Why the IMF therapy is not working in Portugal

The IMF repeats in Portugal the ostrich policy of not recognizing what is fundamentally wrong with its adjustment approach in the Euro Area. In its 5th review of the Portuguese program it states that “authorities have made good progress in reducing macroeconomic imbalances … But after a strong start, the program has entered a more challenging phase … a large and durable fiscal gap has emerged due to a shift in the composition of output from domestic demand to less-taxed net-exports”.

Despite the initial Portuguese external disequilibrium being milder than the Greek or Irish, I anticipated that the program was likely to fail because it had been undertaken reluctantly, too late, with too little and it was too soft. Moreover, its management was weak, incompetent and erratic partly because the Troika was desperate to have a success story and it had in Portugal a Finance Minister – Victor Gaspar – that was seen as one of their men. So, all tough measures (e.g. reducing the number of municipalities and monopolistic rents) were abandoned or reversed. For instance, fiscal consolidation which was to be implemented by 2/3 of expenditure cuts and 1/3 of revenue measures failed completely with the expenditure hardly slowing down and the revenue collapsing.

By now the IMF had to agree to extend its program for one more year and to grant some waivers, while it is already busy working on another package that will inevitably result on more time and more money. This will only raise the Portuguese external debt to new heights without any visible improvement in its economic growth.

Just as a reminder, note that the Greek debt path under IMF management, which started in May 2010 with a general government debt equivalent to 115% of GDP and was supposed to peak in 2012 at 149%, at the start of the second IMF bailout in June 2012 had already reached 165% and is expected to peak at 171% in 2014. For comparison, in Greece the total net external debt rose from 87 to 107% of GDP between 2009 and 2012 while in Portugal (external debt, excluding FDI and reserves) rose only from 98 to 99% of GDP. However, the portion owed by the government increased from 64 to 95% of GDP, degenerating into a sovereign debt crisis.

In a recent post we called the current IMF (Troika) adjustment program for Portugal a pyrrhic victory because, when compared to previous programs, it had doubled the cost of external adjustment in terms of output loss. We identified as the main culprit a weak foreign trade multiplier. So, the key question is why isn´t the trade multiplier working now as it did in past programs? As we calculated the multiplier effect by assuming a constant income elasticity of demand for imports the explanation must be accounted for by a sluggish international economic growth and or changes in relative prices (terms of trade).

In fact, the growth of the world economy accounts for a small portion of the reduced multiplier effect, since the OECD was growing at 6% during the first two programs but recently it has been growing at only 4.3%. So, the majority (71%) of the blame for the smaller multiplier effect lies in a weak export performance because of lower price elasticities and adverse changes in the terms of trade. Since recent estimates show that the export price elasticity remains low (0.42) and statistically is not significantly different from zero, the core explanation must lie in the terms of trade.

The Portuguese terms of trade did not deteriorate enough to drive a higher level of economic activity because of an irresponsible fiscal policy of indirect tax increases that caused a futile destruction of businesses in the non-tradable goods sector and the failure to confront the powerful lobbies in the energy and transport sectors that hamper the tradable goods sector. This trend in the terms of trade is clearly visible in the following chart.

The persistence of domestic inflationary forces despite an increase of 3.5 percentage points in the unemployment rate which reached 15.5% can only be the result of market rigidities compounded by fiscal mistakes.

The program of fiscal consolidation was not only inefficient, but foolish and poorly sequenced. Instead of targeting the preservation or a small rise in revenue, through the broadening of the tax base and selective competitive tax cuts, combined with substantial cuts in subsidies and other wasteful forms of spending it did the reverse. In terms of sequencing, instead of beginning with spending cuts, followed by a broadening of the income tax base and cuts in corporate taxes it did the reverse. It raised indirect taxes first at the expense of external competitiveness and is now promising a massive increase in income and corporate taxes for 2013 to be followed by spending cuts in 2014, thus perpetuating unnecessarily the current recession for at least another two years.

