Hugo Dixon

Can Super Mario save the euro? Mario Draghi said last Thursday that the European Central Bank’s job is to stop sovereign bond yields rising if these increases are caused by fears of a euro break-up. While this represents a sea-change in the ECB president’s thinking, it risks sowing dissension within his ranks. He will struggle to come up with the right tools to achieve his goals.

Draghi seemingly stared into the abyss and had a fright. Spanish 10-year bond yields shot up to 7.6 percent on July 24 while Italian ones rose to 6.6 percent. The high borrowing costs are not simply a reflection of the two countries’ high debts and struggling economies. Investors also fear “convertibility risk” – or the possibility that the euro will break up and they will get repaid in devalued pesetas and liras.

The central banker’s statement that dealing with convertibility risk is part of the ECB’s mandate is therefore highly significant. He rammed home his message, saying: “Within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough.”

Markets responded swiftly. Spain’s borrowing costs fell to 6.8 percent, while Italy’s dropped just below six percent. But these yields have to drop below five percent – and stay there – before confidence in the euro project will return. What’s more, it’s unclear what Draghi will actually do.

One possibility, immediately latched onto by investors, is that the ECB will relaunch its programme of buying government bonds in the market. But such an operation would be tough to calibrate. If the ECB was prepared to do whatever it took to drive yields below a certain level, the pressure would certainly be off Spain and Italy. But politicians might then stop reforming their economies. When the ECB bought Italian bonds last summer, that’s precisely what happened.

That’s why Germany’s Bundesbank, which has a powerful voice within the ECB but no veto over its actions, is opposed to bond-buying – potentially setting the stage for a stormy meeting when the ECB governing council meets to discuss what to do on Aug. 2. It’s not yet clear how big a spoke the German central bank will be able to put into Draghi’s plans.

On the other hand, if the ECB made its support conditional on good behaviour, investors might not be reassured. Their anxiety would be heightened if central bank bond-buying pushed private creditors down the pecking order. That’s what happened when Greece’s debt was restructured earlier this year: private bondholders suffered big losses while the ECB theoretically stands to make a profit. A half-hearted bond-buying programme might therefore simply encourage investors to dump their holdings on the ECB while having no lasting effect on Spain’s and Italy’s borrowing costs.

Draghi may think that the two countries’ current leaders – Spain’s Mariano Rajoy and Italy’s Mario Monti – are more serious about reform than their predecessors Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Silvio Berlusconi. But even the new leaders have shown signs of losing momentum. Rajoy’s latest spurt of action – further budget-tightening and a plan to recapitalise the country’s struggling banks – only occurred because his back was to the wall. In Italy, meanwhile, Monti says he will stop being prime minister next spring. It’s not clear whether his successor will be committed to reform.

For these reasons, Draghi seems reluctant for the ECB just to buy bonds on its own. Rather, he seems to want to do so in combination with the euro zone’s bailout funds, which have the ability to buy bonds directly from governments – something the ECB is banned from doing. One advantage is that Madrid and Rome would have to sign memorandums of understanding setting out their reform plans in order to access the bailout funds. It would then be easier to hold them to their commitments.

A further idea, reported by Reuters, could help deal with private creditors being pushed down the pecking order. Policymakers are working on a “last chance” option to cut Athens’ debt – involving the ECB taking a haircut on its Greek bond holdings. If that happened, investors would worry less about being unfairly treated if Spain or Italy ever needed to restructure their debts. They might then not view bond-buying as the perfect chance to offload their holdings onto the public sector.

The two-pronged approach is preferable to the ECB buying bonds solo. But it would still put the central bank in the front line of rescuing governments. A better approach would be to scale up the euro zone’s bailout funds and get them to do the entire job of lending to Spain and Italy, if they need help. This could be achieved by letting the soon-to-be-created European Stability Mechanism (ESM) borrow money from the ECB.

Draghi should prefer lending to the ESM than buying Spanish or Italian bonds because, if either country got into trouble, the bailout fund not the ECB would take the first losses. Unfortunately, the ECB said last year that extending loans to the ESM would contravene the Maastricht Treaty – a position Draghi himself repeated after he took over as president, even though there are plenty of lawyers who think the opposite.

Super Mario is now warming to the idea of lending to the ESM, according to Bloomberg, even though that’s not part of his immediate plan. If Draghi does this, he’ll have to find a way to eat his words without losing credibility. If not, he will have to rely on second-best options with all their drawbacks. Mind you, it’s the job of super heroes to get out of tight spots.

