Why money printing hasn’t led to inflation Part 2

3D chrome Dollar symbolIn a column published on March 24 I had explained why despite all the money printed by the central banks of the world over the last six and a half years, we haven’t seen much conventional inflation. The central banks have printed money (or rather created it digitally through a computer entry) and used it to buy government and private bonds
By buying bonds, central banks pumped the printed money into the financial system. This was done primarily to ensure that with so much money floating around, the interest rates would continue to remain low. At low interest rates people would borrow and spend. This would help businesses grow and in turn help the moribund economies of the developed countries.
But money printing should have led to inflation as a greater amount of money chased the same amount of goods and services. Nevertheless, inflation continues to remain very low in most of the developed world.
This, as I had explained, is primarily because of the fact that the world is in midst of a balance-sheet recession (a term coined by Japanese economist Richard Koo). Between 2000 and 2007, people in the developed world had taken on huge loans to buy homes in the hope that prices would continue to go up forever.
A recent report titled
Debt and (not much) deleveraging brought out by the McKinsey Global Institute explores this point in great detail. As the report points out: “Between 2000 and 2007, household debt relative to income rose by 35 percentage points in the United States, reaching 125 percent of disposable income…In the United Kingdom, household debt rose by 51 percentage points, to 150 percent of income.” Other parts of the developed world also saw similar sort of increases in their household debt.
Much of this increase in household debt came from people taking on more and more home loans (or mortgage) to buy property. “In the United States, for example, household debt grew from just 16 percent of disposable income in 1945 to 125 percent at the peak in 2007, with mortgage debt accounting for 78 percent of the growth. Mortgage debt represents the majority of household debt growth in other countries as well. Our data show that mortgages now account for 74 percent of household debt in advanced economies,” the McKinsey report points out.
What is interesting is that this increase in home loans (or mortgage debt) in particular and overall household debt in general, was not accompanied by an increase in home-ownership rates. “In the United States, for instance, the rate of homeownership rose from 67.5 percent in 2000 to 69 percent at the peak of the market in early 2007, while household debt rose from 89 percent of disposable income to 125 percent. In the United Kingdom, the homeownership rate rose by 1.3 percentage points from 2001 to 2007, while the household debt ratio rose from 106 percent of income to 150 percent,” the McKinsey report points out.
As home loans were easily available at low rates of interest, more and more money was borrowed to buy homes. This pushed up home prices in most of the developed world. Between 2000 and 2007, home prices rose by 138 percent in Spain, 108 percent in Ireland, 98% in United Kingdom, 89%in Canada and 55% in the United States (on a slightly different note, real estate prices in India during the same period would have risen at a much faster rate. But we are talking about developed economies here where home-ownership rates are high and populations are stable or declining).
As home prices went up, this meant that the newer individuals wanting to buy homes had to take on a larger amount of home loan. This pushed up total household debt.
The correlation between rising home prices and increase in household debt to income ratio is very strong across countries. What also encouraged people to take on home loans was the fact that interest rates were very low, which meant that monthly EMIs required to pay off home loans were low as well. Hence, people could borrow much more than they would otherwise have.
Also, as home prices went up, people borrowed and bought homes not to live in them, but to just speculate, hoping that prices will continue to go up forever. A survey of home buyers carried out in Los Angeles in 2005, found that the prevailing belief was that prices would keep growing at the rate of 22 percent every year over the next 10 years. This meant that a house, which cost a million dollars in 2005, would cost around $7.3 million by 2015. So strong was the belief that home prices will continue to go up.
But that wasn’t to be. Once the bubble burst, housing prices crashed. This meant the asset (i.e., homes) people had bought by taking on loans had lost value, but the value of the loans continued to remain the same. Hence, people needed to repair their individual balance sheets by increasing savings and paying back debt.
Further, many of these loans had been issued at low interest rates. Once these interest rates started to go up, the EMIs also went up. As the McKinsey report points out: “In countries where many households have variable rate mortgages [home loans], such as the United Kingdom (and more recently Denmark), households are exposed to interest rate risk. When rates rise and monthly debt service charges are adjusted upward, some households may find they cannot afford their mortgages. This occurred in the United States prior to 2007, when households took out variable-rate mortgages with low “teaser rates,” but had trouble keeping up after a few years when the teaser rates expired.”
As EMIs went up and home prices crashed, more and more income was used to service the home loans. This had an impact on consumption. As the McKinsey report points out: “This dynamic is seen clearly across US states…A similar pattern can be seen across countries: the largest increases in household debt to income ratios occurred in Ireland (125 percentage points) and Spain (59 points), which also had the largest drops in consumption.”
As the accompanying table(from the McKinsey report) shows, households in many countries have been deleveraging since 2008, after the start of the financial crisis.
What this tells us clearly is that people are using more and more of their income to pay off their existing loans. Hence, even though central banks have ensured that low interest rates continue to prevail, people are no longer interested in borrowing and spending money. They are more interested in paying off their existing loans.
And that explains why all the money printing hasn’t led to conventional inflation though there has been a lot of asset price inflation. Investors have borrowed money at low interest rates from developed countries and invested them in financial markets all over the world, leading to stock markets rallying.