In conclusion, the program left untouched all the cancers blocking the growth of the Portuguese economy listed in this blog long ago as being: irresponsible recourse to PPP financing, large rent-seeking privatized monopolies, extensive subsidization of energy, environment, technological and other self-serving mafias, too many, too inefficient and too indebted State enterprises for the exclusive benefit of their managers, unions and bankers, a financial sector who suckles on public financing, the uncontrollable spending of the health and social security sectors, the destruction of a professionally independent public service, dysfunctional fiscal and judicial systems and generalized recourse to off-budget operations and creative accounting. Indeed, it made things worse through mismanagement. So, without changing course, Portugal is condemned to more than a decade of slow growth and unbearable indebtedness and sooner or later it will have to default or ask for debt forgiveness for the first time since 1892.

As a Portuguese I am saddened to see my beloved country ravaged by an incompetent government in collusion with useless international organizations at the mercy of an unholy alliance of heartless Teutonic European mandarins, predatory Chinese and Angolan dictators and dubious Latin American business interests. This is the end result of 80 years of state capitalism in Portugal.

Are Synthetic ETFs a Time-bomb? A Risk Sharing vs. Risk Transferring Tale

Financial risk management revolves about two options - to share or to transfer risk with/to somebody else. The two approaches are legitimate but they are substantially different in terms of their ripple effects. There are three main types of ripple effects: moral hazard, compounding and systemic. The first – moral hazard – is common to both options, but the second – risk compounding – is specific to the transfer of risk. Two examples are enough to clarify the differences between sharing and transfering.

Imagine a group of friends where one comes up with the following proposition: I just met an actuary who told me that there is high probability that one of us will be dead before we reach 65. So, why don't we join in to begin paying a monthly conttribution to buy a pension to the family of whoever has the misfortune of dying earlier? This form of risk sharing is the basis of any life insurance policy and it makes sense to pay a small amount into a pool of money to get life insurance. Of course, by feeling safer the participants in the insurance pool may become more careless and in the end instead of one death the actuary will come back with an estimate of two of them dying before they are 65. This is the so-called moral hazard of people taking more risks when they feel safer.

Now imagine the same group discussing about buying a couple of stocks in the Dow Jones index and their fear that they may turn out losers. Then one of them comes up with the following suggestion: why don't we pool our money together and buy all the stocks in the index, this way even if a couple of them turns out a loser the loss will be shared by all and we still get a return close to the market return. Actually this form of risk sharing is the basis of index-tracking Exchange Traded Funds (known as ETFs); and it makes sense to pay a small fee to a professional fund manager and incur the costs intrinsic to the small deviation from the index (the so-called trailing cost) to achieve a return close to the index. Of course, the more people adhere to this form of investment the more the index becomes volatile because whenever a constituent stock loses the confidence of investors they will dump not just that stock but the entire basket of stocks in the index. This increased volatility means increased risk and it is also part of the so-called moral hazard.

Moral hazard is inherent to any form of risk sharing but its consequences can be priced in the insurance policy or the fund manager’s fee. However, the alternative based on risk transfer may compound rather than reduce the risk. We may illustrate this process through the following example.

ETFs are one the fastest growing financial products. While there were less than 100 ETF funds a few years ago, now there are more than 4000 ETFs - 1300 created in the last two years – attracting more than $1.6 trillion. Currently the ETF offering covers all asset classes enabling investors to take leveraged or unleveraged long and short positions. Most of the newly established ETFs are synthetic products that replicate the returns of an index without owning the underlying securities using instead swaps, futures and other derivative products.

To understand synthetic ETFs imagine that while discussing the traditional form of risk sharing through ETFs one of the friends comes up with the following synthetic ETF alternative: Instead of incurring trailing error costs, why don't we simply ask my bank to invest the money into an alternative portfolio, including up to 10% in derivatives, and swap its return for a return that matches the exact index return?

However, one of his friends felt skeptical about his proposition and asked: but then we would be transferring the bankruptcy risk in a predefined set of 30 different companies into a single bank and an unknown portfolio which must have a higher probability of going bust? Sorry, I do not believe it is wise to exchange the risk of a trailing cost of less than 1% for a 10% bet in your bank and unpredictable losses in the alternative portfolio. This transfer would simply compound the risk we are already taking on the index.

Guys don't worry! First, we will ask a smart fund manager to run the alternative portfolio. Second, we may hedge the two legs of the swap with a hedge fund capable of unloading the risk to a bunch of investors with deep pockets to support any losses. Third, our bank is too big to fail and would be bailed out by the government in case of trouble. So, trust me, there is no chance that the probability of my bank going bust will be near the 10% implicit in your fear about compounding the risk.

