In simple terms...what happened? How bad is it?

K-9

dan_d wrote: »

I would hope that the IMF are aware of the level of personal debt that people have in this country, in terms of mortgages, and would take that into account when considering tax hikes etc. If people default on their mortgages, it hits the banks, and they are what the IMF is trying to shore up. Which would seem a bit pointless....I'm not saying they won't cut anything, they will. I just hope they are aware that we have massive mortgages in this country and like it or not, it's something that has to be taken into consideration (in response to iffy2007 question)

Fair point.

Latvia has a programme for mortgage arrears. The IMF there has ok'd it but have obviously questioned if it is a good long term use of scarce tax payer resources.

Scofflaw

Defaulting is something that seems to be put forward as a pain-free option, or at least one that causes only short-term pain. Were that the case, countries would default regularly. However:

Sometimes it is wise for a person to declare bankruptcy but the same is almost never true for a nation. When debts are overwhelming and bills unpayable, an individual or a company can seek the mercy of the courts and obtain protection from aggressive creditors. In the case of Argentina, which declared a moratorium on its debt repayments in December 2001 and within days defaulted on $93 billion (£59.6 billion) in sovereign borrowings, it was the beginning of a nightmare.

When the default was declared in 2002, foreign investment fled the country, and capital flow towards Argentina ceased almost completely. The Argentine government met severe challenges trying to refinance the debt. The state had no spare money at the time, and the central bank's foreign currency reserves were almost depleted.

The Argentine government kept a firm stance, and finally got a deal in 2005 by which 76% of the defaulted bonds were exchanged by others, of a much lower nominal value (25–35% of the original) and at longer terms. In 2008, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announced she was studying a reopening of the 2005 swap to gain adhesion from the remaining 24% of the so-called "holdouts", and thereby fully exit the default with private investors.

There is no bankruptcy court for nations. Defaulting sovereigns pay the ultimate price; they are sent to Coventry, shunned by commercial banks until, somehow, they can purge their debt. The only recourse is to the International Monetary Fund, which can provide emergency loans. Currently, the IMF has a pot of money, some $200 billion from contributing states, which is almost certainly inadequate to the scale of the potential demand that might emerge in the months to come. Iceland has already secured $2 billion, Ukraine has been promised upwards of $16 billion and Hungary is expecting double-digit billions. We have commitments for about 15 per cent of the kitty and the dominoes are tumbling.

For Argentina, the months that followed its "bankruptcy" were horrendous. The country went into a brutal downward spiral of inflation, currency collapse and the rationing of cash by the banks. In a nation that is a big agricultural exporter, children went hungry and and the economy imploded, shrinking by 13 per cent in a year. Unable to borrow to pay its bills, the state was forced to cut public sector wages, slash the state pension and unemployment soared to 20 per cent. Unable to pay for goods with cash, many Argentinians resorted to barter.

A sovereign default forces a nation into self-reliance mode and, if the Government lacks the will to reform its economy, it will tempted to print money to pay wages and pensions. When the choice is between paying Citigroup and paying pensioners, the political choice is obvious. However, it is no solution as the result is hyperinflation and more chaos.

The default on Argentina's commercial loans was bad enough but what followed a year later was the default on an $800 million loan from the World Bank, which left it precluded from further help by international agencies. It became embroiled in lengthy negotations with the IMF and debtors clubs. The country had borrowed too much in foreign currencies and it made matters worse for itself by pegging the value of its currency to the dollar. Argentina became uncompetitive and slipped into recession. When the currency peg was finally severed, the peso collapsed and the country was unable to repay its debts.

Where is Argentina nearly a decade later? It has paid off most of the debt - so it wound up doing that anyway, and is still haggling with the last few creditors. It managed that because it has a large internal market, and a lot of commodity exports. We have neither - instead we have a tiny domestic market and exports from an FDI-reliant MNC sector. Its bonds trade at 9.82% ten years after the crisis compared to our 8.3% mid-crisis.

