Hugo Dixon

Does Europe need a “banking union” to shore up its struggling monetary union? And is it going to get one?

These questions are raised by the increasingly lively debate over how to break the link between troubled states in the euro zone periphery and their equally troubled banks. In some countries, such as Ireland, the lenders have made so many bad loans that they have had to be bailed out – in turn, dragging down their governments. In Greece and Italy, the banks have gorged on so many government bonds that they have been damaged by their state’s deteriorating creditworthiness. And, in Spain, the current focus of the euro crisis, a bit of both has been happening: banks made too many bad loans – and then bought too many government bonds.

One proposed solution to this incestuous relationship, advocated among others by the International Monetary Fund, involves creating a centralised Europe-wide system for regulating banks and, if necessary, closing them down and paying off their depositors. The idea is that the region’s lenders would be viewed as European banks rather than Spanish, Greek or Italian ones. If they got into trouble, they wouldn’t infect their governments; and vice versa. That would make the whole euro crisis easier to manage.

While the idea carries much theoretical appeal, such a fully-fledged banking union isn’t realistic. The incestuous embrace between governments and banks may be unhealthy, but that doesn’t mean politicians entirely dislike it. National oversight of lenders gives politicians all sorts of ways of meddling in their economies. And this is not just in the troubled countries. Relatively healthy states such as Germany and France would be loath to surrender the power to boss around banks to some supra-national authority.

Citizens in rich states wouldn’t like the idea of having to bail out banks that had gone on a binge in a completely different part of Europe either. What’s more, even if a centralised banking body was created, would it really have the clout to tell the big boys what to do?

A further difficulty concerns whether such a banking union should stretch across the euro zone or the entire European Union, which includes the United Kingdom, home to the region’s largest financial centre. Britain would argue that it shouldn’t be roped into a system that is designed to shore up the single currency it is not a part of. On the other hand, if the euro countries went ahead on their own, the single market in financial services would fragment.

Quite apart from the politics, a banking union wouldn’t actually solve all the problems. In particular, it would do nothing to stop banks owning too much government debt. Indeed, in the last few months, Spanish and Italian lenders have bought even more of this debt – using cheap money from the European Central Bank. This has helped finance their governments through a rough patch but at the cost of tying the banks’ fate even more closely to that of their countries. Over time, governments ought to be weaned off reliance on their local banks. But, realistically, this isn’t going to happen fast.

Does this mean that a European banking union is a totally dead idea? Not quite. It may be possible to cherry-pick bits of it. The most important part would be to create a Europe-wide “resolution” regime. The basic idea is that such a regime would allow insolvent banks to go bust in a controlled fashion. If shareholders haven’t put in enough capital, bondholders have to be “bailed in”. Only if bondholders also haven’t put in enough capital do deposit guarantee schemes – and possibly taxpayers – have to be activated to make sure savers are repaid. With such a framework, governments such as Ireland’s wouldn’t in future be infected by their lenders’ problems.

At present, many European countries lack such a resolution regime and those that do exist don’t collaborate effectively with one another. What’s more, until recently the European Central Bank has been hostile to the idea that bank bondholders should suffer any losses. It prevented Dublin from bailing in bondholders, fearing that this would trigger contagion.

The mood, though, is changing. The European Commission is planning to publish plans for an EU-wide resolution regime in June. Even the ECB has started lending its support to such a scheme. The devil, of course, will be in the detail. But there finally seems to be momentum behind this proposal.

A second idea that could be cherry-picked is to reinforce Europe’s deposit guarantee schemes. At the moment, every country has its own. The problem is that depositors in weak countries, especially Greece, don’t have confidence that their national schemes have enough money to pay out. So savers have been taking their cash abroad.

It is too much to expect that Germany, Europe’s paymaster, would agree to a euro-wide deposit insurance scheme. But what about some sort of reinsurance scheme? Nicolas Veron from the Bruegel think tank argues that the European Stability Mechanism, the euro zone’s soon-to-be-created bailout fund, could provide national schemes with a backstop.

Europe is not ready for banking union any more than it is ready for political union. But such ideas show there are practical ways of limiting the unhealthy nexus between lenders and their governments. Europe should grasp them.