Another skeptical added: but what about the systemic risk? Since most fund managers fail to beat the market why would your bank enter into an agreement which is likely to underperform the market or lose money?

Man, as I told you, on top of a synthetic ETF we may make a lot of money creating and selling a number of layers of asset pools backed by the pool in the alternative portfolio.

Sorry, the skeptical replied: wasn’t that the rationale behind the securitization that led to the subprime crisis and the collapse of Lehman Brothers? I do not buy it, because you will end up using some of those extra profits to bribe regulators and rating agencies into increasing the swap size beyond the 10% limit and by filling the alternative portfolio with lower and lower quality assets. By shuffling around the risks the risk you will not be shared but transferred and compounded. Instead you will build a house of cards doomed to be destroyed in a systemic earthquake.

To sum up, with the synthetic ETFs, there is a real risk of transforming what was an excellent risk sharing device into toxic assets that create a serious threat to the financial system.

Democracy and the Euro-Greek Tragicomedy

It appears that Aristotle defined tragicomedy as a serious action with a happy ending. So can we write the recent tragedy of the Greek bailout and the ongoing comic infighting of the Greek politicians as a prelude to a plot with a happy ending?

Last night’s refusal to agree on a Greek government of national salvation might lead to either new elections or a referendum on the bailout program. This should be the democratic way to solve the current deadlock. The people should be given the last word; even if the results leave the nation divided in two almost identical camps the winning camp has the mandate to carry out his policies. That is the foundation of democracy and it is preferable to forcing the Greeks to accept the undemocratic tutelage of the shameful duo Merkel-Sarkozy.

Now, let’s imagine that the camp opposing the current bailout wins and decides to declare a unilateral default on the Icelandic-style, but decides to keep the Euro. This is the scenario feared by the “very serious people in pin stripes” and some economists who fear the contagion of a disorderly bail-out.

What can Mr. Juncker, Draghi and Barroso do about it? According to Mr. Barroso the Lisbon Treaty does not have any legal mechanism to expel a Euro-zone member. Mr. Draghi’s interpretation of the European Central Bank remit is that it does not include any responsibility as lender of last resort for any member country. Mr. Junker’s Eurogroup meeting of the Finance Ministers of the Eurozone countries was institutionalized by the Lisbon treaty without any power over its members. So, let us image also that they decide to do nothing.

Would this mean the end of the Eurozone? In principle no! For instance, in the Dollarzone (USA) when a local government defaults on its Muni-bonds the Federal Bonds barely move. Yes, I know, the USA has a Federal budget. However, its interstate transfers are not enough to justify the decoupling between the Munis and the Treasuries. What is different is that the FED (the US central bank) has an implicit remit to bailout the major banks whose failure would represent a systemic risk as it has shown in the crisis of 2008.

This is a key weakness of the current ECB thinking. Should the markets attack the other highly leveraged countries to an extent that would bankrupt some of their major banks in those countries the ECB might feel restrained in continuing to lend to such countries.

Indeed, as illustrated by its continuing purchase of low quality securities, the ECB does not need to have an explicit lender of last resort mandate enshrined in the European Union treaty. Nor does it need to take massive losses on its ABS holdings, as has been propagated by the German Press. For instance, it can simply print money to finance an off-balance sheet vehicle to park such securities and ask the EFSF and the Governments rescued to share on its capitalization.

So here is a script for a happy ending to the Greek tragicomedy:
1) Greece reasserts its firm commitment to remain in the Euro;
2) Greece defaults on its debts and goes to the London and Paris clubs for a restructuring deal with better terms than those currently on offer;
3) To support the debt restructuring program Greece applies to the IMF for a new extended facility;
4) Meanwhile the ECB extends an unlimited liquidity line to one or two of the best Greek banks to keep the financial system afloat, subject to Greece agreeing to points 1-3;
5) The ECB announces that it will provide such lines to any other member who needs them;
6) To kill any doubts about its own strength the ECB will begin selling its low quality assets to special purpose vehicles;
7) Faced with such determination the markets will begin pricing the sovereign debt spreads of the various Eurozone members in accordance with their respective risk profile; and
8) After the successful implementation of programs 2 and 3, Greece regains market access within three years.