The euro crisis is to a great extent a confidence crisis. Sure, there are big underlying problems such as excessive debt and lack of competitiveness in the peripheral economies. But these can be addressed and, to some extent, this is happening already. Meanwhile, a quick fix for the confidence crisis is needed.

The harsh medicine of reform is required but is undermining confidence on multiple levels. Businesses, bankers, ordinary citizens and politicians are losing faith in both the immediate economic future and the whole single-currency project. That is creating interconnected vicious spirals.

The twin epicentres of the crisis are Spain and Italy. The boost they received from last month’s euro zone summit has been more than wiped out. Spanish 10-year bond yields equalled their euro-era record of 7.3 percent on July 20; Italy’s had also rebounded to a slightly less terrifying but still worrying 6.2 percent.

As ever, the explanation is that the summiteers came up with only a partial solution and even that was hedged with caveats. Although the euro zone will probably inject capital into Spain’s bust banks, relieving Madrid of the cost of doing so, the path will be tortuous. Meanwhile, a scheme which could help Italy finance its debt will come with strings attached – and there still isn’t enough money in the euro zone’s bailout fund to do this for more than a short time.

The two countries’ high bond yields aren’t just a thermometer of how sick they are. They push up the cost of capital for everybody in Spain and Italy, while sowing doubts about whether the whole show can be kept on the road. Capital flight continues at an alarming rate, especially in Spain. The so-called Target 2 imbalances, which measure the credits and debits of national central banks within the euro zone, are a good proxy for this. Spain’s Target 2 debt had grown to 408 billion euros at the end of June, up from 303 billion only two months earlier. The Italian one was roughly stable but still high at 272 billion euros.

The loss of confidence is harming the economy. Spain’s GDP is expected to shrink by 2.1 percent this year and a further 3.1 percent next year, according to Citigroup, one of the more pessimistic forecasters. The prospects for Italy are not much better: a predicted 2.6 percent decline this year followed by 2 percent next year.

Shrinking economies are, in turn, pushing up debt/GDP ratios. Citigroup expects Spain’s to jump from 69 percent at the end of last year to 101 percent at the end of 2013, in part because of the cost of bailing out its banks, while Italy’s will shoot up from 120 percent to 135 percent. These eye-popping numbers then reinforce anxiety in the markets.

All of this is having a corrosive effect on the political landscape. In Italy, the situation is especially precarious as Mario Monti, the technocratic prime minister, has repeatedly said he will resign after next spring’s elections. The centre-left Democratic Party, which is leading in the opinion polls, is still committed to the euro. But the second and third most popular political groups – the Five Star movement led by comedian Beppe Grillo, and Silvio Berlusconi’s PdL – are either outright eurosceptics or toying with becoming so.

The situation is slightly better in Spain because Mariano Rajoy has a solid majority and doesn’t officially have to face the electorate for three and a half years. But hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets last week to protest against the latest austerity measures. Pundits are starting to speculate that Rajoy may not last his full term. And if the Italian and Spanish governments can’t carry their people with them along the reform path, the fear is that Germany may no longer support them.

High borrowing costs, capital flight, and economic and political weakness: to escape this vortex, the immediate priority is to get Spain’s and Italy’s bond yields back down. The goal should be to cut borrowing costs below 5 percent – a level that would no longer be that worrying. While most of the ways of doing this have been vetoed by Germany, at least two haven’t.

One is to leverage up the European Stabilisation Mechanism, the region’s bailout fund, so that it has enough money to fund both Madrid and Rome. Neither Germany nor the European Central Bank want to let the ESM borrow money from the ECB itself. But what about lifting the cap on how much it can borrow from the market?

Another option would be for the core countries, led by Germany and France, to subsidise Spain’s and Italy’s interest rates directly – giving back to the southern Europeans part of the benefit they are enjoying from their own extremely low borrowing costs. If they agreed to close half the gap between the core and the periphery, such a scheme would cost around 75 billion euros over seven years, according to a Breakingviews’ calculation. An interest-rate subsidy would also give markets the confidence that Madrid and Rome would be able to finance their debts and so could further lower their borrowing costs.

There would, of course, have to be conditions. In Italy, Monti needs to embark on a second wave of reforms. In particular, he should launch a mass multi-year privatisation programme and a big one-off wealth tax to cut Italy’s debt. But after Spain’s recent plan to clean up its banking sector and further tighten its belt, there is little more to be asked of it.