We’re going to be really tough on the euro zone. If they want more bailouts from the International Monetary Fund, they are going to have to submit to strict conditionality. That was the message delivered by the rest of the world when it agreed at the weekend to participate in a fundraising exercise that will boost the IMF’s resources by at least $430 billion.

But the meaning of the message isn’t quite what it seems. The IMF is actually in some ways calling for less rather than more short-term austerity in the euro zone. So if the Europeans submit to IMF discipline, it will ironically mean less of a hair shirt.

It is easy to see why the rest of the world is unhappy with the special treatment the euro zone receives from the IMF. The managing director, currently Christine Lagarde, has always been a European. Vast resources, way beyond what are normally available in IMF programmes, have been channelled to Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

What’s more, the rest for the world – from developed countries such as America, Britain and Canada to emerging nations such as Brazil – feel that, despite being pretty rich, the euro zone has not done enough to sort out its own problems. Hence, the agreement to beef up the IMF resources only after a long wrangle – and only after scaling back the original request from $600 billion as well as insisting on strict conditionality before the money is ever disbursed.

At the same time, the IMF has three recommendations, as outlined in last week’s World Economic Outlook, which are somewhat at variance with current euro zone policy. First, it wants the region not to overdo short-term fiscal austerity while placing more emphasis on longer-term structural measures to improve budgets. Second, it wants the European Central Bank to continue very accommodative monetary policies. Finally, it wants the euro zone authorities to be prepared to inject capital directly into troubled banks and to accompany that with stronger European-wide supervision of lenders. All these ideas would help reduce the pressure of the current euro zone recession and so ease the crisis.

Will the IMF, though, get its way? Well, certainly not immediately. The euro zone doesn’t have to listen to it unless another country – say Spain or Italy – needs a bailout. Even then, only the country requiring cash would technically have to pay heed to the IMF. The rest of the euro zone, led by Germany, could argue that the IMF has no business interfering with the monetary policy or banking supervision of the entire 17-member euro zone when only a few peripheral nations are receiving help.

What’s more, the bulk of the money from any future bailouts would continue to come from other euro zone countries rather than the IMF. These other countries would argue that they should have a big say, even on fiscal policy, because they will be bankrolling most of any deficit shortfall.

But even if the IMF can’t get its way immediately, the debate is shifting slowly in its favour. The euro zone may not like interference in monetary policy. But the ECB has shown itself willing to spray 1 trillion euros in long-term loans at the region’s banks in the heat of the crisis in recent months. Some of the central bank’s members, with the notable exception of Germany’s Bundesbank, are saying it is too early to plan for an end to such policies.

Or take fiscal policy. Euro zone leaders may have agreed the so-called fiscal compact which will require them to balance their budgets and cut their debts. But no sooner had the deal been signed than Spain varied its fiscal targets. Italy has followed up by saying it won’t react to a deeper than expected recession by pushing through more cuts – a policy that would just lead to further recession.

Now the Dutch government, previously the high priest of austerity, has found it cannot push through its own budget cuts. Meanwhile, Francois Hollande has promised to push for a more growth-orientated policy if he wins the French election. The austerity consensus is fraying.

Finally, consider banking policy. The intertwining of lenders and their states is unhealthy. Banks which get into trouble need to be bailed out. That makes their governments less creditworthy which, in turn, further infects banks which loaded up on their bonds. That occurred in Ireland and could be repeated in Spain.

The IMF’s proposal is to sever this incestuous relationship by getting the euro zone to put money directly into troubled banks rather than by lending to governments which, in turn, would inject capital into the banks. Such a policy would be matched by euro zone-wide supervision of banks.

The idea is rational. That, of course, doesn’t mean that it will be adopted. But with an expanded warchest, the IMF has greater ability to be heard on this and other issues – especially if it keeps reminding the euro zone that the rest of the world has insisted that strings are attached before any more countries are given bailouts.

