Is Italy’s 0% risk weighted sovereign debt in euros really denominated in their own currency? NO!

Sir, on the eve of the euro, November 1998, in an Op-ed titled “Burning the bridges in Europe” I wrote: “The possibility that the European countries will subordinate their political desires to the whims of a common Central Bank that may be theirs but really isn’t, is not a certainty. Exchange rates, while not perfect, are escape valves. By eliminating this valve, European countries must make their economic adjustments in real terms. This makes these adjustments much more explosive.”

Now you write: “On Tuesday the European Commission, taking a step without precedent in the euro’s 20-year life, demanded that Italy should re-submit its 2019 budget” “Roman theatre clashes with the EU rule book” October 25.

EC’s demand is the direct consequence of Italy no longer possessing the escape valve that a devaluation of their lira used to signify. Not only that. As Italy’s debt is no longer denominated in liras, it will not really have the domestic “benefit” of inflation in their own devalued currency. It is now supposed, like Greece, to serve its debt in euros partly made stronger, by surplus countries like Germany. 

To rub salt into the wound, EU authorities, the European Commission, for the purpose of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, by means of something known as “Sovereign Debt Privileges” or “Equity Capital Privilege”, assigned a 0% risk weight to Italy, which of course had to doom it to unsustainable public debt.

Sir, it is mindboggling how little EU has done to really confront the challenges posed by the euro, those that if unresolved will bring the EU down.

Similarly, it is mindboggling how in all overheated Brexit/Remain discussions, so little attention has been given to the EUs very delicate conditions. How would history recount if the day after Britain capitulates and hands over its Remain, the EU would break up?

Sir, again, I am strongly in favor of the European Union, but not a Banana Union run by eurocrats whose children or grandchildren do most certainly not know how to sing the European Union’s anthem, and if they did, would never put as much enthusiasm into it as Sofia Goggia did when singing her Italy’s national anthem at the Winter Olympics of 2017. 

@PerKurowski

If regulators, or even FT, do not questions the 0% risk weight of sovereigns, why should ordinary citizens care about public sector deficits?

Sir, Janan Ganesh writes“Americans no longer care about deficits, or at least no longer care enough. Their concern about them has waned since the mid-nineties” "How America learnt to love the budget deficit” June 28.

In 1988, with the Basel Accord, regulators introduced risk weighted capital requirements for banks and for that purpose assign risk weights to sovereigns of 0%. And European central banks assigned such 0% even to Greece, and Greece drowned in public debt, and yet no one, not even FT questions that 0% risk weight.

So Sir, why should ordinary Americans care about fiscal deficits when supposedly these can be financed with a 0% risk… because the government controls the money-printing machine?

Ganesh should not worry solely about America, with these statist bank regulators we are all being set up for a horrible crash. 

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf prefers government bureaucrat’s spending money that is not theirs over bankers making loans to SMEs

SMEs and entrepreneurs have less access to bank credit because banks are required to hold more of that scarce bank capital when lending to them, than when for instance lending to the sovereign or to members of the AAArisktocracy. And that is so because SMEs and entreprenuers have been deemed as risky by regulators, even when by being perceived ex ante as risky, de facto makes these borrowers safer for the bank system.

But Martin Wolf has clearly evidenced over the years he is not a slightest concerned with that distortion in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, something which among other permits the supposedly "infallible" sovereign to have more than the usual preferential access to bank credit.

Now Wolf argues again, for the umpteenth time, that: “It is more important to create a robust financial sector. Yet pressure from the Treasury today seems to be to relax constraints. That may well be far riskier for the UK economy in the long run than modest fiscal deficits.” “Osborne’s desire to cut spending makes little sense” March 4.

I cannot but conclude that Martin Wolf, between bankers making loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, or government bureaucrats spending money that is not theirs, much prefers the latter. I don’t!

@PerKurowski ©

Europe, without cleaning up your bank regulations, all what ECB, Brussels and governments do, is useless and dangerous.

Sir, we have bank regulators allowing banks to hold much less equity when lending to a sovereign, than when lending to a small businesses or an entrepreneur; and we have ECB planning to buy up more sovereign debt.

That evidences a public policy based on the assumption that government bureaucrats know better how to invest in an effective way for the economy, and for the society, other people’s money, than what small businesses and entrepreneurs can do when pursuing their own dreams. That is truly a shaky ground on which to salvage the future, of for instance Europe.

And all that nonsense derives from that utterly absurd belief that governments, sovereigns, are less risky, because they have the capacity to tax its own people or to print money.

Sir, whether you stimulate the economy in Europe with ECB’s planned QEs, helicopter drops of money on citizens, or fiscal deficits, does not really matter, neither will work; as long as you have regulations that hinder credit from going freely to where it is most wanted and needed.

And therefore it is so hard for me to understand how Wolfgang Münchau (and You, and most other) can suggest, or evaluate programs, without referring to the need to correct this fundamental flaw, “An imperfect compromise for the Eurozone” January 26.

PS. Münchau writes “Germany’s retirement system — where pensions are not invested in the stock market, but in low-yielding government bonds — is not equipped for an environment in which interest rates are at zero for long periods”. Does he think that system to be better prepared if ECB is too successful fighting deflation?

Sir, is it not high time FT abandons its “Après nous le deluge" mode?

Sir, of the letters I wrote and which you published, before I was censored for the given reason that I wrote too many letters, that which gets the most attention in my blog is the one titled “Long-term benefits of a hard landing”.

In that letter I argued Why not try to go for a big immediate adjustment and get it over with? … This is what the circle of life is all about and all the recent dabbling in topics such as debt sustainability just ignores the value of pruning or even, when urgently needed, of a timely amputation.”

How sad it is that almost eight years later, after having basically wasted QE’s, Paul Serfaty still finds a valid reason to end his letter with “Bite the bullet. Reprice the assets. Write off the unpayable debt. Smite the unwary. Start again with a new confidence that there is an upside”, “QE monster has regulators and markets alike transfixed” January 22.

Sir, look back at what your columnists have written over the last eight years, and you will find that most of it has to do with kicking the can down the road, by means of QEs, fiscal deficits and much other… all having us climb ever higher, that mountain of excessive liquidity, unsafe excessive price of “safe assets” and excessive sovereign debt, from which we must come down from, sooner or later.

Frankly Sir, is it not high time FT abandons its “Après nous le deluge” mode?

The state, instead of taking on more risks, should reorient its risk-taking, towards more basic research

Sir, from what I see from many letters, it would seem that Mariana Mazzucato’s “The Entrepreneurial State”, and Martin Wolf’s review of it, is unleashing a call for the state to run more risks on behalf of society.

Indeed, there is a big and unquestionable role for the state in helping to fund and carry out basic research, but, since the state takes enough risks already on behalf of taxpayers, like with fiscal deficits and quantitative easing, should not the real call be for the state to reorient its risk-taking?

And again I have to remind you. If a bank lends to a small private entrepreneur to carry out some risky research, it is required to have 8 percent in capital but, if it lends to the state so that the state performs exactly the same function, with tax-payer’s money, then the banks needs to hold zero capital. Frankly, is that not risking enough on the state’s capability for you?

PS. State and private entrepreneurs are neither alike nor equal.