For a eurozone country, would one leave the euro?

What if one of the member states of the eurozone were to default on its debt? On the occasion of the euro’s 10th birthday, this has become the most frequently asked question about the single currency zone.

Before I answer the question, it is best to consider what would not happen. For a start, the eurozone would not fall apart. A government about to default would be mad to leave the eurozone. It would mean that, in addition to a debt crisis, the country would also face a currency and banking crisis. Bank customers would simply send their euros to a foreign bank to avoid a forced conversion into a new domestic currency.

And, again, in respect of Argentina:

An outright default by Greece or any country facing a similar situation would mean exclusion from capital markets, as happened with Argentina when it defaulted in 2001. The South American country has not issued any euro or dollar-denominated debt since then as it has yet to come to an agreement with international creditors.

Essentially, default means we're entirely on our own, with no way to balance the government's books except by immediate cuts and tax hikes sufficient to make spending and income meet if we keep the euro - or a combination of that and printing money at a mad rate by the Irish Central Bank to meet the government's domestic obligations if we leave. That would mean galloping inflation - and that would immediately erode the buying power of the very wages and social welfare payments they were printing money in order to be able to fund, at the same time as import costs shot up drastically because of the devaluation of the currency. Within a couple of years of defaulting, a little over a quarter of the Argentine population was in extreme poverty, and 57% of the country was below the poverty line - unemployment was at 25%. Further, Argentina almost completely froze bank deposits, and restricted withdrawals, at the same time as inflation eroded the value of them.

Again, it's worth pointing out that one-sixth of tax revenue going to service debt interest is not unsustainable - we were paying one-quarter of tax revenue to service debt interest only 20 years ago.

Default is not the easy option by any means - that's why it's the option of last resort. Bond markets will always consider the possibility of default in any future difficulties as more likely once a country has defaulted once - and default risk is largely what drives bond spreads.

A bailout gives us more time to get things in order - a default gives us less. If we can't borrow, we have to balance the government's books immediately, not over the next four years. And we'll still be paying for the default for at least a decade, maybe longer. As far as I can see, therefore, default actually creates the very nightmare scenario people appear to think it avoids.

cordially,
Scofflaw

senordingdong

So leaving the euro would be a bad thing.

Basically, the other eurozone countries could keep us afloat untill things recover?>

Sir Oxman

The IMF will continue to lend to a country after it has defaulted as long as it is making a 'credible' effort to adhere to austerity. This is particularly important because IMF programs, aimed at long-term solvency, may even mandate a maximum percent of GDP that can be devoted to interest payments. In this way, the IMF has been viewed as a sponsor of a default, usually at the expense of private creditors.

http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/daily-global-commentary/2010-05-13.html



From this, does it look like the EU/ECB are the bogies not the IMF?
Is it a case of the EU/ECB keeping Ireland on the path of private debt socialisation?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

These cuts resulted in our growth figures slowing for this year.

Same will happen with the €6 Billion Budget package.

If we had brought in these severe cuts you are talking about, we probably would be back in full grown recession and the markets would have killed us quicker.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GampDub

Hi,

I have a couple of simple questions that I am unsure of in relation to the impending Bailout and the new 4 year budget plan:

1. I see this morning that the bailout is amounting to €85bn, will all of this money be used straight away to plug the holes in our economy or is it just something that is there in the back pocket to dip into as an when we need it?
2. If the latter is the case above, say we only use €40bn of the money and we have our out **** together (unlikely I know just hypatheical) can we just say thanks and give back the remaining €45bn and just pay off the €40m we used?
3. The new four year plan aim to cut the budget by €15bn is that after 4 years or €15bn a year for 4 years?

I know some of these questions may be basic but I'm just not too clear on them. Maybe others could use this thread to ask similar questions they are unsure of on the matters above and hopefully those of your that are more informed on the matter can help us out!

