibly slowing around the world, said Lakshman Achuthan, the managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, a private forecasting group. The markets have probably reacted to early indications of that slowdown, he said, bolstering bonds and hurting stocks and commodities. “Until there are signs of another pickup in economic growth,” he said, “I wouldn’t be buying on dips in the stock market.” In this context, he said, Treasuries may seem a safer bet.

William H. Gross, the co-chief investment officer of the Pacific Investment Management Company, or Pimco, the world’s biggest bond manager, ruefully compared investors in Treasuries to complacent frogs sitting in a pot of slowly heating water. “Bond investors are receiving almost nothing for their money, and the situation is getting worse and worse. But they’ve gotten used to it. They don’t realize how bad it is. And before they know it, well, they’ll be cooked.”

Since early this year, Mr. Gross has been making statements like this, predicting the imminent end of the Treasury rally. “I was premature,” he said, adding, however, that his arguments were valid, if not well-timed.

At some point, he said, bond investors will realize that by accepting low — and even negative — real yields, they are being “skunked.” Using a fancier term, he said, they are experiencing “financial repression,” a hidden tax that is of great benefit to the government, which will be able to pay back its debt more cheaply as time goes on.

IN a situation like this, wealth is transferred from investors to a debtor government without investors entirely realizing it, said Carmen M. Reinhart, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. Ms. Reinhart, who has written extensively on the subject, says financial repression is still common in the developing world. Until the onset of the financial crisis, though, it had all but vanished from developed countries.

Now, she said, with debts mounting and central banks holding down interest rates, “We are beginning to see financial repression once again in developed countries like the United States.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/your-money/29stra.html?partner=rss&emc=rss