The column originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on April 2, 2015

Janet Yellen will keep driving up the Sensex

yellen_janet_040512_8x10Vivek Kaul

The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) Sensex, India’s premier stock market index, rose by 517.22 points or 1.88% to close at 27,975.86 points yesterday (i.e. March 30, 2015). On March 27, 2015 (i.e. Friday), Janet Yellen, the Chairperson of the Federal Reserve of the United States, gave a speech (after the stock market in India had closed). In this speech she said: “If conditions do evolve in the manner that most of my FOMC colleagues and I anticipate, I would expect the level of the federal funds rate to be normalized only gradually, reflecting the gradual diminution of headwinds from the financial crisis.” The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which one bank lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another bank on an overnight basis. It acts as a sort of a benchmark for the interest rates that banks charge on their short and medium term loans. What Yellen was basically saying is that even if the Federal Reserve starts raising interest rates, it will do so at a very slow pace. In the aftermath of the financial crisis that started in mid September 2008, when the investment bank Lehman Brothers went bust, central banks in the developing countries have maintained very low rates of interest. The Federal Reserve of the United States, the American central bank , has been leading the way, by maintaining the federal funds rate in the range of 0-0.25%. The hope was that at low interest rates people would borrow and spend more than they were doing at that point of time. This would help businesses grow and in turn help the moribund economies of the developing countries. While people did borrow and spend to some extent, a lot of money was borrowed at low interest rates in the United States and other developed countries where central banks had cut rates, and it found its way into stock markets and other financial markets all over the world. This led to a massive rallies in prices of financial assets. For the rallies in financial markets all over the world to continue, the era of “easy money” initiated by the Federal Reserve needs to continue. And this is precisely what Yellen indicated in her speech yesterday. She said that even if the Fed starts to raise interest rates it would do so at a very slow pace, in order to ensure that it does not end up jeopardizing the expected economic recovery. Yellen went on to add in her speech on Friday that: “Nothing about the course of the Committee’s actions is predetermined except the Committee’s commitment to promote our dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability.” This is where things get interesting. The rate of unemployment in the United States in February 2015 was at 5.5%. This was a significant improvement over February 2014, when the rate of unemployment was at 6.7%. But even with this big fall, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise interest rates. Typically, as unemployment falls, wages go up, as employers compete for employees. But that hasn’t happened in the United States. The wage growth has been more or less flat over the last one year (it’s up by 0.1%). The major reason for the same is that more and more jobs are being created at the lower end. As economist John Mauldin writes in his newsletter: “66,000 of the 295,000 new jobs[that were created in February 2015) were in leisure and hospitality, with 58,000 of those being in bars and restaurants…Transportation and warehousing rose by 19,000, but 12,000 of those were messengers, again not exactly high-paying jobs.” Further, in the last few years the energy industry in the United States has seen a big boom on the back of the discovery of shale oil. But with oil prices crashing, the energy industry has started to shed jobs. In January 2015, the energy industry fired 20, 193 individuals. This was 42% higher than the total number of people who were sacked in 2014. As analyst Toni Sangami pointed out in a recent post: “These oil jobs are among some of the highest-paying blue-collar jobs in the country, so losing one oil job is like losing five or eight or ten hospitality-industry jobs.” The labour force participation ratio, which is a measure of the proportion of the working age population in the labour force, in February 2015 was at 62.8%. It has more or less stayed constant from December 2013, when it was at 62.8%. This is the lowest it has been since March 1978. The number was at 66% in December 2007. What this means is that the rate of unemployment has been falling also because of people opting out of the workforce because they haven’t been able to find jobs and, hence, were no longer being counted as unemployed. So, things are nowhere as fine as broader numbers make them appear to be. The overall inflation also remains much lower than the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation is personal consumption expenditures(PCE) deflator, ex food and energy. For the month of February 2015, this number was at 1.4% much below the Fed’s target of 2%. The Fed’s forecast for inflation for 2015 is between 0.6% to 0.8%. At such low inflation levels, the interest rates cannot be raised. Yellen summarized the entire situation beautifully when she told the Senate Banking Committee earlier this month that: “Too many Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, wage growth is still sluggish, and inflation remains well below our longer-run objective.” What does not help is the weak durables data that has been coming in. Orders for durable goods or long-lasting manufactured goods from automobiles to aircrafts to machinery, fell by 1.4% in February 2015. The durables data have declined in three out of the last four months. Given this scenario, it is highly unlikely that the Yellen led Federal Reserve will start raising the federal funds rate any time soon. Further, as and when it does start raising rates, it will do so at a very slow pace. What this means is that the era of easy money will continue in the time to come. And given this, more acche din are about to come for the Sensex. Having said that, any escalation of conflict in the Middle East can briefly spoil this party. The article originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on Mar 31, 2015