Germany is right to insist on reforms. But it should balance the stick with a bigger carrot. Otherwise, the single currency from which it benefits so much could collapse.

A year ago Rupert Murdoch was probably the most powerful unelected person operating in Britain. The media baron could seemingly choose prime ministers. Then came the phone hacking and police bribery scandal, after which politicians sought to distance themselves from him.

The title of most powerful unelected Briton now probably belongs to Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England. Witness the way he dispatched Barclays’ chief executive Bob Diamond two weeks ago in connection with the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Whoever succeeds King next year will have even greater powers. After all, responsibility for financial stability and banking supervision is about to be added to the central bank’s main task of running monetary policy. It’s vital for democracy that this authority is exercised effectively, transparently and fairly.

Who will be King’s successor when he steps down? And how will the new governor be made accountable? These questions have been brought into sharp relief by the Libor scandal. The front runner for King’s job has seen his chances knocked, while doubts have been raised about the central bank’s effectiveness and transparency.

The next governor will need to be something of a superman. Expertise in how to manage financial crises is probably the top requirement given that the euro could blow up and there wouldn’t be time for on-the-job learning. Strong management skills are also important as failure to delegate effectively would lead the incumbent to be swamped. Finally, the governor will have to be a good communicator.

Until the Libor scandal broke, Paul Tucker, one of the BoE’s deputy governors, was the favourite. He has a strong track record as a crisis manager. But his apparent failure to recognise early warnings that the Libor interest rate was being rigged has made him look naive.

Another candidate is Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, a large chunk of whose functions are about to be merged into the central bank. Although the FSA hasn’t covered itself with glory in investigating the Libor affair, most of the abuses occurred before Turner took the helm.

Both men will be grilled by members of parliament this week, Tucker for the second time. If neither impresses, the field will be wide open for other candidates like Gus O’Donnell, formerly Britain’s top civil servant, and Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada.

Holding the next governor accountable will be as important as choosing one. The Bank of England was rightly given considerable independence in 1997 to prevent politicians meddling in monetary policy in order to advance their electoral interests. But the institution and its leader have slipped up on enough occasions that leaving them entirely to their own devices isn’t a good option either.

For example, King didn’t sound the alarm loudly enough during the credit bubble and was slow to act when there was a run on Northern Rock, the mortgage bank, in 2007. He then long resisted any investigations into the Bank of England’s own failings in managing the crisis. Now its hands-off approach to the Libor scandal is being revealed.

Based purely on its record, the central bank wouldn’t be receiving extra powers. However, the Conservative-led government has tried to pin the blame for the credit crunch on the previous Labour government’s policies – in particular, its decision to take away the central bank’s responsibility for banking supervision. Hence, it has become politically convenient to reverse that move.

Given this, the priority should be to enhance the Bank of England’s accountability. Under the current system, the government sets inflation targets and picks the governor. It also chooses the deputy governors and members of two committees: the monetary policy committee which sets interest rates; and the financial policy committee which will soon be responsible for financial stability. Their independent members help prevent the governor becoming too dominant.

The Bank of England also has a board, called the Court. But this has been largely ineffective. Though it has recently stepped up its scrutiny of the central bank’s executives, it is hamstrung because it rightly has no say over policy or who is the governor.

Meanwhile, parliament can call the governor and other senior officials in to give evidence. Although this is a potentially important check to the central bank’s power, MPs haven’t yet used this tool effectively. Take the ongoing hearings over the Libor scandal. They did a poor job of interrogating Diamond, failing to coordinate their questions and seeming more intent on grabbing headlines than getting to the truth. While the subsequent sessions were better planned, they were still not penetrating enough.

MPs have a chance to raise their game in this week’s hearings. A key line of questioning ought to be how exactly King managed to persuade Barclays to get rid of Diamond. Few people will shed tears at Diamond’s departure given that he epitomised the City of London’s greed. But the FSA – not the central bank – is still Barclays’ primary regulator. Parliamentarians should satisfy themselves that the governor did not overstep his authority.

One way of improving democratic control would be to give MPs the right to hold nomination hearings and, in extremis, reject the government’s choice for governor and other top positions. Indeed, that’s what parliamentarians want. But the government is resisting. If MPs are to change its mind, they must first show they are up to the job.

It won’t just be the Bank of England on trial this week. Parliament too will be in the dock.