Here is the lesson from such tragicomedy. One should never give up on the ability of democracy to find a solution. It may be convoluted; it may take some time, but it will be better than a dictatorial solution under a veil of technocracy or to a shameful begging for help from a mixed bag of world leaders gathering in the G20 group.

Bond swap plan is for Greece and Greece only, but it won’t be enough.

The FT just published a few details of the bond swap agreement in the new bailout for Greece. The swap agreement is only for Greece, and “All other euro countries solemnly reaffirm their inflexible determination to honour fully their own individual sovereign signature”.

The only interesting feature of the agreement is the voluntary exchange of bonds maturing before 2019 by 15 and 30 year bonds, paying 5.9 and 6.8%, as a compensation for the banks accepting a 21% “haircut” on the value of the existing bonds. IIF, the Banker’s designer of the plan, estimates a participation rate of 90%.

The Greek government will have to use the new funding to buy European AAA bonds to post as collateral for the new bonds. The cover ratio was not specified, but if it is close to one the “haircut” will be meaningless. Even at 50% and with a take up rate of 90% the effect of the effective haircut would be only “9.45%”.

As been amply demonstrated in last few years the Greek problem is not one of liquidity but of solvency. We and many other observers have estimated that to get out of insolvency Greece needs a debt pardon of about 50%.

All the other measures announced to support Greece are not enough to fill the gap between these 50% and the expected “haircut” of 9.45%. So, it is only a matter of time before Greece needs another bailout, probably as early as 2013.

The IMF/EU/ECB bailout for Portugal: Structural Reforms

The IMF diagnostic of the Portuguese situation is broadly correct: “deep-rooted structural problems—including low productivity, weak competitiveness, and high debt—severely undermine potential growth”. To re-launch growth the adjustment program includes a set of structural reforms focused on “increasing competition, reducing labor costs, and boosting employment and productivity”.

Yet the end of the dismal growth of the Portuguese economy over the last decade (only 0.7% of annual growth) is not on sight. The cyclical rebound expected for 2013–14 will reach only 2.5% and will decline subsequently to 2%. Unemployment is projected to peak at 13 percent in 2012 and the current account deficit is projected to narrow gradually to 3.4% in 2014. The unemployment and the current account projections seem to be on the optimistic side. In particular the expected strong decline in imports is at odds with the expected growth of exports given the high import content of Portuguese exports.

The five key measures include: a) a fiscal devaluation through the payroll taxes; b) a reform of the housing market; c) a reduction in the backlog of judicial cases; d) increased labor market flexibility by reducing severance pay by 1/3 (10 days) and restricting unemployment benefits; e) reducing the implicit subsidies in the electricity sector and improve the competition framework to rebalance growth towards the tradable sector and reduce rent-seeking behavior; and f) a privatization program aimed at raising €5 billion in revenue.

These measures point in the right direction but are modest and miss some of the major cancers that we identified in the Portuguese economy. For instance, they completely fail to address the widespread system of subsidies that are an important source of corruption, make companies subsidy-dependent and kill true entrepreneurship. Moreover the efficacy of the measures listed above is questionable in some cases.

Namely, the privatization program is too slow and too modest. And, in cases like water supply, it might add to the problems already caused by other privatized utilities. Indeed, the program would need to be supplemented by a nationalization program covering PPPs, the health sector and some utilities.

Likewise improvements in the competitive framework are not enough to solve the rent-seeking problems mining the Portuguese competitiveness. As has been observed in the oil sector collusion among oligopolistic firms is clearly seen but not easily proved. For example, an efficient and competitive solution could be achieved by introducing a leveling field fee to ensure cross border competition.

Most importantly the fiscal devaluation may turn out to be fiscally non-neutral and insufficient. Its broad base makes it a costly solution and the offsetting tax rises will dampen growth. Assuming a likely cut of about 4% this means a one-off reduction in unit costs of less than 2.5%. Thus its impact on growth might not even be enough to offset the reduction in growth caused by the tax rise. In any case this compares poorly with a potential 7% devaluation achieved with our proposal to increase the number of working hours.

In conclusion, although the IMF program points in the right direction it will not reverse the slow growth of the Portuguese economy and may not fulfill the countries ambition to resume the normal access to international markets and to take care of its own destiny. Unless the new government is able to improve and extend the IMF program, I am afraid that we will need soon another bailout.