Cheers

Scofflaw

GampDub wrote: »

Hi,

I have a couple of simple questions that I am unsure of in relation to the impending Bailout and the new 4 year budget plan:

[*] I see this morning that the bailout is amounting to €85bn, will all of this money be used straight away to plug the holes in our economy or is it just something that is there in the back pocket to dip into as an when we need it?

It's in the form of the latter - a facility we can draw against. The question of whether, when, and how much will be in the hands of the government of the day.

GampDub wrote: »

[*]If the latter is the case above, say we only use €40bn of the money and we have our out **** together (unlikely I know just hypatheical) can we just say thanks and give back the remaining €45bn and just pay off the €40m we used?

Yes.

GampDub wrote: »

[*]The new four year plan aim to cut the budget by €15bn is that after 4 years or €15bn a year for 4 years?

The former - €6bn of cuts this year, €3bn a year in each of the following three years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sea Sharp

I'll just copy-paste a post I wrote that got lost in one of the other threads.

Sea Sharp wrote: »

This whole European banking crises can be largely traced back to burst property bubbles.

What is happening in Ireland now IS going to happen in Spain and Portugal. This is a European problem and the solution for this country needs to be part of a solution for Europe.

The EU needs to start printing a series of stimulus packages to buy up the toxic property in Ireland Spain, Portugal and Italy.

The French and Germans are reluctant for stimulus packages because of the inevitable inflation and currency devaluation that comes with printing money.

I say, screw 'em. The European property bubbles that caused this mess were fuelled by interest rates that were designed to help the French and German economies to grow.

It's absurd that the economies of one half of Europe should be crippled for decades to come because of narrow minded policies that were designed to stimulate growth in the other half of Europe.

I'm being optimistic and saying that things are so bad for us, Spain, Portugal and Greece that unless debt is written off a series of defaults will cause the Euro to collapse.

JohnMc1

Not sure whether or not this is appropriate for here but was there any word on any cuts to the VEC or will that be addressed in the Dec 7th budget?

swampgas

Scofflaw wrote: »

Defaulting is something that seems to be put forward as a pain-free option, or at least one that causes only short-term pain. ( ... Snip ...)

Thanks for those points, Scofflaw. Either way, it seems we're looking into the abyss - the question is only how deep.

It appears that there may be a tiny window of opportunity over the next few days or weeks for the country to figure out how best to get out of this mess (and there will be extraordinary pain whatever outcome is achieved) and actually make it happen.

Right now the options of either of (a) ruinous default, possibly with a domino effect into Europe, or (b) staggering debt for decades, seem so awful that I wish there were an option (c) - a way we could deal with what seems to be the core problem - the rotten banks - and separate our fate from theirs.

Is there any feasible way the country could undo the bank guarantee, let Anglo (and other banks perhaps?) go under, and not default on sovereign debt? No way at all?

Would it even be worthwhile if we could?

iffy_2007

dan_d wrote: »

I would hope that the IMF are aware of the level of personal debt that people have in this country, in terms of mortgages, and would take that into account when considering tax hikes etc. If people default on their mortgages, it hits the banks, and they are what the IMF is trying to shore up. Which would seem a bit pointless....I'm not saying they won't cut anything, they will. I just hope they are aware that we have massive mortgages in this country and like it or not, it's something that has to be taken into consideration (in response to iffy2007 question)

Well that's exactly what I thought that the last thing that the Government will be wanting to happen, people defaulting on their mortgage but after today's announcements I'm not so sure. I have no problem in taking cuts in wages, it has to be done but what I dont understand is how does the Government expect the economy to grow by increasing VAT?? So lower people's wage, increase cost of living...doesn't make sense, the Government have done nothing in these announcements to stimulate growth in the economy. People will be holding onto their pennies to buy a one way ticket off this sinking ship...:(

dan_d

I think the VAT increase is a big mistake.Whatever about anything else they've said, I don't understand the VAT increase.

My post was what I'd hope they do, nothing more...I don't know what they'll actuallly do.....

