Showing posts with label Hungary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hungary. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

not all East Europe's economies are the same, though some of the differences between them might surprise you

TO BE NOTED: From Euro Watch:

"Not All East The European Economies Are The Same"

This was Angela Merkel's point wasn't it, if you remember, as she came out of the April EU summit she argued:

“Saying that the situation is the same for all central and eastern European states, I don’t see that……you cannot compare the dire situation in Hungary with that of other countries.”

The Economist made a similar point at the time:

“Most other countries in the region are faring much better, though….Like Slovenia, which joined two years ago, Slovakia can enjoy the full protection of rich Europe’s currency union, rather than just the indirect benefit of being due to join it some day.”

And basically, it is true, not all East Europe's economies are the same, though some of the differences between them might surprise you. There are, of course, many different ways in which to compare the economies of the East, but one very simple one, in terms of the present crisis, is the reading they register on the EU monthly Economic Sentiment Indicator. This is a composite which measures sentiment in industry, servces, construction, retail and building, and does at least have the advantage of offering us a rule of thumb guide as to how a country is handling the crisis.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Investors are demanding more than triple the yield they sought a year ago to own Hungarian bonds denominated in foreign currencies.

TO BE NOTED: From Bloomberg:

"IMF Lending Exceeding $55 Billion Prompts Bondholders’ Anxiety

By Simon Kennedy and Sandrine Rastello

April 20 (Bloomberg) -- The International Monetary Fund may be so conscious of having handed out bad advice to needy countries in the past that it isn’t offering them enough guidance now.

The Washington-based lender is combating the worst financial turmoil in its 64-year history with more than $55 billion in loans for nations from Pakistan to Serbia. As the fund prepares to lend even more, it is retreating from its practice -- carried out with adverse effects a decade ago in Asia -- of demanding that governments overhaul their economic systems in return for aid.

The risk is that without more-stringent loan requirements, borrowers won’t reform their foundering economies, leaving investors to enforce the discipline -- and delay recovery -- by shunning the nations’ debt and currencies. Among the economies whose markets may be most vulnerable are those in eastern Europe such as Latvia and Hungary, say Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc.

“The pendulum may be swinging too far,” says Claudio Loser, former head of the fund’s Western Hemisphere department and now a fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. “There was a strong perception that the IMF used to ask too much of countries. Now there is a major danger it’s moved too far in the direction of not setting enough conditions.”

$750 Billion

Little more than a year ago, the IMF -- which convenes its spring meeting in Washington April 25 -- lacked both relevance and resources. Now its lending firepower is being tripled to $750 billion by the Group of 20 nations. The G-20 also agreed to give the IMF another $250 billion in Special Drawing Rights, an overdraft facility for its 185 members.

“The IMF needs to adapt,” Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the fund’s managing director, said in an April 16 speech. “Its lending must become more flexible and better tailored to country circumstances.”

The fund said last month it would set fewer goals for nations to commit to in return for aid and would place less emphasis on structural reforms such as overhauling banking or tax systems. It also eased terms for a credit line introduced in October that is now attracting interest from Mexico and Poland.

“There’s lots of money but little pressure for economies to adjust,” says Kenneth Rogoff, former IMF chief economist and now a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It’s much more fun being Santa Claus than Scrooge.”

Market Rally

So far, aid packages from the IMF have buoyed markets in some emerging economies. Mexico’s peso strengthened 8 percent against the U.S. currency, and Poland’s zloty appreciated 1.1 percent versus the euro since the countries said they will seek IMF credit lines.

Ukraine’s equities and bonds have rallied since the IMF announced its $16.4 billion bailout in October, with the benchmark PFTS stock index gaining 47 percent, and the nation’s 7.65 percent U.S. dollar bonds due 2013 climbing 35 percent.

If governments don’t improve their fiscal policies, though, investors will deprive their economies of capital and punish their bonds, stocks and currencies, says Win Thin, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman in New York.