The IMF/EU/ECB bailout for Portugal: Banking Sector Reform

The IMF/EU/BCE banking sector reforms are aimed at enhancing the resilience of the banking sector “by increasing capital requirements through market-based solutions, supported by a fully funded capital backstop facility. Safeguards to help ensure adequate banking system liquidity are strengthened. ”

The key measures include: a) require banks to raise their core Tier 1 capital to 9 percent by end-2011 and 10 percent at the latest by end-2012. Banks are supposed to raise the necessary capital through the market, with the exception of CGD which will raise the money by shedding assets (mostly its insurance business). The Government will also set up a contingent cash facility of €12 billion to rescue banks in trouble; b) increase by €15 billion (to €35 billion) the Government guarantee fund for bank bond issues which can be used for ECB refinancing; c) bring the BPN case to a close; and d) improve the Central Bank supervision system as well as the Deposit Insurance mechanism.

Since the Portuguese banks were not exposed to the sub-prime crisis or to a real estate bubble, the measures seem enough to maintain the sector for about two years until it can access the wholesale market again. However, should the Portuguese sovereign debt crisis continue beyond that or should a restructuring take place before that then new measures will be needed.

Yet the program can be considered to be a missed opportunity to force a much needed streamlining and change of the business model of the Portuguese banks. These have been plagued by a chronic lack of capital (tolerated by the authorities) which was used to preserve the control of the banks in the hands of a few insiders; while disguising a low profitability in a cozy government protected market. Moreover, some of the banks have a dangerous maturity mismatch caused by a low deposit base and a high exposure to long term loans to the mortgage sector, PPPs, utilities and some equity stakes.

In order to avoid that banks carry out their deleveraging mainly through a reduction of credit to the non-state-owned corporate sector and the household sector, with major social and macro-economic consequences, the banks should be forced to change their traditional business model.

For instance, this could be easily achieved by limiting their equity stakes in public companies (contributing to provide liquidity to the stock market and reduce the many incestuous relations). Likewise the Government should recapitalize adequately the surviving state-owned enterprises to reduce the banks’ exposure to that sector. Most importantly, the Government should nationalize the PPPs to remove them from the banks’ balance sheet. This should be financed by a long-term loan from the EU EFSF/ESM.

In conclusion, the authorities need to be more creative because the success of the financial sector reform and fiscal stabilization are inextricably intertwined for the good and the bad.

The IMF/EU/ECB bailout of Portugal: Fiscal Stabilization

In our preliminary reaction to the IMF/EU/ECB €78 billion bailout for Portugal we thought it looked like too little, too late and too soft. We promised then a full verdict once the details of the program were known. This is the first part covering fiscal consolidation.

In contrast with Greece, at the outset, the Portuguese program has only two criteria of quantitative performance – a General Government deficit of €10.3 billion in 2011 to be reduced to €7.6 billion in 2012 and a ceiling on the overall stock of General Government debt of €175.9 billion in 2011 and €189.4 billion in 2012. With nominal GDP forecasted to decline by 1.1% it will be only €170.6 billion in 2011.
MJMDV6UTZD32
Under the IMF projections the program of fiscal stabilization will cut the deficit from an average of 9.6% of GDP (€16.5 billion) in 2009-2010 to 3% in 2013. This is achieved through a projected growth of revenues equivalent to 0.8% of GDP and a reduction in spending equal to 5.4% of GDP. The increased revenue target of €2 billion will be achieved mostly through VAT rises and reductions in tax benefits. The bulk of the €9 billion in expenditure cuts will be achieved by freezing the nominal wages of civil servants until 2013, an average cut of 3% on pensions above €1500 (a similar cut was already made to civil servants wages), downsizing the central government, saving in healthcare and education, cutting public sector investment and reducing transfers for loss making state-owned enterprises.

The program of fiscal consolidation must be judged on three fronts – compliance probability, future sustainability, burden sharing and macro-economic impact.

The targets seem to have been set deliberately low so that they can be met. We have estimated that only to roll back the excess spending of the Socialist Governments Portugal needs cuts amounting to at least 8% of GDP. Yet, there are still some uncertainties that are worth noting. On the revenue side the fiscal neutrality of the cut in payroll taxes is not certain. However, it is on the expenditure side that the resistance is going to be greater. In particular, in terms of downsizing the government, controlling health costs and reducing transfers to state-owned enterprises.

