Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UBS report: what if Euro cracks up?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UBS report: what if Euro cracks up?

    This report is extremely sobering -

    Link to report.....(PDF)

    zerohedge.com article.....

    Excerpts:

    Executive summary:

    Fiscal confederation, not break-up

    Our base case with an overwhelming probability is that the Euro moves slowly (and painfully) towards some kind of fiscal integration. The risk case, of break-up, is considerably more costly and close to zero probability. Countries can not be expelled, but sovereign states could choose to secede. However, popular discussion of the break-up option considerably underestimates the consequences of such a move.

    The economic cost (part 1)

    The cost of a weak country leaving the Euro is significant. Consequences include sovereign default, corporate default, collapse of the banking system and collapse of international trade. There is little prospect of devaluation offering much assistance. We estimate that a weak Euro country leaving the Euro would incur a cost of around EUR9,500 to EUR11,500 per person in the exiting country during the first year. That cost would then probably amount to EUR3,000 to EUR4,000 per person per year over subsequent years. That equates to a range of 40% to 50% of GDP in the first year.

    The economic cost (part 2)

    Were a stronger country such as Germany to leave the Euro, the consequences would include corporate default, recapitalisation of the banking system and collapse of international trade. If Germany were to leave, we believe the cost to be around EUR6,000 to EUR8,000 for every German adult and child in the first year, and a range of EUR3,500 to EUR4,500 per person per year thereafter. That is the equivalent of 20% to 25% of GDP in the first year. In comparison, the cost of bailing out Greece, Ireland and Portugal entirely in the wake of the default of those countries would be a little over EUR1,000 per person, in a single hit.

    The political cost

    The economic cost is, in many ways, the least of the concerns investors should have about a break-up. Fragmentation of the Euro would incur political costs. Europe’s “soft power” influence internationally would cease (as the concept of “Europe” as an integrated polity becomes meaningless). It is also worth observing that almost no modern fiat currency monetary unions have broken up without some form of authoritarian or military government, or civil war.
    A little more on that particularly troubling last point:

    Do monetary unions break up without civil wars?

    The break-up of a monetary union is a very rare event. Moreover the break-up of a monetary union with a fiat currency system (ie, paper currency) is extremely unusual. Fixed exchange rate schemes break up all the time. Monetary unions that relied on specie payments did fragment – the Latin Monetary Union of the 19th century fragmented several times – but should be thought of as more of a fixed exchange rate adjustment. Countries went on and off the gold or silver or bimetal standards, and in doing so made or broke ties with other countries’ currencies.\

    If we consider fiat currency monetary union fragmentation, it is fair to say that the economic circumstances that create a climate for a break-up and the economic consequences that follow from a break-up are very severe indeed. It takes enormous stress for a government to get to the point where it considers abandoning the lex monetae of a country. The disruption that would follow such a move is also going to be extreme. The costs are high – whether it is a strong or a weak country leaving – in purely monetary terms. When the unemployment consequences are factored in, it is virtually impossible to consider a break-up scenario without some serious social consequences.

    With this degree of social dislocation, the historical parallels are unappealing. Past instances of monetary union break-ups have tended to produce one of two results. Either there was a more authoritarian government response to contain or repress the social disorder (a scenario that tended to require a change from democratic to authoritarian or military government), or alternatively, the social disorder worked with existing fault lines in society to divide the country, spilling over into civil war. These are not inevitable conclusions, but indicate that monetary union break-up is not something that can be treated as a casual issue of exchange rate policy.

    Even with a paucity of case studies, what evidence we have does lend credence to the political cost argument. Clearly, not all parts of a fracturing monetary union necessarily collapse into chaos. The point is not that everyone suffers, but that some part of the former monetary union is highly likely to suffer.

    The fracturing of the Czech and Slovak monetary union in 1993 led to an immediate sealing of the border, capital controls and limits on bank withdrawals. This was not so much secession as destruction and substitution (the Czechoslovak currency ceased to exist entirely). Although the Czech Republic that emerged from the crisis was considered to be a free country (using the Freedom House definition), with political rights improving relative to Czechoslovakia (also considered to be a free country), Slovakia saw a deterioration in the assessment of its political rights and civil liberties, and was designated “partially free” (again, using Freedom House criteria).

    Similarly the break-up of the Soviet Union saw authoritarian regimes in the resulting states. Of course, this was not a change from the previous status quo, but that is not the point. The question is not how a liberal democracy develops, but whether a liberal democracy could withstand the social turmoil that surrounds a monetary union fracturing. We lack evidence to support the idea that it could.