“We cannot see investors piling back into the emerging- market countries with the worst fundamentals, even if the global crisis continues to abate,” Thin says.

Triple the Yield

Investors are demanding more than triple the yield they sought a year ago to own Hungarian bonds denominated in foreign currencies. Pension funds may pull out of Latvia after Fitch Ratings on April 8 downgraded its debt to junk, says Karlis Danevics, head of the Latvian credit department of Stockholm- based bank SEB AB.

Fitch said about half the countries in central and eastern Europe may face credit-rating downgrades. The ability of governments to stick with their IMF commitments will help determine the ratings, Fitch said.

Thin says ratings companies may still be too confident in the sovereign debt of Latvia, Hungary and Romania. ING Romania analysts say the country may exceed the budget-deficit target of 4.6 percent of gross domestic product that its government agreed on with the IMF.

“IMF money helps resolve issues to do with liquidity, but is only one part of the process of overhauling economies with more fundamental problems, for example Latvia, Ukraine and Hungary,” says Timothy Ash, head of emerging-market economics at Royal Bank of Scotland.

Missing Opportunity

Economists from countries now receiving aid say the fund is missing an opportunity to force lasting reforms.

Zoltan Torok of Raiffeisen International Bank AG in Budapest says the IMF has been “very soft” on Hungary -- first calling for the budget deficit to be reduced to 2.6 percent of gross domestic product from 3.4 percent last year, then settling for about 3 percent.

He says the IMF didn’t go far enough in pushing for cutbacks to Hungary’s pension system. Almost a third of the population of 10 million is retired, and their benefits account for 10 percent of GDP, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In Serbia, Stojan Stamenkovic, head of the Belgrade-based Economic Institute, says the fund has suggested it “will accept any solution” from the government that cuts the 190 billion- dinar ($2.7 billion) budget deficit by 100 billion dinars. That’s not enough, given that Serbia’s economy is likely to contract 10 percent this year, he says.

Social Programs

Elsewhere, the fund has eased its embrace of free markets and aversion to big government while increasing its emphasis on social programs. For its $7.6 billion loan package, Pakistan was given the goal of tripling spending for the poor to 0.9 percent of GDP. Asad Farid, an economist at AKD Securities in Karachi, says the IMF lacks a “long-term policy” that would encourage Pakistan to cut its trade deficit and increase capital investment.

The biggest test for the IMF’s new strategy may come in Turkey, where aid talks collapsed in January. Economic Minister Mehmet Simsek said March 26, after the talks resumed, that he expected the fund to show more flexibility.

“It would be positive if the new approach means there’s a new perspective” on the size of the spending cuts the IMF will seek, he said.

Ukraine’s Deficit

The fund hasn’t completely rolled over. It delayed a second installment of financing for Ukraine after objecting to the government’s proposal to run a budget deficit of 5 percent of GDP, agreeing April 17 to accept a shortfall of 4 percent. It also postponed a 200 million-euro ($264 million) transfer to Latvia after the government failed to cut its deficit quickly enough. Iceland was ordered to lift its benchmark interest rate to a record 18 percent.

Such demands prove to Kevin Daly, who helps oversee about $4 billion in emerging-markets bonds at Aberdeen Asset Management Plc in London, that the IMF is “striking the right balance” between support and restraint.

“There’s a realization that there is still some discipline from the IMF and that countries will have to address its measures,” Daly says.

Still, the fund’s shift signals recognition that it went too far in the 1990s demanding free-market policies that often deepened crises and alienated it from nations it sought to help.

Sweeping Cuts

In 1997 the IMF pushed sweeping spending cuts and interest- rate increases on Thailand in return for a $3.9 billion loan. Within six months, the fund conceded it had been too aggressive as Thailand’s growth and tax revenue plunged. Riots flared in Indonesia when the government carried out the IMF’s call to eliminate fuel and food subsidies for the poor.