Coming up: The $9 trillion problem of global finance

3D chrome Dollar symbolThat global finance has been in a mess since the start of the global financial crisis in September 2008, is old news now. But the fact that a bigger mess might be awaiting it, should still make for news.
A January 2015 research paper titled
Global dollar credit: links to US monetary policy and leverage authored by Robert N McCauley, Patrick McGuire and Vladyslav Sushko who belong to the Monetary and Economic Department at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), has been doing the rounds in the recent past.
As per this paper : “Since the global financial crisis, banks and bond investors have increased the outstanding US dollar credit to non-bank borrowers outside the United States from $6 trillion to $9 trillion.” In 2000, the number had stood at $2 trillion.
What this clearly tells us is that over the years there has been a huge jump in the total amount of borrowing that has happened in dollars, outside the United States. Hence, more and more foreigners(to the United States) have been borrowing in dollars.
A similar trend has not be seen in case of other major currencies like the euro and the yen. In case of the euro the number stands at $2.5 trillion. For the yen, the number is at just $0.6 trillion. “Moreover, euro credit is quite concentrated in the euro area’s neighbours,” the BIS report points out. Hence, a major part of the world continues to borrow in dollars.
The question is which countries have borrowed all this money that has been lent? As the BIS report points out: “Dollar credit to Brazilian, Chinese and Indian borrowers has grown rapidly since the global financial crisis…Dollar borrowing has reached more than $300 billion in Brazil, $1.1 trillion in China, and $125 billion in India. The rapid growth of bonds relative to loans is more evident in Brazil and India than in China.”
This is happening primarily because domestic interest rates in these countries are on the higher side in comparison to the interest rates being charged on borrowing in dollars. Further, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve of the United States, initiated a huge money printing programme and at the same time decided to maintain the federal funds rate between 0-0.25%. This led to more and more borrowers deciding to borrow in US dollars.
“A low level of the federal funds rate…is associated with higher growth of dollar loans to borrowers outside the US…A 1 percentage point widening in a country’s policy rate relative to the federal funds rate is, on average, associated with 0.03% more dollar bank loans relative to GDP in the following quarter ,” the BIS paper points out. And that explains the rapid expansion of dollar loans.
The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which one bank lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another bank on an overnight basis. It acts as a sort of a benchmark for the interest rates that banks charge on their short and medium term loans.
Interestingly, countries which are referred to as emerging market countries have borrowed close to $4.5 trillion of the total $9 trillion. “The emerging market share – mostly Asian – has doubled to $4.5 trillion since the Lehman crisis, including camouflaged lending through banks registered in London, Zurich or the Cayman Islands,” points out Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
in a recent piece in The Telegraph.
So what are the implications of this? First and foremost the world is now more closely connected to the monetary policy practised by the Federal Reserve of the United States. As the BIS paper points out: “Changes in the short-term policy rate are promptly reflected in the cost of $5 trillion in US dollar bank loans.” What this basically means is that if the Federal Reserve chooses to raise the federal funds rate any time in the future, the interest that needs to be paid on the dollar debt will also go up. And with the huge amount of money that has been borrowed, this could precipitate the next level of the crisis, if the borrowers are unable to pay up on the higher interest. One of the dangers that can arise is “if borrowers need to substitute domestic debt for dollar debt in adverse circumstances, then the exchange rate would come under pressure.”
There are other risks as well that need to be highlighted. There is a growing concern that companies in emerging markets have borrowed in dollars to essentially fund carry trades, where they are borrowing in dollars at low interest rates and then lending out that money at higher interest rates in their own country. Hence, nothing constructive is happening with the money that is being borrowed. It is simply being used for speculation.
Many of the companies borrowing in dollars are essentially borrowing for the first time in dollars. And this leads to the question whether the lenders have carried out an adequate amount of due diligence. Further, some of this borrowing may not have been captured in domestic debt statistics of countries. This means that countries may have actually borrowed more than their numbers suggest. Hence, when the time comes to repay this can put pressure on foreign exchange reserves. Lastly, with firms borrowing in dollars, the domestic policy-makers like central banks and finance ministries, may be misled “by the slower pace of domestic bank credit expansion”. This could mean lower interest rates when they should actually be raised. Lower interest rates can lead to more asset bubbles in financial markets.
What is not helping the cause is the fact that the dollar has appreciated rapidly against other major currencies. It has appreciated by around 25% since June 2014 against other major currencies. This means in order to repay the dollar loans or even to pay interest on it, the borrowers need a greater amount of local currency to buy dollars.
To conclude, it is worth repeating what I often say: before things get better, they might just get worse. Keep watching.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of Easy Money. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on Firstpost on Mar 25, 2015 