Kintarō Hattori

A few days ago before we knew about the bailout, just how much it was and how much interest we'd have to pay back I asked a question.

I asked was it a wise time to buy a house with a relatively low mortgage repayment (€600pm and say an extra €100 for insurance and assurance). The answer I got back then was yes that it shouldn't be an issue, it's a manageable amount, you need somewhere to live and prices can't go much lower (the house in question is €135,000).

So after all that has happened is it still a wise decision to want to buy a house? I know I've asked the question already but I'm sure there are plenty others like me in this position.

JohnMc1

dan_d wrote: »

I think the VAT increase is a big mistake.Whatever about anything else they've said, I don't understand the VAT increase.

My post was what I'd hope they do, nothing more...I don't know what they'll actuallly do.....

The VAT alone wouldn't be too bad its the fact that the Carbon tax which jacks up our heating and electricity and petrol prices is going up too which will cause an even bigger problem because people effected by the minimum wage cut and whatever SW cuts will take place will be spending alot less which kill businesses and assure us that we repeating this spectacle of seeing our elected officials cap in hand asking the EU and IMF for more money.

K-9

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

A few days ago before we knew about the bailout, just how much it was and how much interest we'd have to pay back I asked a question.

I asked was it a wise time to buy a house with a relatively low mortgage repayment (€600pm and say an extra €100 for insurance and assurance). The answer I got back then was yes that it shouldn't be an issue, it's a manageable amount, you need somewhere to live and prices can't go much lower (the house in question is €135,000).

So after all that has happened is it still a wise decision to want to buy a house? I know I've asked the question already but I'm sure there are plenty others like me in this position.

I would have thought, the events of the last week or so would have made wiser to delay.

It looks like the banks are going to be asked to have even more capital, which will mean increased mortgage interest rates and the ECB are rumoured to be considering raising theirs in the foreseeable future.

The other side of that is, you mightn't get low interest rates again for a while.

gollem_1975

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

A few days ago before we knew about the bailout, just how much it was and how much interest we'd have to pay back I asked a question.

I asked was it a wise time to buy a house with a relatively low mortgage repayment (€600pm and say an extra €100 for insurance and assurance). The answer I got back then was yes that it shouldn't be an issue, it's a manageable amount, you need somewhere to live and prices can't go much lower (the house in question is €135,000).

So after all that has happened is it still a wise decision to want to buy a house? I know I've asked the question already but I'm sure there are plenty others like me in this position.

don't know how your post ended up in this sticky post but if I was you I would wait until after the budget/finance bill anyway.

don't share your confidence that prices cant go any lower.

one way to find out is to go in with a lower offer

swampgas

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

A few days ago before we knew about the bailout, just how much it was and how much interest we'd have to pay back I asked a question.

I asked was it a wise time to buy a house with a relatively low mortgage repayment (€600pm and say an extra €100 for insurance and assurance). The answer I got back then was yes that it shouldn't be an issue, it's a manageable amount, you need somewhere to live and prices can't go much lower (the house in question is €135,000).

So after all that has happened is it still a wise decision to want to buy a house? I know I've asked the question already but I'm sure there are plenty others like me in this position.

I would have to say wait a while. If you can afford to rent somewhere (even for more than 700) you will avoid over-committing yourself. Job / income security should be a major concern in the current circumstances. Do you really want to be tied to a mortgage on a potentially unsellable house if you need to move to find work?

maninasia

bauderline wrote: »

I really do not understand why people keep saying that Irish people need to understand moderation and statements to similar effect, as far as I understand it the current debt crisis has been caused by commercial debt caused by wreckless lending policies in our banks and government debt caused by wreckless government spending.

I really don't think the Irish public should be footing the blame or the bill for this mess.