“The good news is that they’ve committed themselves not to have the structural conditionality that was part of the rigidity, part of the problem in the East Asia crisis,” Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said in an April 16 interview.

For some countries that need aid, such as Mexico and Poland, “we won’t ask them for anything to change, because they have the right policies and it’s absolutely not their fault that they’re in a difficult situation,” Strauss-Kahn, 59, said in response to a question after his April 16 speech.

In other cases, such as aid to Romania, he said he asked his team not “to fix the world, fix all the problems” as sometimes they wanted to do in the past “but just to fix the problems they’re facing.”

Jonathan Anderson, an economist at UBS AG in Hong Kong, says that even if the IMF has relaxed its conditions for assistance, that’s no reason for governments to delay paring debts and fiscal imbalances.

“If depositors in Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine or other cases wake up one morning and decide they all want to get out of the currency at once, it probably doesn’t matter how big the IMF package is,” Anderson says. “There are still potential blowup scenarios out there.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Sandrine Rastello in Paris at srastello@bloomberg.net; Simon Kennedy in Paris at skennedy4@bloomberg.net"

Monday, January 26, 2009

"At the end of the day, they know there's no alternative to the market economy."

From the Washington Post:

"Economic Crisis Fuels Unrest in E. Europe

Shaky Governments Face Growing Anger

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 26, 2009; A01

RIGA, Latvia -- On a frigid evening this month, more than 10,000 people gathered outside a 13th-century cathedral in this Baltic capital to protest the government's handling of Latvia's economic crisis and demand early elections. The demonstration was one of the largest here since the mass rallies against Soviet rule in the late 1980s, and a sign of both the public's frustration and its faith in the political system.

But at the end of the night, as the crowd dispersed, the protest turned into a riot. Hundreds of angry young people, many drunk and recently unemployed, rampaged through the historic Old Town, smashing shop windows, throwing rocks and eggs at police, even prying cobblestones from the streets to lob at the Parliament building.

Similar outbursts of civil unrest have occurred in recent weeks across the periphery of Europe, where the global financial crisis has buffeted smaller countries with fewer resources to defend their economies. Especially in Eastern Europe, the turmoil reflects surging political discontent and threatens to topple shaky governments that have been the focus of popular resentment over corruption for years. ( YES )

Europeans have compared the unrest to events of the 1960s and even the 1930s, when the Great Depression fueled political upheaval across the continent and gave rise to isolationism and fascism. But no ideology has tapped into public anger and challenged the basic dominance of free-market economics and democratic politics in these countries( GOOD NEWS SO FAR ). Instead, protesters appear united primarily by dashed economic hopes and hostility against the ruling authorities.

"The politicians never think about the country, about the ordinary people," said Nikolai Tikhomirov, 23, an electronics salesman who participated in the Jan. 13 protest in Riga. "They only think of themselves."

Days after the riot, a demonstration by 7,000 protesters in neighboring Lithuania turned violent, leading police to respond with rubber bullets. Fifteen people were injured. Smaller protests and clashes have erupted in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary, following weeks of street violence in Greece last month. On Thursday, police in Iceland used tear gas for the first time in half a century to disperse a crowd of 2,000 protesting outside Parliament in Reykjavik. The next day, Prime Minister Geir Haarde agreed to call early elections and said he would step down.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said the financial crisis could cause further turmoil "almost everywhere," listing Latvia, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine as among the most vulnerable nations. "It may worsen in the coming months," he told the BBC. "The situation is really, really serious."( I AGREE )

There is particular concern about the relatively young and sometimes dysfunctional democracies that emerged after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, where societies that endured severe hardship in the 1990s in the hope that capitalism and integration with the West would bring prosperity now face further pain.

"The political systems in all these countries are fragile," said Jonathan Eyal, director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, a research group in London. "There's a long history of unfulfilled promises and frustration with the political elites going back to the Communist era."