Do company earnings drive the stock market or is it something else?

bullfightingAn interesting piece of analysis, which is carried out almost every time the quarterly results come out, caught my eye on January 26, 2015, in the Business Standard newspaper.
The combined net profit (adjusted for exceptional items) of 290 companies which have declared their results for the period between October to December 2014, grew by just 2.2% in comparison to the same period last year.
Interestingly, this set of companies had declared a profit growth of 12.6% during the same period last year and 9.8% during the period July to September 2014, the newsreport points out.
When it comes to the growth in revenues of these companies the results are worse. The combined sales of the 290 companies which have declared results fell by 4.4% in comparison to the same period last year. This is the first drop in eight quarters.
In fact, if banking and financial companies and IT exporters are taken out of this sample, the combined revenues fell by 11% in comparsion to the same period last year. The net profit fell by 4.8%.
These are not great numbers at all. While, the sample size may not be big enough it is a cause for worry nonetheless. Further, the projection on revenues growth isn’t great either. Crisil Research in a recent report said that it expects revenue growth of India Inc to “slip to a 6-quarter low of 7% on a year-on-year (y-o-y) basis in the December 2014 quarter.” “Revenue growth was around 9% in the preceding quarter and 13% in the December 2013 quarter,” Crisil Research pointed out.
Nevertheless, the stock market has continued to rally. Financial theory tells us that stock prices are ultimately a reflection of discounted future earnings of a company. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. If the stock market was expecting quarterly results to be bad then it should have been falling, as per theory. But that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Having said that we are looking at data for just one quarter. How strong is the link between earnings growth and Sensex returns over the long term? Ambit Research has the answers in a recent research note titled
The Three ‘Stories’ That Drive the Sensex. As can be seen from the following table there is”no meaningful relationship between Sensex returns and earnings per share growth between financial years 1992-2014.”

No meaningful relationship between Sensex returns
and EPS growth between FY1992-2014

Source: Bloomberg, CEIC, Ambit Capital research


How do things look if we plot Sensex returns of a given year with earnings per share growth of the previous year? Again there is no meaningful relationship between Sensex returns and lagged earnings per share growth between financial years 1992-2013.

No meaningful relationship between Sensex returns
and lagged EPS growth between FY1992-2013

Source: Bloomberg, CEIC, Ambit Capital research


In fact, the relationship between Sensex returns and economic growth (measured in terms of GDP growth) is also not meaningful, the research note states. This is something that valuation guru Aswath Damodaran also told me a few years back when I had asked him:
“How strong is the link between economic growth and stock markets? “It’s getting weaker and weaker every year,” he had replied.
So what drives the Sensex? “Over the last 30 years, there has been a pronounced tendency for the Sensex’s returns to revert to the mean, with the mean being around 17%,” the Amit Research note points out (See the following table).