Was Bob Diamond really irreplaceable? Barclays’ board operated for 15 years on the assumption that he was. As a result, the UK bank’s chief executive became more powerful – and ever harder to replace. Now that he has been kicked out in the wake of the Libor rate-rigging scandal, Barclays is struggling to find new leadership.

This is an object lesson for all companies, not just banks. Think of two other UK-listed groups which have recently provoked shareholder anger over their bosses’ high pay packages: WPP, the advertising giant; and miner Xstrata. In both cases, the boards paid their chief executives so much because they thought they were indispensable.

Barclays is now in a mess. Not only has Diamond quit, his chairman, Marcus Agius, has also said he will resign. Both men ultimately had to go: Diamond had come to epitomise the worst of the City of London’s greed, while Agius seemed unable to hold his chief executive in check. Neither man responded to requests for comment.

The manner of their going means the bank is now rudderless at a time when a political storm is swirling around it and a financial crisis is bubbling across the English Channel.

It will be hard to find a good candidate to replace Diamond, given that Barclays has now become a political football and the next boss will have to put up with intense media scrutiny. Attracting a good chairman won’t be easy either, although the deputy chairman, Michael Rake, seems prepared to step into the breach.

Diamond was undoubtedly an entrepreneurial banker. When he took over Barclays Capital in late 1997, the lender’s investment banking unit had 135 billion pounds in assets and made 252 million pounds in pre-tax profit. By last year, assets were 1.2 trillion pounds and profit was 3 billion pounds.

This dramatic growth was largely a function of two factors: the multi-year credit boom that lasted until 2007; and Diamond’s ability to persuade the Barclays board to pour resources into investment banking. This expansion continued after the crunch, when the bank acquired the largest chunk of Lehman Brothers out of bankruptcy.

Barclays’ share price performance, however, has been miserable, more than halving over the near-15 year period. During that time, Diamond and his key lieutenants received hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation. Diamond himself has earned at least 120 million pounds since he joined the board in 2005, according to Manifest, the corporate governance group.

Diamond ran BarCap as a fiefdom, with seemingly little oversight from a series of chairmen and chief executives at the parent bank. Despite the successes, there were problems: sometimes excessive risks were run; the organisation developed fiendishly complicated tax-minimisation schemes for its clients that went right to the border of what was legal; and, of course, it has now emerged that some Barclays traders attempted to manipulate Libor.

Diamond’s first slip came in 1998 when BarCap expanded its exposure to Russia just before the Kremlin defaulted and devalued. But Barclays kept him on, fearing that the investment bank would be too fragile if he quit. The idea of Diamond the indispensable was born.

Over the next six years, BarCap expanded so rapidly that Diamond was considered a candidate to be the next Barclays chief executive. In the end, the board chose John Varley. But directors were worried that Diamond would leave and, soon afterwards, gave him the title of president of Barclays in addition to that of BarCap chief executive. That seems to have undermined Varley’s authority.

When Varley retired at the end of 2010, BarCap was contributing 79 percent of the whole bank’s profit and Diamond was the obvious successor. He then became an even more dominant force in the bank.

In theory, a strong chairman could have acted as a counterweight. But, in Agius, Barclays doesn’t seem to have had such a chairman. This became apparent when Diamond was awarded 80 percent of his bonus for last year despite himself describing the results as unacceptable. Almost 27 percent of shareholders voted against the Barclays remuneration report.

The fiasco over this year’s pay finally persuaded Barclays’ non-executive directors that they needed a new chairman. They told Agius that they wanted him to step down at next year’s shareholder meeting. But before they could implement the plan, the Libor scandal blew up.

The board initially decided to hang onto Diamond – in part because there was nobody obvious to replace him. His two top lieutenants – Rich Ricci, BarCap’s chief executive, and Jerry Del Missier, Barclays’ chief operating officer – were both part of the same brash culture and out of tune with the current zeitgeist.

Agius himself decided to fall on his sword, seemingly thinking this would take the heat off Diamond even though the rate-rigging was an operational matter and so nothing to do with the chairman. But the Bank of England made clear this was not the right response and that Diamond would have to go.

Agius is, therefore, hanging on and running the executive committee on a stopgap basis even though he doesn’t appear to have the necessary skills. Meanwhile, the bank is looking for both a new chairman and chief executive.

And the moral of the story? Boards must always counterbalance strong chief executives with strong chairmen and have good succession plans in place. Most importantly, they should never treat anybody as indispensable – in case that is what they become.