Eyal warned of a revival of ethnic conflict in the region, where most countries have large minority populations, adding that tensions could rise after workers who have lost jobs in Western Europe return home. But he noted that extreme nationalist movements have won only limited support in Eastern Europe in recent years.

"People here instinctively know the idea of a strongman who imposes order doesn't work," he said, arguing that the region's history with Communist rule, its integration with the European Union and its anxiety about Russia's intentions make a turn toward authoritarianism unlikely. "They have seen the past, and a return to previous populist schemes isn't very persuasive. At the end of the day, they know there's no alternative to the market economy."( I HOPE HE'S RIGHT )

That assessment rings true in Latvia, where the government's approval ratings have fallen as low as 10 percent -- the worst in the European Union, and lower than at any other time in the nation's post-Soviet history -- but where people scoff when asked if they want to abandon markets and political freedoms.

"If some politician said, 'Let's leave the E.U., give up democracy and free markets,' you can be sure that nobody would vote for him," said Aigars Freimanis, director of Latvia's largest polling firm. The memory of Soviet occupation makes it difficult even for mildly left-wing parties to win elections, he said.

But Freimanis said public anger could bring significant political change, noting that the crisis has renewed debate on constitutional reforms, including measures to give citizens the right to dismiss Parliament and to vote for individual lawmakers instead of only political parties.

"We want more democracy, not less( GOOD )," said Renata Kalivod, 28, a social worker who attended the protest in Riga. She said that her father, who recently lost his job, had given up on elections but that she still believed it was possible for the public to have an impact. "If I gave up, I would leave the country like other young people. But I'm still here," she said.

After enjoying double-digit growth rates that were among the highest in the E.U., Latvia is now struggling to defend its currency and survive a sharp slowdown. The economy is forecast to shrink by 5 percent this year, after a 2 percent drop last year. Unemployment has doubled in the last six months to 8 percent, with the rate three times as high among young people.

Forced to accept a $10.5 billion bailout from the IMF, the European Union and other sources -- including neighboring Estonia, a fact some considered humiliating -- the government has embarked on an austerity program involving 25 percent budget cuts, 15 percent wage reductions for civil servants and large-scale layoffs.

Aigars Stokenbergs, an opposition leader in Parliament who quit the ruling coalition and helped organize this month's protest, said the public was as upset about corruption as economic mismanagement. The same conservative parties have dominated the government for years, he said, and many believe they serve a handful of billionaires who struck it rich in the privatization schemes of the 1990s.

"People don't want this government anymore. They don't trust it," he said, criticizing Parliament for firing the nation's anti-corruption chief in June and adopting the IMF reforms in a single day without consulting unions, businesses or other groups.

But Andris Berzins, a leader in the ruling coalition and former prime minister, said the public's anger is misplaced because the country's problems are rooted in decisions by previous administrations to expand spending instead of building up reserves. "The government needs to take some very serious economic reforms, but it hasn't been able to build public support for them," he said.

Public anger intensified in December when the finance minister, Atis Slakteris, badly fumbled an interview on Bloomberg Television. Asked what had caused Latvia's economic crisis, he replied, "Nothing special." The words were soon emblazoned on T-shirts and shop windows as parodies proliferated on the Internet.

The riots, which left about 25 people injured and resulted in 106 arrests, have unnerved people in part because Latvia has practically no history of such violence. Some are worried the crisis will exacerbate tensions between ethnic Latvians and the nation's Russian-speaking minorities, who make up more than a third of the population.( THIS ETHNIC CONFLICT IS WORRYING )

President Valdis Zatlers has responded by distancing himself from the ruling coalition that elected him and essentially siding with the opposition, threatening to dismiss Parliament if it fails by March 31 to pass a set of reforms and take other specific actions to build public trust.

But under Latvia's aging constitution, the president must call an unprecedented referendum to dismiss Parliament. Early elections would be held if it passed, followed by talks to form a new government. The entire process could take more than eight months, and some say such a prolonged period of political uncertainty would hinder Latvia's efforts to repair its economy, resulting in further unrest.