Can the euro omelette be unscrambled without provoking the mother of all financial collapses? With the crisis heating up again as Spanish 10-year bond yields hit 6 percent last week, the question has renewed urgency. The conventional wisdom is that such unscrambling is impossible. The economic, political and legal complications of bringing back national currencies are so immense that the euro zone’s 17 nations are effectively locked in a prison with no exit.

A 250,000 pound prize offered by Simon Wolfson, a UK businessman, has aimed to turn this conventional wisdom on its head. In offering what is the second-largest economics prize after the Nobel, Wolfson hoped to stimulate creative juices. In one case, he has – although even it is no silver bullet.

Of the myriad problems with returning to the drachma, peseta and lira, the most intractable is how to prevent it triggering bank runs and ultimately financial chaos. Depositors would flee if they thought their euros were set to be converted into a national currency certain to suffer dramatic and immediate devaluation. This has already been happening to some extent in Greece. If the Greeks knew for sure that their old currency was coming back, the current fast walk would turn into a stampede. Even worse, the damage wouldn’t be confined to Greece.

Depositors in other peripheral countries would pull savings from their banks. Bond markets in these other countries would also seize up. Why would anybody want to lend money to Rome or Madrid in euros if they thought they were going to be paid back in devalued liras or pesetas?

The solution proposed by most Wolfson Prize finalists is secrecy. Plans for a country’s exit from the euro should be kept under wraps and then sprung on the unsuspecting world on a Friday evening. But this is impractical. How could 17 governments keep secret something that will involve lots of wrangling? Would a democratic country really be able to foist such a momentous decision on its people without a parliamentary debate? Even if secrecy was possible, it wouldn’t stop contagion to other countries.

Catherine Dobbs, a private investor who used to develop algorithms for an investment firm in the City of London, has come up with an ingenious solution. At the point of break-up, every euro – wherever it is located – is replaced by a basket of two (or more) new currencies. This is a radical shift in thinking. Until now, most people had envisaged all economic activity in the exiting country being redenominated in its new local currency while all the other countries kept the euro.

Dobbs illustrates her idea using the unscrambling the egg metaphor. The euro zone is broken up into two sub-zones: the yolk and the white. For some bizarre reason, she equates the yolk with the periphery (Greece, Spain etc) and the white with the core (Germany, the Netherlands etc). But I’m going to flip it round as it’s more intuitive to think of the yolk as the core. The idea is that every euro is swapped for a fixed ratio of yolk currency and white currency, roughly in proportion to the relative size of the two sub-zone’s economies. Say for every euro, people got 70 percent of a yolk and 30 percent of a white.

Once this has happened, the yolk and white are free to float – with the yolk presumably appreciating and the white currency depreciating. New contracts are denominated in yolk or white. But existing euro contracts have to be honoured by delivering the fixed proportion of yolks and whites in the basket.

The one exception to this – which Dobbs hints at but doesn’t spell out – would be employment contracts: they would need to be redenominated into their new local currency. This would effectively allow wages in the periphery to fall, which is vital if competitiveness is to be restored.

The beauty of the scheme is that there’s no incentive for citizens in the periphery to grab their savings in the run-up to such a switchover and pop them into a core bank. Their euros will be worth the same wherever they are located. As a result, the detailed planning for the break-up can be done in public rather than in secret.

Neat as Dobbs’ idea may be, the politics of it are problematic. While savers in peripheral countries would like receiving a mixture of yolk and white for their euros, those in core countries could hate it. They would feel that a chunk of their savings was being forcibly swapped into the weak white currency even though, in theory, the value of the basket should still be one euro. Workers in the periphery who would be paid only in the depreciating white currency wouldn’t be happy either. While their wages would effectively be slashed, their debts, rents and other costs wouldn’t be. Many would face hardship and bankruptcy.

Perhaps that is just too bad. Somehow wages have got to come down in the periphery and devaluation would be a faster way of getting there than the current grinding austerity, which isn’t pleasant either. The snag is that such vested interests mean it’s most unlikely that heads of government could discuss the yolk/white scheme one day and back it. Rather, there would be lots of debate over what the right plan was. And before any decision had been reached, there would have been a massive capital flight. Sadly, the euro egg looks pretty well scrambled.

