Monday, July 27, 2015

Further notes on the Greek Financial Crisis

“The European Monetary Union, as many of its critics maintain, looks a lot like the pre-1913 gold standard, which imposed fixed exchange rates on extremely diverse economies.”

Greece was not a member of the gold standard for most of the gold standard period.  The situation among the economies in the periphery (Greece one among them) varied. These economies were financially less developed and, therefore, needed access to international financial markets in order to finance both private and public investments. At the same time, their fiscal policy institutions lacked credibility and international investors were reluctant to lend to them at low interest rates without gold or foreign exchange clauses in loan contracts. Thus, for the capital-scarce peripheral economies, participation in a system of hard pegs, such as the gold standard, addressed the problem of dynamic inconsistency in monetary policy, providing them access to international capital markets at lower interest rates than would otherwise have been the case. Countries such as Greece, the fiscal institutions of which could notconform to the system’s fiscal requirements, were forced off the gold standard. The price they paid for fiscal profligacy was much higher interest rates than the peripheral participants of the gold standard.

In contrast, under the euro, Greece was able, upon entry, to borrow at near-core interest rates and at the same time, in the absence of an adjustment mechanism, remain a member without undertaking fiscal adjustment. Indeed, the case of Greece between 2001 and 2009, the year in which the Greek crisis erupted, illustrates the absence of an adjustment mechanism.

While the stock of government debt rose by €147.8 billion from 2001 through 2009, domestic holdings of that debt declined by €22.1 billion. Foreign holdings of Greek government debt rose by €169.9 billion, accounting for more than the overall increase in debt. Consequently, the share of Greek sovereign debt held by Greek residents fell from 56.6 percent to 21.3 percent while the share held by nonresidents rose from 43.4 per-cent to 78.7 percent.

Greek banks were large net sellers of Greek government debt. At the time of Greece’s entry in the eurozone in 2001, Greek banks held very large portfolios of Greek government bonds, a result of the requirements of the country’s highly regulated financial system of the 1980s and 1990s rather than the banks’ free choice of portfolio composition. This fact is demonstrated by the winding-down of the banks’ holdings of Greek government paper following the liberalization of the financial sector that was completed in the mid-1990s. They used the proceeds received from the sale of the Greek sovereigns, in part, to lend to the private sector. Consequently, credit to the private sector surged, especially from 2001 until 2008; credit growth to the private sector accounted for the bulk of the large expansion of total credit during 2001 to 2009.

As the Great Recession that began in the U.S. in 2007–2009 spread to Europe, the flow of FUNDS from the European core countries to the periphery began to dry up. Reports in 2009 of fiscal mismanagement and deception increased borrowing costs; the combination meant Greece could no longer borrow to finance its trade and budget deficits.

A country facing a “sudden stop” in private investment and a high debt load typically allows its currency to depreciate (i.e., inflation) to encourage investment and to pay back the debt in cheaper currency, but this is not an option while Greece remains on the Euro. Instead, to become more competitive, Greek wages fell nearly 20% from mid-2010 to 2014, a form of deflation. This resulted in a significant reduction in income and GDP, resulting in a severe recession and a significant rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

In February 2010, the new government of George Papandreou (elected in October 2009) admitted a flawed statistical procedure previously had existed, before the new government had been elected, and revised the 2009 deficit from a previously estimated 6%–8% to an alarming 12.7% of GDP. In turn, the 12.7 percent figure would undergo further upward revisions, so that the outcome was a deficit of 15.6 percent of GDP.

In November 2009 DubaiWorld, the conglomerate owned by the government of the Gulf emirate, asked creditors for a six-month debt moratorium. That news rattled financial markets around the world and led to a sharp increase in risk aversion. In light of the rapid worsening of the fiscal situation in Greece, financial markets and rating agencies turned their attention to the sustainability of Greece’s fiscal and external imbalances. The previously held notion that membership of the eurozone would provide an impenetrable barrier against risk was destroyed. It became clear that, while such membership provides protection against exchange-rate risk, it cannot provide protection against credit risk.