Rolling five-year Sensex return CAGR

Source: Bloomberg, CEIC, Ambit Capital research


Another very good predictor of Sensex returns is the political-economic cycle. “The Sensex seems to move in sync with India’s political cycle (which in turn seems to have a profound influence on India’s economic cycle). In particular, the Indian economy seems to move in 8-10-year economic cycles, with the beginning of these cycles coinciding with decisive General Election results (eg. 1984, 1991, and 2004). Then in the first three years of these economic cycles, the Sensex seems to appreciate sharply as investors discount the decade-long economic cycle. So, whilst the Sensex’s 30-year CAGR is 16%, its CAGR during the first three years of each of the economic cycles (1984-87, 1991-94 and 2004-07) is ~33%,” the Ambit Research note points out.

The remarkable synchrony between political and economic cycles in India

Source: CEIC, Ambit Capital research


These rallies stem from the Indian middle class’s hope of finding a strong leader and that in turn leads to the Sensex rallying for the next three four years. Using this theory we can say that the current Sensex rally will last till 2017-2018.
Also, for the past few years we have been living in an era where the narrative of central bank omnipotence holds. As Ben Hunt who writes the Episilon Theory Newsletter puts it:
central bank policy WILL determine market outcomes. There is no political or fundamental economic issue impacting markets that cannot be addressed by central banks. Not only are central banks the ultimate back-stop for market stability (although that is an entirely separate Narrative), but also they are the immediate arbiters of market outcomes. Whether the market goes up or down depends on whether central bank policy is positive or negative for markets.”
Over the last few years central banks of developed countries like the Federal Reserve of the United States, the Bank of England and lately the Bank of Japan have been running an easy money policy by printing money. The European Central Bank has become the latest central bank to join the money printing party.
While the Federal Reserve has stopped printing money in October 2014, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank are still at it. And this “easy money” has been driving financial markets all over the world. In this world, earnings and economic growth do not matter. What matter is how much money is coming into the stock market.

(The column originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com as a part of The Daily Reckoning on February 4, 2015)