Beware the “F” word. The European Central Bank and, to a lesser extent, the zone’s political leaders have bought the time needed to resolve the euro crisis. But there are signs of fatigue. A renewed sense of danger may be needed to spur politicians to address underlying problems. It would be far better if they got ahead of the curve.

The big time-buying exercise was the ECB’s injection of 1 trillion euros of super-cheap three-year money into the region’s banks. A smaller breathing space was won last week when governments agreed to expand the ceiling on the region’s bailout funds from 500 to 700 billion euros.

These moves have taken the heat out of the crisis – both by easing fears that banks could go bust and by making it easier for troubled governments, especially Italy’s and Spain’s, to fund themselves. Data from the ECB last week shows how much of the easy money has been recycled from banks into government bonds. In February, Italian lenders increased their purchases of euro zone government bonds by a record 23 billion euros. Spanish banks, meanwhile, increased their purchases by 15.7 billion euros following a record 23 billion euro spending spree in January.

The risk is that, as the short-term funding pressure comes off, governments’ determination to push through unpopular reforms will flag. If that happens, the time that has been bought will be wasted – and, when crisis rears its ugly head again, the authorities won’t have the tools to fight it.

Early signs of such fatigue are emerging. One is the tendency of politicians – most recently, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti – to say that the worst of the crisis is over. They may wish to take credit for their crisis-fighting skills or relax. But it is too early to declare victory.

Italy is a case in point. Monti should have pushed through crucial reforms to the labour market earlier, while his popularity was high and the electorate was afraid that Italy would be engulfed by the crisis. He did not. And although he has now come up with a good package, his honeymoon period as the unassailable technocratic prime minister is nearing its end. His popularity fell to 44 percent from 62 percent in early March, according to a poll published last week by ISPO. Two-thirds of Italians oppose his labour reforms.

It’s a similar story in Spain. Mariano Rajoy, the incoming prime minister, should have cracked on earlier with a budget to bring the government’s finances into balance. To be fair, his administration did publish plans last Friday to curb its deficit – though it won’t be possible to judge how credible these are until Madrid explains how the health and education spending of Spain’s free-wheeling regional governments is to be reined in. Meanwhile, Rajoy’s honeymoon is also over. Last week, he failed to win the regional election in Andalucia and faced his first general strike.

Both Monti and Rajoy are still in strong positions. Although Italy’s political parties could theoretically kick Monti out, they are even less popular than him. Meanwhile, the Spanish prime minister has a sound majority in parliament. But as each month passes, it will get harder to push through reforms. Both men must hold their nerve and implement their full programmes while they can, without compromise.

Further afield, the appetite for austerity is also flagging – sometimes in unexpected places. The Dutch government, one of the high priests of fiscal rectitude, is finding it difficult to cut its own deficit. The ruling coalition may even collapse under the strain.

There is also increasing unhappiness about the fiscal discipline treaty Germany rammed through in December. Francois Hollande, the French socialist who is the front-runner to be France’s next president, wants to add a growth component to it. So do Germany’s social democrats, whose support is needed to ratify the treaty even though they are in opposition.

A fudge will probably be found that adds a protocol to the treaty which emphasises the importance of growth as well as discipline. Indeed, that would be no bad thing: too much austerity can be self-defeating as severe budget squeezes can crush an economy and make it even harder to raise taxes and cut deficits.

However, governments can’t ease up on short-term austerity and do nothing. What is needed is a vigorous programme of long-term structural reforms such as freeing up labour markets and introducing more competition into services industries. This could ultimately boost GDP by about 15 percent in large euro countries such as France, Italy and Spain, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Even Germany, whose services markets are sclerotic, could benefit by about 13 percent of GDP.

Such a programme would make the euro zone’s economies fit enough to stand on their own feet when the anaesthetic of cheap money fades. But do governments have the will to make these changes given that the cheap money is lulling them and their people into believing the worst of the crisis is over?

A prod from the markets may be what is required. There are indications that this is beginning to happen. Spanish 10-year bond yields briefly reached 5.5 percent last week. The art, though, will be in the calibration. If markets move too little the politicians will be complacent. If there is too much, the euro zone will slip back into full-blown crisis.