    Even the US monetary union break-up in 1932-33 was accompanied by something close to authoritarianism. Roosevelt’s inauguration was described by a contemporary journalist as being conducted in “a beleaguered capital in wartime”, with machine guns covering the Mall. State militia were called out to deal with the reactions of local populations, unhappy at what had happened to the monetary union (and specifically their access to their banks).
    \
    Older examples are less helpful, as they tend to be more akin to fixed exchange rate regimes under a gold standard or some other international monetary arrangement. Nevertheless, the Irish separation from the UK, or the convulsions of the Latin Monetary Union in Europe (particularly around the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 and its aftermath) saw monetary unions fragment with varying degrees of violence in some parts of the union.

    Writing in 1997, the Harvard economist Martin Feldstein offered a view that seems to be somewhat chillingly precognitive. He said “Uniform monetary policy and inflexible exchange rates will create conflicts whenever cyclical conditions differ among the member countries... Although a sovereign country... could in principle withdraw from the EMU, the potential trade sanctions and other pressures on such a country are likely to make membership in the EMU irreversible unless there is widespread economic dislocation in Europe or, more generally, a collapse of the peaceful coexistence within Europe.” (emphasis added).
    As for what happens if UBS, and the Euro Unionists lose the fight for the euro:

    Our base case for the Euro is that the monetary union will hold together, with some kind of fiscal confederation (providing automatic stabilisers to economies, not transfers to governments). This is how the US monetary union was resurrected in the 1930s. It is how the UK monetary union, and indeed the German monetary union, have held together.

    But what if the disaster scenario happens? How can investors invest if they believe in a break-up, however low the probability? The simple answer is that they cannot. Investing for a break-up scenario has not guaranteed winners within the Euro area. The growth consequences are awful in any break-up scenario. The risk of civil disorder questions the rule of law, and as such basic issues such as property rights. Even those countries that avoid internal strife and divisions will likely have to use administrative controls to avoid extreme positions in their markets.

    The only way to hedge against a Euro break-up scenario is to own no Euro assets at all.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    I was a little puzzled when I saw this report as it is atypical of UBS reports that I receive regularly, in style and presentation, both in hard copy and electronically. On the UBS site itself, it is mentioned (in their traditional style and presentation) at http://www.ubs.com/1/e/bank_for_bank...ries/euro.html

    In fact, this was written by three employees in the UBS London offices and is presented as an opinion which seems to be out of line with UBS Switzerland thinking. One significant point is that the references on p. 18 of the report all, by coincidence, happen to be opinions of these same authors and include no outside references. In addition, look at p.19:

    ...all of the views expressed accurately reflect his or her personal views about those securities or issuers and were prepared in an independent manner, including with respect to UBS
    IOW, the UBS does not support this opinion (nor necessarily reject it).

    What you have quoted has deliberately been chosen by Zerohedge as being provocative. It constitutes only a small part of the whole document taken largely out of context, for effect.

    What is not mentioned in your excerpts is that there is no legal framework for the Euro to break up. It would require constitutional changes unanimously approved by referenda in all 27 EU member-states. This would be as likely as the 50 US approving the breakup of the dollar [my analogy]. Even if the 27 unanimously approved the change, then the procedure would take so long that the initial reason for the break-up would have long since passed!

    There is one sentence in the document that puzzles me:

    3. Departure from the EU
    ...Legally one is either in the EU and the Euro, or one is not. There is no halfway house.
    There are already halfway houses. The UK and a number of the other 26 countries are in the EU but not in the Eurozone. OK, there are no non-EU-members that have adopted the Euro as their currency - yet - but it is not impossible. As the legal framework for departure from the Euro does not exist, any (unlikely) constitutional change could easily include a halfway house of EU but not Eurozone. This sentence is therefore rather meaningless, despite the emphasis given to it by the section format.

    Finally, off-topic, yesterday the Swiss National Bank took the almost unprecedented step of tying the CHF to the EUR at a rate of 1.20. It was announced that they would maintain this rate by buying foreign values with their almost infinite supply of CHF, at least until the market stabilised naturally at that level or higher. They do not wish to maintain this inflationary measure indefinitely. I interpret this as large loss-making purchases of bonds issued by the weaker countries, the so-called PIGS or, now, PIIGS. This would have a very positive effect on the Euro which would restabilise quickly.
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      I took the Swiss action to be akin to wage & price controls - unsustainable and eventually destructive as they were here in the early 1970's.
      Dr. Mordrid
      ----------------------------
      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
        Finally, off-topic, yesterday the Swiss National Bank took the almost unprecedented step of tying the CHF to the EUR at a rate of 1.20. It was announced that they would maintain this rate by buying foreign values with their almost infinite supply of CHF, at least until the market stabilised naturally at that level or higher. They do not wish to maintain this inflationary measure indefinitely. I interpret this as large loss-making purchases of bonds issued by the weaker countries, the so-called PIGS or, now, PIIGS. This would have a very positive effect on the Euro which would restabilise quickly.
        Uhm, no?