This current crisis was caused by commercial and developer lending, yes. But it is linked with private debt as consumers were the ones willing to borrow such large amounts to fund the chain. The next crisis, not even talked about yet, is private consumer debt- meaning mortgages, credit cards, personal loans.

maninasia

swampgas wrote: »

I would have to say wait a while. If you can afford to rent somewhere (even for more than 700) you will avoid over-committing yourself. Job / income security should be a major concern in the current circumstances. Do you really want to be tied to a mortgage on a potentially unsellable house if you need to move to find work?

You'd want to use your own brain and figure it by common sense to be honest.

a5y

Would leaving the Euro & returning to a sovereign currency (one not tied in value to another currency), which is allowed to devalue and reduce the cost of living here - reduce the economic recovery time and quickly restore Ireland's competitiveness?

(I'm sorry if this is too hypothetical, but its as specific as I can make it)

If this were to happen would Ireland be accepted like Britain & Sweden are - EU members holding off / plain not interested on joining the Euro?

a5y

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

So after all that has happened is it still a wise decision to want to buy a house? I know I've asked the question already but I'm sure there are plenty others like me in this position.

I don't think it'll be wise to buy a house for some time to come - with an overabundance of property built and not selling and even if emigration was low it would still be a favourable market to rent.

Also, there isn't any word whatsoever on new legislation to prevent another property bubble - unless I missed something. If that happens in 10 years time you could wind up in negative equity as badly as a lot of people are today.

swampgas

maninasia wrote: »

You'd want to use your own brain and figure it by common sense to be honest.

Fair point in any case. But he asked, I'm just giving my opinion here.

I understand that someone might think "property prices seem to be at an all time low - maybe I'll buy now". However it all depends on your circumstances.

A cash buyer can do what they like.

Someone looking for a mortgage has to be much more careful - even with a "safe" job in the PS, there are uncertain times ahead. Neither employment nor income levels are predictable.

Now if mortgages were secured on the asset, and bankruptcy laws were reformed, I think taking out a mortgage today would be worth considering - maybe. But given the current state of the country, surely waiting until at least April/May next year is sane advice.

Bruce7

In response to the original post, here's a simple guide to what happened:

1. We all started paying more and more for stuff.

2. People who sell stuff (including banks, who sell financial products such as loans and mortgages) made more and more money and sold us more and more stuff and kept putting up their prices.

3. We started paying each other more so that we could continue to buy more stuff at higher and higher prices.

4. People who sell stuff started borrowing like mad so that they could continue selling us more and more stuff at higher and higher prices

5. We began borrowing like mad so that we could continue to pay more and more for stuff.

6. The people who lend to the people who sell stuff to us ran out of money and stopped lending to them. This meant that we could no longer keep borrowing, or keep buying stuff.

7. The people who had been making loads of money selling stuff at higher and higher prices suddenly found that nobody had any money to buy their stuff any more. Prices stopped going up and started going down.

8. The people who lend to the people who sell stuff started looking for their money back.

9. But it was all gone, and the stuff if had been spent on wasn't worth nearly as much as the money that had been borrowed to buy it.

10. But it still has to be paid back. And the only way to pay it back is to borrow even more, from somebody else.

Should the government have prevented this happening? Sure.

Was this ever a realistic expectation? No.

Would another set of Irish politicians have prevented this happening? No.

Who is at fault? Everyone in Ireland.

Who should have to pay the price? The people who took the risks.

Who is that? All of us.

Why? Just like ignorance of the law is no defence, unawareness of risk is no protection from it. Democracy has its consequences.

What? We're just simple Paddies. We had no hand, act or part in this! Bejaysus, we want a bogeyman to blame... Ok, it was all the banks, the developers, and their cronies in the Fianna Fail tent with their expense accounts .... zzzzzz.....

funboy2007

And that is the point - everyone abdicating responsibility again.

Who voted in Beverly Cooper Flynn? A TD who assited people in evading tax? The irish public did
Who voted in Michael Lowry - a man who accepted money for his house from Ben Dunne & was found by the McCracken tribunal to have evaded tax? The Irish public did.
Who voted in Jackie Healy Rae - the biggest proponent of Me Fein politics this country has ever seen - the irish public did.