Governments across Eastern Europe face similar uncertainty, and analysts said the timing of electoral cycles could determine which ones fall. Newly elected governments in Lithuania and Romania might survive, for example, while the Bulgarian government faces elections this summer and is in trouble.

Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, said it makes sense in Latvia to hold new elections because the current Parliament is "utterly discredited" and can do little for the economy in any case. "You can't have a government that has no support," he said. "It's useless."( TRUE )

Analysts said the E.U. serves as a bulwark against radical politics in the region, but they warned of a backlash if the developed nations that dominate policymaking ignored the problems of the smaller ones( YES ). In Latvia, politicians and business leaders complain about E.U. agricultural subsidies that benefit farmers in Western Europe and trade barriers in the service sector. But they have praised the E.U.'s swift response to the country's economic crisis so far.

Pavel Nazarov, 21, a physics student who participated in the rally, said he welcomed E.U. intervention for another reason. "They can keep an eye on our corrupt politicians," he said, "even when we can't."

All in all, considering there are protests and riots, this is good news.

Friday, December 26, 2008

"and that we can learn things about how to handle our present problems by looking at the experience of 1930s"

From A Fistful Of Euros:

"Well, one good turn deserves another. So if, like Paul Krugman (and me, I think, though I hadn’t gotten as far as thinking through all the implications of what was happening when I posted the original piece) you take the view the Ukraine industrial output chart I put up yesterday is the smoking gun (or starter’s pistol, or line judge flag, or whichever metaphor works for you) that tells us that the second great depression has now begun, then here are some more of those tell-tale charts to put in you pipe and smoke - or if , like Huck Finn that is your preference, to chew on.

(Update: someone in comments has made the perfectly legitimate point that Paul Krugman may only be saying that a Great Depression has broken out in Ukraine, and obviously only he can say what he really thinks, but as far as I am concerned, since one of the hallmarks of the original Great Depression was a sudden sharp drop in output, sustained over a number of years, and in a large group of countries, accompanied in several cases by outright price deflation, then I do think that a depression rather than a recession( DON'T AGREE ) is what we now have on our hands, and what makes me more or less sure about that is looking not only at what is happening in Ukraine, but also at neighbouring Russia, and China, and so on and so on. Evidently, since history never exactly repeats itself, I am certainly not saying that this is going to last a decade, or end in a big war, or anything like that, but that it is already in the history books, and already in the class of large and unusual economic phenomena, and that we can learn things about how to handle our present problems by looking at the experience of 1930s, of all of this I am absolutely sure, and I have a pretty good idea that both Bernanke and Krugman are too, if you look at the constant references to those years in almost everything they say and do these days( THE 1930s ARE OF LIMITED USE. IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT )

Now For Some Charts

Japan industrial output isn’t exactly falling at the same dramatic pace as Ukraine, but a 16.2% year on year fall isn’t to be sniffed at either, and this is what they informed us today happened in November. Worse still, according to Japan’s Economy Ministry output is expected to decrease by a further 8.0% between November and December, which, if accurate, will surely push the year on year decline in December over the 20% mark, not the great depression, but then again, not exactly enjoyable.

And exports, which drive the Japanese economy, were down by 26.7% in November. Even more to the point, deflation is baaack, or almost back, since “core” core prices hit zero (or 0.1% below current overnight BoJ interest rates) in November, and outright deflation surely isn’t far behind.

You can find more detail on all today’s Japan data over at the Japan Economy Watch Blog, and for those of you who want some more deflation background on Japan, well, Krugman has the goods here (extremely wonkish).

Moving nearer to home we have Germany. Here is the latest (flash) December manufacturing PMI for Germany, which is just about as point of the spear as you can get in terms of just in time data.

The slope of that line looks pretty telling doesn’t it, especially if you are into depression economics. Then we have the November new orders chart, another shocker, and indicator of much worse to come, I think.