In terms of future sustainability the targets are not only timid but uncertain. For instance, the program of privatizations is targeted at raising only €5.5 billion. So, the IMF forecasts still assume a significant rise in public debt to 115% of GDP in 2014 in an economy that is not expected to grow at more than 2% in the post-recession period. In the context of continuing speculation against the weak links in the Euro Area this will not allow Portugal’s return to the market at reasonable interest rates. Moreover, three of the major public finance problems (unknown payment arrears, off-balance sheet debt and guarantees to banks and PPPs and the need for a full fiscal reform) are only left for further study.

In what concerns the fairness of burden distribution, the program is clearly biased against the lower and upper middle classes and the civil servants. Moreover, it barely touches the subsidization of privatized monopolies and other special interest groups. Again, these are only left for further study.

Finally, the macro-economic consequences of the fiscal adjustment point to a negative contribution to growth of 1.4% in 2011 and 1% in 2012. This seems a little optimistic especially when compared to a 2.9% negative contribution of private consumption (which includes civil servants and pensioners). The IMF attempt to avoid a sharper recession is reasonable, but it is unlikely to succeed given the foreseeable slowdown in the global economy and the generalized lack of confidence in the long term growth prospects of the country.

In conclusion, a timid program of fiscal consolidation in a context of global uncertainty might allow the country to get by in the next two years. Whether it will be enough to avoid the need for another future bailout and or debt restructuring is doubtful.

A Conferência da Troika sobre o resgate financeiro de Portugal

Estive a assistir à conferência da Troika (FMI, BCE e CE) sobre o resgate de Portugal.

Numa apreciação, em termos gerais, podemos dizer que o programa confirma os receios que tínhamos expresso no nosso post de 8 de Abril. O programa chegou tarde de mais, é pouco exigente, e não enfrenta os principais cancros da economia Portuguesa.

Basicamente, repete a receita da Grécia de uma forma mais suave em termos de custo do dinheiro e da condicionalidade quanto às medidas e ao prazo para a consolidação orçamental, embora menos generoso no montante do empréstimo. Em resumo, é questionável que Portugal possa voltar aos mercados numa situação de normalidade antes de 2013 e que consiga evitar uma reestruturação da sua divida soberana.

Logo que a carta de intenções esteja assinada e publicada no site do FMI, faremos uma análise específica da cada uma das suas principais componentes: consolidação orçamental, reforma fiscal, reestruturação bancária e medidas estruturais.

Embora eu seja defensor da transparência na actividade das organizações internacionais, essa deve ser feita pelos meios adequados e no local próprio (i.e. a divulgação dos documentos no site dessas mesmas organizações). Este tipo de conferências de imprensa deixam um sabor amargo ao lembrar-nos que Portugal parece estar a transformar-se numa “república das bananas” que já perdeu a sua soberania nacional.

Should the IMF try a new approach in Portugal?

The IMF has a long experience of adjustment programs which have been exhaustively audited. Some of those programs were executed in situations of dollarization, which are the closest one gets to a full monetary union like the Euro area. The success rate of the IMF programs is over 50%, which is a major achievement when compared with company restructurings whose success rates are generally lower. Failures, often occur in countries who waited too long to ask for the IMF intervention, negotiated softer terms and applied reluctantly the adjustment policies.

On theses counts alone Portugal is already a likely candidate for failure. This fear is compounded by the failure so far of the Greek and Irish programs. This raises the issue of whether the IMF programs for dollarization situations can be applied to full monetary unions. One fundamental difference is the absence of an autonomous monetary policy and the option of a one-off devaluation of the local currency.

The policy of using cuts in nominal wages as a form of devaluation does not work for reasons explained long ago by Keynes. Although it might improve export growth it will only discourage imports by causing a recession via a reduced aggregate demand. The cost of such policy is disproportionate to its benefits because it reduces aggregate demand for both tradable and non-tradable sectors.

I teach my students why other alternatives such as exchange controls and open or disguised forms of subsidies paid to exporters have also a limited impact and cause costly distortions. However, I also list a number of alternatives that might work in the short run. Here are a few: a) the sale of state-owned assets; b) temporary price-controls on oligopolies with a major impact in the cost structure of exporters (mostly energy, transports and telecommunications); c) extended working hours; and d) competitive tax rates.