The major factor underpinning Greece’s large and growing current-account deficits was the decline in net public saving (what the govt saves from its tax revenue). Net private spending is what the households save from their disposable income.

Thomas Friedman said in New York Times, “Greece, alas, after it joined the European Union in 1981, actually became just another Middle East petro-state ― only instead of an OIL well, it had Brussels, which steadily pumped out subsidies, aid and euros with low interest rates to Athens.”
  
Interest rates on long-term government debt soared from the low single digits prior to the crisis to a peak of 42 percent in early 2012.

To whom does Greece owe money?

Greece owes around €56bn to Germany, €42bn to France, €37bn to Italy, and €25bn to Spain.

The Greek government also owes private investors in the country around €39bn, and another €120bn to institutions including Greek banks.

The role of France and Germany in the Greek Crisis
The majority of the Greek debt was owned by private banks before the Troika bailout to which the German and French taxpayers didn't owe a thing. And yet the French and the German governments converted in essence of what was a private-sovereign arrangement to a sovereign-sovereign agreement, in essence artificially making the Greek situation into a sovereign debt crisis. The effects of that were massive, because previously Greece would have declared bankruptcy and had its debt rearranged in a deal with its creditors, and then within weeks the economy would return into normalcy and music would have started playing as it was before.

However the effects of that agreement and converting Greek debt into a sovereign debt was that now the IMF got involved which meant that austerity measures were imposed. Now, whenever IMF intervenes, it does so using its facility for purposes like these, called the IMF Stand-By Arrangement. The arrangement is for jump starting the economy and get it out of a slump. This happens by applying austerity measures, which is accompanied by readjustments in the debt position of the country which is being jump started. However in Greece's case there was no readjustment in Greece's debt profile. There was no adjusting the cash flows for debt payments being done in a way to ebb the repayments' effects on drastically altering the economy. Iceland, Hungary all used the same facility, and saw readjustments in their debt situations, but not Greece. So in effect those austerity measures' benefits got swamped completely by the massive debt payments, which collectively resulted in the shrinking of the economy.

Impact of the US banking crisis on Greece
In 2008, when the U.S. housing market collapsed, the European banks lost big. They mostly absorbed those losses and focused their attention on Europe, where they kept lending to governments—meaning buying those countries’ debt—even though that was looking like an increasingly foolish thing to do: Many of the southern countries were starting to show worrying signs.

By 2010 one of those countries—Greece—could no longer pay its bills. Yet despite clear problems, bankers had been eagerly lending to Greece all along.

That 2010 Greek crisis was temporarily muzzled by an international bailout, which imposed on Greece severe spending constraints. This bailout gave Greece no debt relief, instead lending them more money to help pay off their old loans, allowing the banks to walk away with few losses. It was a bailout of the banks in everything but name.

While the Greeks have suffered, the northern banks have yet to account financially, legally, or ethically, for their reckless decisions. Further, by bailing out the banks in 2010, rather than Greece, the politicians transferred any future losses from Greece to the European public.

Along with the common currency came a wave of regulatory changes that provided the banking sector with more opportunities for growth—and the chance to become the fool. The rule changes enabled the banks to treat the debt of all euro zone countries equally; Greece, as far as the rules were concerned, had the same risk as Germany.

The markets had thought differently, with Greece having to pay more to borrow than countries such as Germany. The northern banks, seeing easy money, started lending to Greece, happily receiving higher fees for the “same risk.”

It was the beginning of a self-fulfilling feedback loop with the banks at the center. Southern Europe (especially Greece), started borrowing more, allowing them to buy more, which caused them to grow, which collapsed the cost of their borrowing, with led them to borrow more, and so on.

The buying spree benefited everyone, especially the northern European countries. The South boomed as things got built and bought, and the North boomed as factories churned out products to sell to the South. The banks sat in the middle, happily taking a spread.

