At their meeting on Monday, Euro Group finance ministers had some hot topics to stew over. There was the thorny issue of who’d replace Euro Group President Jean-Claude Juncker, who has had it with this zoo—”I no longer have any illusions about Europe,” he’d muttered earlier. The bailout of Spanish banks was finalized; €39.5 billion would be transferred next week, a down payment. Primary beneficiaries: German and French banks.
And the new bailout of Greece got some finishing touches. The mechanics had already been decided. Interest rates would be lowered. There’d be no interest payments for the first ten years. Times to accomplish the austerity goals would be stretched out. Profits on Greek debt held by the “official sector,” as it’s called in the jargon of the euro bailout mania, would be repatriated. And so on. It was one heck of a sweet deal for Greece.
It followed the bond swap last March that had already whacked private sector investors with a 74% haircut on €206 billion in bonds. The first sovereign default in the Eurozone, albeit a “voluntary” one. It set the tone. Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos proclaimed afterwards in his victory speech: “We owed it to our children and grandchildren to rid them of the burden of this debt.”
Alas, private sector is a rubbery term in the Eurozone. Most of the bondholders that lost their shirts were banks, including banks in Greece, Spain, and Cyprus—and they’re now getting bailed out by the official sector. Their losses from the private-sector haircut are landing on the lap of the taxpayer.
Now the Eurozone’s second sovereign default is underway. The new bailout package for Greece includes a loan of €10 billion with which to buy back some of its bonds at a hefty discount from private sector investors. The process has started. If Greece ends up paying 34% of face value, it could buy back about €28 billion in old bonds. In this manner, it would for all practical purposes default on €18 billion. The deal would also roll €10 billion from the private sector to the official sector.
A few hedge funds that bought this stuff for cents on the euro stand to make a killing. But the Greek and Cypriot banks that are losing a fortune on this deal are the very ones that are already getting bailed out. Hence their private-sector losses from the buyback deal are rolled over to the official sector.
After this transpires, almost all of Greece’s debt will have been transferred to the official sector, spread over the EFSF bailout fund, the IMF, the ECB, the national central banks of the Eurozone including the Bank of Greece, and the EU. And just when the official sector is up to the gills into Greek debt, but not a minute before, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the big haircut, the one that politicians have been denying for years: the official sector would write off a big chunk of this debt, starting in 2014. Greece’s default will be complete.
A sweet deal for Greece. And taxpayers elsewhere now know, rather than having to guess. This cements the principle of piling private-sector losses on the public sector, while claiming that it won’t cost anything, or at least not much … until the real costs seep from the woodwork.
Now Portugal wants the same deal. So does Ireland. And Cyprus. Spain is thinking about it. The can has been opened: last week, Portuguese Finance Minister Vítor Gaspar reminded his colleagues of the EU summit in July 2011—when the Eurozone decided explicitly that all countries to be bailed out would be offered equal terms and conditions. That principle of equal treatment, he said, was also valid for Portugal and Ireland. Then during the Euro Group meeting, Portugal presented its demands.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte wasn’t amused—and made his voice heard in an onslaught of interviews. There should be a way for Greece to leave the Eurozone, he said. And haircuts for official sector creditors? Not a good idea. Out of principle. “That would send the wrong signal to other countries that have debts … like America.”
Juncker too tried desperately to stuff some of the worms back into the can. “I don’t believe that the Euro Group is prepared to let these countries have equal treatment,” he said. And German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble claimed that Greece was a special case. “For Ireland and Portugal, which are in the process of returning to the markets step by step, that would be a catastrophic sign,” he said. That’s how things start out in the Eurozone.
Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:
Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.
We just have to wait till the OSIs begin. As that means that public sector losses will be recognised. Which means that they will start being seen as budget expenditure (and not as a budget neutral item like most guarantees). Which means that something else has to be cut (read entitlement, civil servant wages, or the European/Obama way of cutting raising taxes).
People will really like that in a no growth/deleveraging enviroment with no real wages increases for most but the costs of aging hitting in fully. Juncker will be right this time, they will not know how to get reelected.
My guess about a year from now. Doubtful (but possible) if it will make the next German election. Greece and/or Cyprus will not meet the conditions (and possibly Spain as well).
From there things get really interesting.
Time to reject and stop funding the UN. What does this have to do with the Eurozone?
The UN (UNESCO) and NATO are controlled by the NWO "intellectual elites and world bankers" who are increasingly supplanting all nation’s sovereignty and law makling ability.
How about 'carbon taxes' based on fraudulent science riddled 'climate change being man made? 'Sustainable' spending and your taxes:
In the USA one 'federal' dollar spent costs 10 times more than a similarly spent 'state' dollar simply because of the necessary added bureaucracy (agencies salaries, benefits and pensions, office complexes, information/documentations systems, vehicles, energy/maintenance costs, etc), also the more complex the bureaucracy the easier it is to siphon off or redirect money for ideological or corrupt purposes. This happens with every new 'federal' program. These expensive agencies produce nothing and generate no revenue. NOW IMAGINE WHAT AN 'INTERNATIONAL' OR 'WORLD' DOLLAR WOULD NEED TO COST YOU (your higher taxes -absolutely) to regulate 'you' and your private property by foreign national technocrats. Do we really want to hand out country's sovereignty AND WEALTH over to the UN (mostly 3rd world dictatorships whose votes are easily bought) to regulate the world and us? DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 – OK, So what is Agenda …www.democratsagainstunagenda21.comDemocrats to Stop Agenda 21. We are making common cause with others to end UN social engineering and communitarianism.
United Nations IS Taking Over Towns AROUND THE WORLD (the people pushing this are getting big bucks from the government to do so, watch how the conversation 'changes' in the later apart of the video. Your taxes are funding this effort to removing you from your property. Universities have it as part of their curriculum for school of architecture?
Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any worse, you realize this has been going on under your nose (and above; drones watching you).A liberal democrat and the Tea Party coming together on Agenda 21:
U.N. Agenda 21 w/ author Rosa Koire BEHIND THE GREEN MASK
Here’s ANOTHER recent example:
The (US) EPA is now working ‘internationally’ (INTERNATIONALLY'???) with the UN and UNU (United Nations University); the US EPA has awarded a five-year, $2.5 million grant (US citizens taxes) to the UNU Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP)….and where the fek did they get the money? Did they mention that to the the taxpayers or the people freezing in New Jersey?
“for Sustainability and Peace” right … maybe Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton ought to share the next ‘Nobel Peace Prize’?
US citizens and elected representatives, did YOU know that? Remember the efficiency and accountability (NOT) of 'world' dollars now funding international bureaucracies.
Should Law Enforcement Agencies Have The Power To Write And Enforce Whatever Laws They Desire?
Posted on August 4, 2011
"This is how unelected bureaucrats, such as those in the EPA, can write law that wasn’t necessarily intended by the Congress. We see it all the time. A good example are the recent new regulations being promulgated by the EPA to control carbon emissions from power generating plants that effectively will enforce a carbon cap-and-trade law that the Congress has in fact already rejected."
Now add in the 'federal' DOE, TSA, SEC, FCC, FDA, etc. and all the unelected czars that don't answer to congress (if you really want to scare yourself look into the background and ideology of just two (of 32) czars; John Holdren and Cass Sunstein).