We have the government and political parties we deserve

mad m

So in simple terms would it be wise if you had a X amount in savings in different irish banks to put it off your mortage. If the country defaults and we might go back to the punt, then that X savings is worthless just sitting in the bank when it could of went off my mortage...

I've looked into putting it into a bank that is situated here but covered by UK. But from what I've read its the same as being in an Irish bank as its regulated by the Irish regulator.

Hayte

a5y wrote: »

Would leaving the Euro & returning to a sovereign currency (one not tied in value to another currency), which is allowed to devalue and reduce the cost of living here - reduce the economic recovery time and quickly restore Ireland's competitiveness?

(I'm sorry if this is too hypothetical, but its as specific as I can make it)

If this were to happen would Ireland be accepted like Britain & Sweden are - EU members holding off / plain not interested on joining the Euro?

The question makes more sense when you ask 'how do we leave the euro?' as opposed to 'should we leave the euro?'

First things first. You have to change all notes and coins and exchange them with Punts at a fixed rate on a certain date. Investors and businesses won't just wait for that to happen. They will try to work out the best way to keep the most value for money. i.e. keep their savings/investments in euros or some other more stable currency like US dollars and see how many punts you can get for your euro. Then wait it out and watch the currency fluctuate. Basically, on the onset of a shift to a whole new currency, everyone with lots of euros will be trying to game the system to get the most punts they can for their euros.

You can realistically expect massive capital flight during a currency shift like this. Now our banking system is already in tatters. Our banks already have cashflow problems so massive capital flight can be thought of as the final nail in the coffin.

The uncertainty we express about leaving the euro, about defaulting on our investors, about saving our own skin first and f*** anyone who put money in our financial system makes us look averse to an investor's interests. Would you loan money to a guy who has a track record of taking money off you and never giving it back? Foreign companies would be mad to invest in us if we showed ourselves like that, at least in the short term.

Also, the UK tried to export its way out of recession this year and with pound sterling being so incredibly weak the logic went that UK exports should look like a good deal. But for whatever reason, everyone else didn't really buy British. Ireland is smalltime compared to the UK even and furthermore, a huge huge proportion of what we export are office productivity and computer software products from mega multinational companies who are only here because of our 12.5% corporate tax rate (half as much as the UK and about 3 times less than the US). Now, ask yourself this - if we leave the Euro and go back to the Punt which will be extremely unstable for a time because everyone is trying to game it, why on earth would foreign companies want to stay here? Why would they want to trade in unstable Punts instead of safe US dollars or safe Euros?

I'm not saying all these things will happen at the same time but they are all possibilities. Furthermore, they don't all need to happen - Investors and savers only need to believe that it will happen and then they pull out their savings and investments. When all of our beneficiaries pull out en masse because the common perception is that we can't manage our own affairs, because confidence is so low in our ability to honour our debts then you have to ask ourselves - Whats left? What do we produce ourselves that our neighbors and trade partners can't do better and cheaper?

At some point everyone is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that the Euro has been good to us but we haven't been good in return. We can keep going with this "f*** you, I got mine" attitude but the buck has to stop somewhere. If it doesn't stop with us now, then I wonder what kind of country we are prepared to leave for our children.

dan_d

In answer to your last question - what about the country we are creating for our current children?My sister's friend left yesterday for NZ. In bits. As was her mother, who now has 3 kids over there. There are no jobs here for them.It's not going away to find themselves for a year - it's going away because they've just graduated and were offered good jobs over there (physiotherapists), and there's no future for them here.

This isn't a sob story about graduates wanting more money, it's a story about grads just wanting jobs to get experience.

Whatever about our future children, we're already screwing the ones that are here now.

snausbaby

Very simply - we all forgot that €250,000 = quarter of a million.

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

Theodore Roosevelt