        If they sell CHF against EUR at 1.20 they may buy CHF against EUR once CHF has becoem cheaper. They'll make a gain on this assuming they avoid credit risk, i.e., deposit EUR at the ECB or invest on better rated sovereigns (German, Dutch, perhaps French and Austrian). I doubt this will exert inflationary pressure as it is not likely to raise demand for Swiss produce but serves as stock of value.

        I have, seriously, argued that the Euro would lead to war in Europe since the early 90's and what I envisaged is roughyl wat is occuring now: fiscal policy gone wrong and diverging economies. My only mistake was that I expected Italy to be the black sheep, never though about Greece. In my defence, I am not even sure that in the early 90s we expected Greece to convert to Euro within 10 years.

        It's a bloody mess with political aspirations at the time far exceeding the actual power of politics to shape the economic world.
        Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
        [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

        Comment


        • #5
          The BNS is being very cautious as they remember their burnt fingers when they fixed the CHF to the DM. I forecast that this will last until about the end of the year, 6 months at the outside. Their vaults will be full of worthless bonds. I believe their aim is to sustain the EUR rather than devalue the CHF, which is largely covered by gold, anyway, mostly bought at $35/oz!

          Anyway, I recently sold in 4 steps, a few tens of thousands of CHF at prices between 1.05 and 1.10, so I have theoretically won with the EUR pegged at 1.20. OTOH, my Swiss CHF pension, which is my main living resource, has dropped in terms of the EUR, which is my working money, by about 9% overnight. Such is life!

          Off-topic - well slightly - will this country require a bail-out? On 10 July, I would have said no, despite an aberrant economy and fiscal policy, with grossly overpaid and over-numbered public sector workers. On 11 July, we had the massive explosion which destroyed our main power station. To replace/repair this, with secondary costs, will cost us an estimated €2b or €2,500 per man, woman and child. This could tip the balance into state bankruptcy, or close to it. Maybe PIIGS will become PIICGS!
          Brian (the devil incarnate)

          Comment


          • #6
            I wasn't aware the CHF was pegged to the DM at some stage. In any case, what was the reason to peg at the time, a sharp appreciation of the CHF?

            There vaults will only be filled with worthless bonds if they buy them. The CHF is about 20% backed by gold (possible a bit more now given the rise in gold prices), which in part may be the cause of the appreciation of the CHF. Selling CHF against EUR will lower that ratio and bring it in line with the EUR which makes sense to me. Mind you, they're not pegging against the EUR, just putting a cap on the exchange rate.

            Barring defaults on their EUR investments I see them making a nice gain.
            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

            Comment


            • #7
              The CHF is backed by gold to 20% but the gold is fiduciary valued at, I think, $250/oz (it used to be at $35/oz until their massive sell-off a few years ago!). The backing today is therefore about 144% in reality, although they are well aware that the price of gold will plummet down to under half its current value as soon as the recession shows any sign of phasing down.

              I can't remember all the details but I think it was about 1972 when the CHF and DM, both over-valued, were pegged.

              I agree that it is technically a cap, but practically a peg as it is unlikely to go much above 1.20 in the near future.

              I think their strategy is to write off "worth-little" EUR bonds by 100% and offset their losses by the purchase of EURs. If the bonds recover in value (ie, their coupons are paid at nominal rate/value, then this will become gross profit). I think they are also buying into JPY and RMB.This is surely a strategy to offset gold losing value.
              Brian (the devil incarnate)

              Comment


              • #8
                This is getting ugly. Today it was reported that banks would be insolvent if they'd have to write off sovereign debt. And this time states are already in debt and it would be harder to bail out banks.

                A number of Europe's banks would not survive a cut in the value of their sovereign debt holdings, the boss of Deutsche Bank warns.


                A number of European banks would not survive a cut in the value of their sovereign debt investments, the chief executive of Deutsche Bank has warned.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the German pols opt for self-preservation and drop out due to internal resentment for the sovereign bailouts, it's over and the UBS scenarios go live. After the Federal Reserve audit result published recently there would also be a total freak-out here if they started printing dollars to bail the Euro-banks out like they did in 2009. Ugly indeed.
                  Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 7 September 2011, 20:26.
                  Dr. Mordrid
                  ----------------------------
                  An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                  I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
                    there would also be a total freak-out here if they started printing dollars to bail the Euro-banks out like they did in 2009. Ugly indeed.
                    LOL! That's what it was now? 2009 a bail-out of Euro banks?
                    Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                    [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                      LOL! That's what it was now? 2009 a bail-out of Euro banks?
                      I think he's referring to the table of eurodollar swap lines to the fed.