There is certainly a case to include all these alternatives in the Portuguese adjustment program. Let me just illustrate with the potential impact of on extra hour of work per day. Theoretically, that would be equivalent to a real wage cut of about 11%, but it would not change the nominal wage and would not depress aggregate demand. Even assuming that this real wage cut was halved through shirking and other avoidance strategies the impact on the competitiveness of Portuguese economy would still be significant. Moreover, this “patriotic extra hour” could be rewarded later on with tax credits.

Now that Portugal seems to be ready to get rid of Prime Minister José Socrates who bankrupted the country, it is also the time for the IMF to try new approaches to adjustment in countries within a monetary union.

Krugman finds the Portuguese macro story harder to tell...

It is simply a question of looking deeper. I posted a comment on his blog that lists five of the major cancers killing the Portuguese economy.

Why the IMF therapy is not working in Greece

The main role of IMF-sponsored adjustment programs is to facilitate a normal access of the borrowing countries to external markets. With the CDSs on Greek debt at 11% (above those of Venezuela) and yields on 10-year debt higher than they were before the IMF program (see chart above) the failure of the program is unquestionable.

One of the reasons why markets do not believe that Greece will be able to avoid defaulting, is probably due to the fact that the IMF approach can only use one of the three tools of their standard treatment - fiscal and budgetary policy. With Greece being a member of the Euro-zone, the other two - monetary and exchange rate policy are not available unless Greece is forced out of the Euro.

Unfortunately, the IMF has no experience of dealing with balance of payment adjustments within monetary unions. Moreover, even in relation to budgetary policy, the IMF does not realize that Greece (like Portugal and Spain) has an economic system based on state capitalism. Thus, unless they starve the Greeks (in a Ceausescu experiment) it will not be possible to achieve an external balance without destroying the state capitalism system, which the Greeks are not willing to do.

Thus the only three alternatives for Greece (and to Portugal, who is trying to mimic an IMF program without the IMF) are: a) to force a significant hair-cut on its bond-holders, b) to receive a major grant from other EU countries, or c) a mix of both. None of these is a pleasant solution but there is no other way out.

Mankiw's proposal for contingent convertible debt

In the ongoing debate on financial regulation, most reform proponents seem to be under the illusion that it is possible to prevent future financial crisis. Therefore, Mankiw’s article on Trying to Tame the Unknowable is a welcome alert.

Proposals to prevent future taxpayer bailouts for financial institutions revolve around three key ideas:
1) Limiting the type of activities that banks can do (e.g. the Volcker rule on proprietary trading);
2) Capping the size of banks considered too big to fail; and
3) Requiring banks to have more capital to cope with the higher levels of leverage used today (e.g. Greenspan’s proposal to go beyond the current Basle II).

Mankiw’s favorite proposal is to require banks, and perhaps a broad class of financial institutions, to sell contingent debt that can be converted to equity when a regulator deems that these institutions have insufficient capital. This debt would be a form of preplanned recapitalization in the event of a financial crisis, and the infusion of capital would be with private, rather than taxpayer, funds. Think of it as crisis insurance.

This is an interesting idea on how to increase bank capitalization while privatizing the risk of reckless lending. However, its fundamental weakness is that rating agencies and regulators can hardly be trusted to decree such debt conversion before losses are too big to be absorbed by this share of capital alone.

The one thing that the history of speculation teaches us is that nobody is willing to remove the bowl of punch while the party is still going on. For instance, this last year alone, with inflation below 3%, the stock market has risen more than 40%. Would anyone be willing to classify this as a bubble and to force banks to stop lending to finance stock purchases? I doubt.

The only way the regulation could work would be to set up pre-defined conversion rules based on asset inflation targets. But, which assets classes? Shall we use rules based on price indexes for stocks, real estate, fixed-income, or commodities? And what should be considered a speculative price run over, say three months? 20%, 40% or 60%? These questions as well as the size of this quasi-capital buffer would raise many interesting debates.

However, the rules would only work if we could agree on a simple set of pre-defined conversion rules. If we are sufficiently naïve or optimistic to believe that such agreement is possible, let us advocate the Mankiw’s rule as a good policy.