This feedback loop was uniquely European, dependent on the false sense of stability provided by a common currency, which amplified the bankers’ naive belief that a country could not default.

This loop kept going until the sheer weight of the debt amassed by Greece became too huge for the markets to ignore. It kept going until the markets, shocked by the U.S. housing crisis, prompted skepticism, which forced Greek borrowing fees to rise. The European banks, in too deep to stop, were still willing to lend, but others less so.

By 2010 this could go on no more. The markets refused to lend more to Greece and a bailout was necessary.


References
The Gold Standard, the Euro, and the Origins of the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis
Greece's debt percentage since 1977, compared to the average of the Eurozone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_government-debt_crisis#/media/File:Greek_debt_and_EU_average_since_1977.png

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Greece Debt Crisis Research Notes Part 1


Greek Debt Crisis: The Scenario
The 1999 introduction of the euro as a common currency reduced trade costs among the Eurozone countries, increasing overall trade volume. However, labour costs increased more in peripheral countries such as Greece relative to core countries such as Germany, making Greek exports less competitive. As a result, Greece saw its current account (trade) deficit rise significantly.

As the Great Recession that began in the U.S. in 2007–2009 spread to Europe, the flow of funds from the European core countries to the periphery began to dry up. Reports in 2009 of fiscal mismanagement and deception increased borrowing costs; the combination meant Greece could no longer borrow to finance its trade and budget deficits

A country facing a “sudden stop” in private investment and a high debt load typically allows its currency to depreciate (i.e., inflation) to encourage investment and to pay back the debt in cheaper currency, but this is not an option while Greece remains on the Euro. Instead, to become more competitive, Greek wages fell nearly 20% from mid-2010 to 2014, a form of deflation. This resulted in a significant reduction in income or GDP, resulting in a severe recession and a significant rise in the debt to GDP ratio. Unemployment has risen to nearly 25%, from below 10% in 2003. 

Almost two-thirds of Greece’s debt, about 200 billion euros, is owed to the eurozone bailout fund or other eurozone countries. Greece does not have to make any payments on that debt until 2023. The International Monetary Fund has proposed extending the grace period until mid-century.

Origins of the Crisis
Socialist Government
In October 1981, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), a party founded by Andreas Papandreou in 1974, came into power on a populist platform. Over the next three decades, PASOK alternated in power with the New Democracy Party that was also founded in 1974. In a continuing bid to keep their voters happy, both parties lavished liberal welfare policies on their electorates, creating a bloated, inefficient, and protectionist economy.

For instance, salaries for workers in the public sector rose automatically every year, instead of being based on factors like performance and productivity. Pensions were also generous. A Greek man with 35 years of public-sector service could retire at the ripe old age of 58, and a Greek woman could retire with a pension as early as 50 under certain circumstances. Perhaps the most infamous example of undue generosity was the prevalence of 13th and 14th-month payments to Greek workers. Workers were entitled to an additional month's pay in December to help with holiday expenses and also received one-half month's pay at Easter and one-half when they took their vacation.

As a result of low productivity, eroding competitiveness, and rampant tax evasion, the government had to resort to a massive debt binge to keep the party going. Greece's admission into the Eurozone in January 2001 and its adoption of the euro made it much more easier for the government to borrow.

Since the government had introduced welfare schemes that the taxation revenue could not cover up it secretly borrowed every year from a host of private and foreign investors. The finance ministry presented a budget with little deficit while secretly borrowing on the side.

Whenever a new government would ascend to power they would be presented with the legacy of the debt burden. The ruling party leaders would have the option of drastically cutting back on a large portion of the welfare measures undertaken without fiscal backing or it would have the option to keep quiet about it and continue borrowing. Drastically cutting back on the welfare would have been political suicide though it was the only sensible economic option to follow. Throw open the nation’s messy public finances for all Greek citizens to see and explain the need for drastic fiscal measures. Unfortunately for Greece its leaders decided to take the easier path and continued borrowing even as the gap between revenue and expenditure mounted, the interest burden mounted and the public debt to GDP ratio expanded. When the revelation finally came in 2008-2009, it was already too late.