                      Of course, without these swap-lines, all us financial institutions would have collapsed too and we'd have entered a deflationary depression. imo the biggest mistake is that they haven't nationalised and sanitized the banking system neither in the US nor in Europe after 2008. They've given them a bag of money and basically said: go on with your old ways of posing a systematic danger to the world financial system.

                      Much of the money that the US government was able to spend due to QE and QE2 hasn't gone to the productive part of the economy, but rather to the financial part which is siphoning off all life from the rest of the economy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dZeus View Post
                        >
                        Much of the money that the US government was able to spend due to QE and QE2 hasn't gone to the productive part of the economy, but rather to the financial part which is siphoning off all life from the rest of the economy.
                        Bingo, which is why people here would go nuts if the Fed does anything that even resembles a QE3. There is zero trust that the money would be spent wisely.
                        Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 8 September 2011, 00:35.
                        Dr. Mordrid
                        ----------------------------
                        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Uh, oh. I think it is good to make a distinction between solvency and liquidty. The CPFF was establshed to cover for the disruption of the financial markets, not to cover for solvency problems banks may have faced. All borrowed funds (at arms-length-basis) have been repaid in time and in full. The program has ended over a year ago.


                          Much of the money that the US government was able to spend due to QE and QE2 hasn't gone to the productive part of the economy, but rather to the financial part which is siphoning off all life from the rest of the economy.
                          You really think the financial industry are such bad guys? Amazing. Two questions:
                          - Without the industry, how would firms find the capital needed to finance operations?
                          - If QE and QE2 went to the financial part only, then where is that money right now? Think banks now keep shitloads of $100 bills under their desks? To what end?
                          Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                          [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "- Without the industry, how would firms find the capital needed to finance operations?"

                            The same way as they did before the financial institutions themselves became a parasitic mega-industry. Essentially between an investor and an investee, literally over a cup of coffee in one of London's coffee houses. This was not always convenient, so the stockbroker was invented. Then the stockbrokers invented a monopolistic cartel called a stock exchange to siphon off megabucks with the motto, "To the rich shall it be given; to the poor shall it be taken away!"
                            Brian (the devil incarnate)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                              Uh, oh. I think it is good to make a distinction between solvency and liquidty. The CPFF was establshed to cover for the disruption of the financial markets, not to cover for solvency problems banks may have faced. All borrowed funds (at arms-length-basis) have been repaid in time and in full. The program has ended over a year ago.


                              You really think the financial industry are such bad guys? Amazing. Two questions:
                              - Without the industry, how would firms find the capital needed to finance operations?
                              - If QE and QE2 went to the financial part only, then where is that money right now? Think banks now keep shitloads of $100 bills under their desks? To what end?
                              Actually I find it even more amazing that you claim otherwise.

                              There's a huge gap between what the financial industry should do and what it does, and there has been for at least 20 years (with the problem gradually growing bigger and bigger).

                              I see an industry that is bent on giving themselves ludicrous compensation, even when their institutions are on the brink of failure. I don't buy the 'but the shareholders approve so it's ok' argument, as it doesn't change the fact that they get ridiculous compensation (regardless of their enablers). Now my questions is, does the financial industry add anything to society when it skims off margin in stock trading (High Frequency Trading)? Or when it securitized crappy debt to mask its issues, get it labelled as AAA and resell it to unsuspecting clients? When it gives loans to people who cannot pay it back, in order to charge higher interest rates (also called usury), leaning on their too big to fail status to have the government/fed save them if their bet goes wrong? What about all the regulators that themselves are part of the financial industry, or have been and will be after they did 'good work' for certain firms (revolving door)? What about all the campaign donations to the political parties by the financial industry, buying their interest which has been manifested by nearly all the administrations, republican or democrat, going for deregulation of the financial industry since Reagan (regulatory capture)?

                              I thought the film 'inside job' gave an interesting perspective on this sector of the economy.

                              Regarding liquidity vs. solvency: why are mark to market FASB rules suspended for most stuff on balance sheets of banks since 2008? Why is the US government backstopping the FHFA up to the tune of hundred of billion dollars, to prevent real price discovery of the mortgages they buy/hold? To me that sounds like a solvency issue.

                              Where did the money of QE and QE2 go? Financial industry worker compensation, filling gaps in the balance sheets of financial institutions (by backstopping the FHFA), chasing higher returns in assets that won't depreciate as fast as the USD$ (oil, gold, equity, bonds, etc.).
                              Last edited by dZeus; 8 September 2011, 01:40.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X