Markets are not panicking over Greece exiting the Eurozone. Here’s why

greece
In his wonderful book
How to Speak Money John Lanchester defines Grexit as the hypothetical exit of Greece from the Eurozone. Eurozone is a term used referring to countries which use euro as their currency.
As things stand as of now the chances of Grexit may have gone up. Over the weekend,
Alexis Tsipras of the Syriza party took over as the youngest prime minister of Greece. Breaking tradition Tsipras took a civil oath and not a religious one. He has also vowed not to wear a tie until he has negotiated Greece a new deal with Europe, reports the Guardian.
Tsipras and the Syriza party were elected on the plank to
end austerity in Greece and to write off its debt. “We will bring an end to the vicious circle of austerity,” Tsipras told the crowd after his party’s victory in the Greek elections.
Greece had joined the Eurozone on June 19, 2000, In the process it gave up its currency, the drachma. Before the euro was born, interest rates set by the Bundesbank, the German central bank were the benchmark for interest rates of other countries in Europe. Other central banks had to set interest rates accordingly.
Hence, Germany enjoyed the lowest interest rates in Europe. Some of this prestige was rubbed on to the European Central Bank (the central bank formed to manage the euro) and the euro. The countries which used the euro as their currency also started to enjoy low interest rates.
There were two reasons for the same. The first reason was that the weaker countries of the euro zone would no longer be able to print money to pay off their debt like they had done in the past. With the power to print money out of the hands of the government, it was widely expected that inflation would come under control. And with inflationary expectations (or the expectations that consumers have of what future inflation is likely to be) lower, interest rates came down.
The other reason for a fall in interest rates was the fact that the market assumed that in case there was any trouble with the weaker countries in the euro zone, the stronger ones (read Germany) would come to their rescue (which is how things have played out over the last few years).
As Neil Irwin writes in
The Alchemists—Inside the Secret World of Central Bankers: “In 1992, when low-inflation Germany could borrow money for a decade at 8 percent, Greece had to pay 24 percent…Greece gained the credibility of the European Central Bank, which itself was modelled after Germany’s Bundesbank.”
And this “credibility” in a few years ensured that interest rates in Greece were almost the same as they were in Germany. “Investors were willing to hand money over to the Greek government for pretty much the same interest rate they received for giving it to the German or the French governments. In 2007…German ten-year borrowing costs averaged 4.02 percent. Greek rates were 4.29 percent. Investors had become complacent, viewing Greek debt as an essentially risk-free substitute for bonds issued by better run countries like Germany, France of the Netherlands,” writes Irwin.
The Greek government made use of the low interest rates and went on a borrowing binge. The fiscal deficit of the Greek government was under 4% of the GDP In 2001. It went up to 15.7% of the GDP in 2009. The huge fiscal deficit was primarily on account of profligate public spending to finance the Greek welfare state. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government borrows and what it spends.
As author Satyajit Das wrote in an essay titled
Nowhere To Run, Nowhere to Hide in July 2010: “Profligate public spending, a large public sector, generous welfare systems, particularly for public servants, low productivity, an inadequate tax base, rampant corruption and successive poor governments created the parlous state of public finances.”
This led to the debt of the Greek government going up big time. When Greece joined the Eurozone in 2000 its government debt was a little over 90% of the GDP. By 2009 it had exploded to 129% of the GDP.
Since then Greece has had to be rescued by a series of bailout programmes involving the European Central Bank, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The total bailout amount stands at close to a whopping 240 billion euros or around $270 billion, as per the current exchange rate.
In order to ensure that the Greece government repaid its debt and the bailout amounts it was put on an austerity programme. As Mark Blyth writes in
Austerity—The History of a Dangerous Idea: “Cut spending raise taxes—but cut spending more than you raise taxes—and all will be well, the story went.”
But that did not turn out to be the case. The private sector wasn’t doing well and on top of that government spending also collapsed, leading to the Greek economy crashing. As Blyth writes: “In May 2010, Greece received a 110-billion-euro loan in exchange for a 20 percent cut in public-sector pay, a 10 percent pension cut, and tax increases. The lenders, the so-called troika of the ECB, the European Commission, and the IMF, forecast growth returning by 2012. Instead, unemployment in Greece reached 21 percent in late 2011 and the economy continued to contract.”
And the situation has only gotten worse since then. The current rate of overall unemployment in Greece is at 28% and among the youth it’s over 50%. In fact, the Greek GDP per head has shrunk by 22% since 2008,
reports the BBC. At the same time the Greek government debt has also soared to 176% of GDP by September 2014.
So, clearly the austerity programme wasn’t working and the Greek voters had had enough of it. In this environment the Syriza party came as a breath of fresh air. The rhetoric of the Syriza party and its leader Tsipras has toned down a little in the aftermath of the electoral win but it still remains very strong.
“The new Greek government will be ready to co-operate and negotiate for the first time with our peers a just, mutually beneficial and viable solution,” Tsipras said after winning the Greek election.
This posturing clearly has countries like Germany worried. The BBC reports that the German government spokesman Steffan Seibert said that it was important for Greece to “take measures so that the economic recovery continues”. What Germany is simply telling Greece here is to continue with the austerity programme and continue repaying the debt that it has accumulated over the years.
Tsipras and his party obviously don’t agree with this point of view.
As the Guardian reports: “His [i.e. Tsipras] first act as prime minister was to lay roses at a memorial to 200 Greek communists executed by the Nazis in May 1944. Analysts said the gesture left little room for interpretation: for a nation so humiliated after five years of wrenching austerity-driven recession, it was aimed, squarely, at signalling that it was now ready to stand up to Europe’s paymaster, Germany.”
And this is where the whole thing can snap. Germany wants Greece to continue with the austerity programme. Greece wants to re-negotiate the austerity as well as the total amount of debt that it owes. The question is who will blink first? Will Greece choose to leave the euro first? Will it be asked to leave?
The financial market does not seem to be unduly worried about this as of now.
One explanation that has been offered is that investors are now coming around to believe that the eurozone will emerge stronger if Greece leaves it, to the condition that other countries do not follow it.
But this is too strong an assumption to make. In case of Greece deciding to leave the euro, Greeks will start withdrawing their euros from their banks. This would happen primarily because the new currency (probably drachma in Greece’s case) would be less valuable than the euro. Hence, Greek banks would face bank runs. It would also mean that Greece would most likely default on its debt or repay them in less valuable drachmas. This could even influence the other countries( Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain) to do the same. Citizens of these countries expecting their countries to leave the euro would start withdrawing their euros from banks, leading to bank runs in these countries.
Long story short: The situation has become very murky to estimate how things will pan out.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Jan 27, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)