Taxation
By 2011, Greece was losing around 30 billion Euros a year on tax evasion and evasion of social security contribution. That accounts for close to 14.6% of the  GDP. Present government revenues account for 39.1% of the GDP or 81.9 billion Euros. This means that the government is losing out on tax revenues equal to  36.6% of the gross government revenue.

The Greeks were enjoying a lifestyle that they did not deserve. Essentially it was a party that lasted three decades and finally reality has dawned. Thus domestic protests in Greece against austerity measures raise indignation across Europe where hard-working and educated citizens bear the burden of bailing Greece out of its fiscal mess.

Misreported Debt Statistics
It was revealed that Goldman Sachs and other banks had helped the Greek government to hide its debts. Greece hired Goldman Sachs to enter the Eurozone by hiding its statistics. Greece is the only member-state that cheated with its statistics for years. According to Der Spiegel, credits given to European governments were disguised as "swaps" and consequently did not get registered as debt because Eurostat at the time ignored statistics involving financial derivatives.

To keep within the monetary union guidelines, the government of Greece had also for many years misreported the country's official economic statistics. At the beginning of 2010, it was discovered that Greece had paid Goldman Sachs and other banks hundreds of millions of dollars in fees since 2001, for arranging transactions that hid the actual level of borrowing. Most notable is a cross currency swap, where billions worth of Greek debts and loans were converted into yen and dollars at a fictitious exchange rate by Goldman Sachs, thus hiding the true extent of Greek loans.

The Troika Bailout
By the spring of 2010 the excessive debt problem became unbearable and there was open speculation that Greece would default. The country had done this on four occasions previously since 1800.

Greece became the epicenter of Europe’s debt crisis after Wall Street imploded in 2008. With global financial markets still reeling, Greece announced in October 2009 that it had been understating its deficit figures for years, raising alarms about the soundness of Greek finances.

Suddenly, Greece was shut out from borrowing in the financial markets. By the spring of 2010, it was veering toward bankruptcy, which threatened to set off a new financial crisis.

To avert calamity, the so-called troika the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission issued the first of two international bailouts for Greece in May 2010. The €110 billion bailout loan to rescue Greece from sovereign default and cover its financial needs throughout May 2010 until June 2013, conditional on implementation of austerity measures, structural reforms, and privatization of government assets. A year later, a worsened recession along with a delayed implementation by the Greek government of the agreed conditions in the bailout programme revealed the need for Greece to receive a second bailout worth €130 billion (including a bank recapitalization package worth €48bn), while all private creditors holding Greek government bonds were required at the same time to sign a deal accepting extended maturities, lower interest rates, and a 53.5% face value loss.

Why did the rescue fail?
To justify the new lending, the lenders had to be assured that the deficits would end and that the country would grow enough to be able to service its debt. In May of 2010, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), led at the time by Dominique Strauss Kahn, who had ambitions of running for the presidency of France, conducted an analysis to see if such a scenario was realistic. The report at the time concluded that if Greece undertook drastic reforms it could close its deficits and begin growing so that over time the debt (including the new lending that was being provided) would be manageable.

This analysis was later shown to be deeply flawed by the IMF itself. The Greeks did actually cut their deficits substantially, but many of the reforms that were supposed to support growth did not occur and the economy contracted substantially. So the debt, relative to the size of the economy, did not improve.

Other information
Greece is, as a percentage of GDP, the second-biggest defense spender[29] in NATO, the highest being the United States, according to NATO statistics.

In April 2010, it was estimated that up to 70% of Greek government bonds were held by foreign investors, primarily banks.

Greece's debt-to-GDP ratio was at 103% in 2000, well above the Eurozone's maximum permitted level of 60%.