Now going back to this point:

“There is a burgeoning economic crisis in the European periphery,” Krugman said on the ABC network Dec. 14. “The money has dried up. That’s the new center, the center of this crisis has moved from the U.S. housing market to the European periphery.”

I think this is largely true, if we mean by the periphery the UK, Ireland, Eastern and Southern Europe, but the periphery in a very literal sense always ends up biting the hand that feeds it, since German industry depends on exports to that periphery perhaps more than to anywhere else, so it is not surprising that once the periphery folds, the shock wave moves on in towards the centre. I don’t know if the blast which is about to hit Germany next year will count as a depression, but if it doesn’t, it is going to be a damn close call. And the hard part for Germany is when you get to ask yourself where exactly the new demand will come from to drive the exports( THE GOVERNMENT COULD SPEND, WHICH IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN )?

Moving off now towards the periphery, we have Spain to the south, where the money certainly has dried up, and with it internal demand for Spain’s manufactured products. The November PMI showed Spanish industry contracting at an all time series maximum for any country.

Central Europe

The whole of central European manufacturing is now contracting rapidly. First off, the Czech Republic

Then Poland

And finally (for this little illustration) Hungary

Then There Is Russia

Moving on now to Russia, industrial output was down by 8.9% year on year in November, so it hasn’t yet reached Ukraine levels, but at the rate of contraction they are experiencing I wouldn’t be too confident that that state of affairs will last too long.

And Finally China

Where the November PMI also showed quite a strong contraction:

So where does that leave us? Well basically I’m not sure. We still need to see more data. (Do I sound horribly like Jean Claude Trichet at this point?). If we look at the chart for US industrial output which Krugman presents, the first thing which is pretty obvious is that the 1928-1930 boom-bust was a pretty rapid affair.

After that output dropped very sharply, going in the space of twelve months from a 20% expansion to a near 30% contraction, and the contraction continued at those levels until mid 1932, when the position started to improve - although all this year on year % contraction data is a bit misleading for non specialists, since to have a 30% contraction in mid 1932, following near 30% contraction in mid 1930 and (what) a 15% contraction in mid 1931 (taking into account base effects) then the drop is really massive, and I doubt even Ukraine (barring very worst case scenarios where the country simply disintegrates) will get this. But where this current output slump (or call it what you will) in a number of key countries already does resemble the 1930s more than any other drop in activity since (remember, Japan’s November fall in output is greater than anything that has happened in the entire lost decade-and-a-half) is in the sharpness of the drop, and in the sequencing of events. By sequencing I mean the fact that we have had a pretty dramatic financial crisis, which has lead to a generalised loss of confidence in the banking sector( THIS IS TRUE. THE AVERSION AND FEAR OF RISK ), and this in turn has produced a credit crunch, which is now working its way right through the real system( TRUE, IT'S ALL THE FEAR AND AVERSION TO RISK ). And nothing, but nothing, at this point, seems to be barring its pass( IT WILL SUBSIDE NEXT YEAR ). That is the worrying bit, and that is why I don’t think we are going to see a generalised “turnaround” in activity in 2010, or even 2011, this show is going to run and run, at least in some of the worst affected countries. And we still don’t know just how many icebergs there are lying out there for our convoy to hit. Life, as we know, is always full of surprises, and we should ever be ready for them, for good or for ill."

I don't see things this way. For one thing, the steep decline tells you that it can't be fundamentals, which don't fall off a cliff like that. Rather, like a Bank Run, this is a generalized Fear and Aversion to Risk and the Accompanying Flight to Safety. Because it began in the US, it has rippled around the world. When the US turns around, that will ripple around the world as well. The movement of information is also a main cause of the speed of this tsunami of fear.

I'm saying that the resemblance of the charts, similar in both Spender and Saver Countries, should be a clue that this is not fundamentals driven. It is more like mass panic.