Cuando despertó, el dinosaurio todavía estaba allí. “Upon waking, the dinosaur was still there.”

This extremely short story by Guatemalan writer Augusto Monterroso sums up the state of play on the euro crisis. Last week’s summit took important steps to stop the immediate panic. But the big economies of Italy and Spain are shrinking and there is no agreed long-term vision for the zone. In other words, the crisis is still there.

The summit’s decisions are not to be sniffed at. The agreement that the euro zone’s bailout fund should, in time, be able to recapitalise banks directly rather than via national governments will help break the so-called doom loop binding troubled lenders and troubled governments. That is a shot in the arm for both Spain and Ireland. Meanwhile, unleashing the bailout fund to stabilise sovereign bond markets could stop Rome’s and Madrid’s bond yields rising to unsustainable levels.

Insofar as this restores investors’ confidence, Spain and Italy could avoid the need to obtain a full bailout or restructure their debts. And Ireland, which is in a full bailout programme, could exit that and fund itself in the market again.

The immediate market reaction on Friday was positive. The yield on 10-year bonds fell: for Spain from 6.9 percent to 6.3 percent, for Italy from 6.2 percent to 5.8 percent and for Ireland from 7.1 percent to 6.4 percent. But these rates are still high. And, with the exception of Ireland, Friday’s market movements only take prices back to where they were in May.

What’s more, as the details of Friday’s agreement are picked over, some of the market euphoria may well fade. After all, Germany, the zone’s paymaster, hasn’t written a blank cheque.

Take the bank recapitalisation plan. Madrid is planning to inject up to 100 billion euros into its banks and Dublin has already sunk 64 billion euros into its lenders. The big question is whether the euro zone will reimburse them the full amount invested, given that the stakes in the banks aren’t worth as much. That seems unlikely. But if the full sum isn’t paid, the debt relief for Spain and Ireland may not be as big as some are hoping.

Or look at the market stabilisation mechanism. The euro zone bailout fund’s resources are limited, so it might not be able to keep Italian and Spanish borrowing costs down in the long run. What’s more, to access this mechanism, a country would have to agree to a memorandum of understanding setting out its policy commitments to reform its economy. This means that there will still be some stigma attached to the scheme – which probably explains why Rome and Madrid aren’t rushing to sign up.

To point out that Germany’s Angela Merkel hasn’t agreed a blank cheque is not to criticise the summit compromise. It is essential that Italy’s Mario Monti and Spain’s Mariano Rajoy take further measures to restore their countries’ competitiveness. A second wave of reforms is needed, but both prime ministers have lost momentum in recent months. Money for nothing will take away pressure to do more.

However, the continued uncertainty about exactly how bank bailouts and market stabilisation will work means that the summit did not produce a neat package. As the loose ends are tied up, there could be further wrangling that unnerves investors.

Meanwhile, GDP in both Italy and Spain are continuing to shrink. This means that they won’t hit their deficit reduction targets and that their debts and unemployment will rise further. The summit’s 120 billion euro growth pact isn’t likely to move the needle. More may need to be done to shore up growth. One obvious suggestion would be still looser monetary policy from the European Central Bank.

Recession also has political consequences, especially in Italy, where elections are due next spring at the latest. Both Beppe Grillo, a comedian whose populist Cinque Stelle movement has come from virtually nowhere to 20 percent in the opinion polls in recent months, and Silvio Berlusconi, the former prime minister, are playing the eurosceptic card. In the circumstances, Monti’s technocratic government will struggle to gain political support for any more reforms. Investors and Italy’s euro partners will, in turn, worry about what comes after him.

The euro zone leaders also agreed, in principle, on the first step towards a long-term vision for the region: the creation of a single banking supervisor “involving the ECB”. If this cleans up the mess in large parts of the European financial system, it will be good. But some countries will not wish to surrender control over their banks to a centralised authority and so it is quite possible that some messy fudge will emerge.

If the question of a single banking supervisor is likely to be subject to future disputes, even more disagreement can be expected over whether there should be a full political and fiscal union. Some countries like Germany want much more common decision making, but others fear the loss of sovereignty. Meanwhile, many weaker nations want to pool their debts – an idea rightly rejected by Merkel.

Europe’s people are not ready for full political union. So the best solution would be to keep the loss of sovereignty and debt-sharing down to the minimum. But the summit kicked these big issues into touch.

The dinosaur is less terrifying than it was a few weeks ago. But it is still there.