Beneficiary and the benefactor: In 1953, Greece forgave half Germany's debt so that the fledgling republic could recover from the war Germany had inflicted on those creditors, and thrive economically.
It is both ironic and criminal that Germany is the primary obstacle against forgiving or reducing Greece’s debt today, yet Greece, which was one of Germany’s creditors, supported reducing Germany’s debt after WWII. Greece was one of the countries that willingly took part in a deal to help create a stable and prosperous western Europe, despite the war crimes that German occupiers had inflicted just a few years before.

Back in 1971 Nick Kaldor, the noted Cambridge economist, had warned that forging monetary union before a political union was possible would lead not only to a failed monetary union but also to the deconstruction of the European political project.

References
A Primer on the Greek Crisis: the things you need to know from the start until now
Germany failed to learn from its own history — and now Greece is paying the price <http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-failed-to-learn-from-its-own-history--and-now-greece-is-paying-the-price-2015-7?IR=T>

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

On problems and solutions

I read an interesting line from the Book today:

A conflict can be solved only when the parties in the conflict want a solution.

This sentence is deep on so many levels. Take our personal problems or long-lasting conflicts for example. Before seeking the solutions or trying to solve the problem, have we really asked ourselves if we GENUINELY and SINCERELY want a solution to a specific problem?

Forget the other party. But have we really wanted a solution? According to another principle, when we really seek a solution, we don't have to search for it,. It will come to us.

So, shall we take up one problem, whatever it may, and genuinely aspire for a solution instead of looking for one?

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Slogans for Future Education course

This list can be updated as and when we get new ideas.


  • Learn to unlearn. Unlearn to learn. 
  • Why should education stop with a degree? We don't stop eating when we finish our next meal. 
  • The future of education is not technology. The future is US. 
  • The secret to thinking originally lies in not thinking. 
  • Freedom is top education what authority is to training.
  • Today's idealism is tomorrow's realism. 
  • Is information overload the ideal of education? You decide. 
  • All roads of contemporary education lead to information overload. 
  • Education is education of the whole being. 
  • Treat the individual and the society as separate and isolated, and you get the contemporary education system. 
  • Treat the individual and the society as interconnected, and you have education for the future. 

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

How can filling up the timesheet be made more fun?

Let's face it. Filling up our timesheets is a monotonous task. Dreary, dull and extremely boring.

So, I have been thinking, how can filling up the timesheet be made fun?

Well, it's not at all fun to fill it up on one day when you barely remember what happened a few minutes back.

While the joy of procrastination and the intensity of doing something at the last minute can be compelling, common sense tells us the timesheet has to be filled everyday.

Whether or not we have common sense is good topic for a separate post. It provides scope for a discussion at length which our skype calls easily provide the occasion for.

Now, here are some ways I think can be done to make the dull task more fun.


  • Fill up your timesheet first thing in the morning for the previous day, even before you start checking your emails or start doing your work. Since we all will be super fresh in the mornings, it wont be a chore. 
  • Here comes the interesting part. Give yourself some reward if you make this a habit for 7 days straight. Indulge yourself. Ice cream, coffee, pizza, what not!
  • Develop a natural interest to track your time, make the most of your time. That's the root. Real productivity is not how much work you do, but how efficiently you do it. So, try to become a better version of yourself by competing with yourselves. 
  • Take a timer and see how long it takes you to complete a task. 
  • If possible, have a personal timesheet tracking how you spend your other activities as well. Then copy paste work related info into the Google SS. This can also help you track personal time efficiently. 
Do you have any thoughts on this? Please share!

Artificial Intelligence



Its my dream come true, to read The Book as a team activity.

Overload of Man vs Machine data and doomsday warnings would have sounded true, without the positive approach of The Book.

We live with Google, which is one the leading Artificial Intelligence part of our life. People just don't get bored of being scared that Google will mass produce evil robots. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11357792/How-realistic-are-the-robots-of-Ex-Machina.html

Will robots replace human? Or will humans evolve more quickly using the robots as tools?