Greece and the Fed, what’s new?

Markets don’t seem to be overly obsessed with developments in Greece. I, however, continue to watch with absolute astonishment as the idea of a currency that was established only 23 years ago sees the potential of fracturing so quickly. With 10 days left in the month of June, key deadlines are quickly approaching for whether Greece can finalize a deal with their creditors and secure funding. Ongoing is the threat of the stability of their financial institutions with overnight lending from the ECB routinely being increased to support the outflow of customer deposits. Still this story, which resembles somewhat of a boy who cried wolf scenario, drags on for 5 years now and counting, but finally it could potentially be nearing a new chapter.

There are legitimate concerns for financial and monetary authorities, such as the ECB and the IMF, to question their support for Greece. The continued pressure put on the European Central Bank to provide a lifeline to Greece’s battered banks is an extra stress in an already beleaguered Eurozone. However, as many involved within the debt negotiations have expressed, Greece’s presence in the Eurozone has been a political decision from the beginning, and for that reason whether they remain should be a political decision as well. That being said, finer details of any such agreed upon deal by the Greeks and their creditors must satisfy the conditions set by the economic institutions like the ECB and IMF in order to provide financial support.

At the risk of not oversimplifying the situation, two potential scenarios seem to be floated by the markets. First is the risk of default, which is paired with an exit from the monetary union (or leaving the euro), and the second is that a deal is reached and everything goes back to business as usual. The latter is what’s more likely priced into the markets with near term Greek debt still priced at less than a fifty per cent chance of default. A legitimate fear for the markets, however, is the amateur Greek government, compared to its predecessors, lacks the credibility or follow through that suggests that even though a deal may be forged, a very likely scenario to one we are in now will be revisited upon the next set of deadlines.

The probability of default, however, still seems underpriced. For starters, at no point during negotiations have the Greeks or the creditors showing any leeway to the other party. The creditors want pension reform and for the Greeks that remains their sacred cow. The question becomes whether the stubbornness of the Greeks, or their inability to concede will stall the IMF from offering any concessions whatsoever. The other point that is worth noting though goes back to the money. The country has entered into a damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario. Deposits at Greek banks are estimated to be down by 30 per cent this year as a staggering 3 billion euros has left Greece this week alone. Long-term solvency of the Greek banks becomes yet another uncertainty, particular for the German controlled ECB who are the major source of funding for the banks.

Although the story with Greece will continue to steal headlines for months into the future, these next few weeks could see a further concentrated amount of action and volatility. Greece is and always has been a distraction for the ongoing and real problems elsewhere in Europe, but how events unfold will also set precedent for debt negotiations with nations like Spain, Portugal, and others. One would hope for a deal and for Greece to remain in the Eurozone, as any fracture to the euro currency only increases its overall level of fragility.

A Timely Warning Call

Download PDF

The unorthodox specificity found in the International Monetary Fund’s latest forecasts for the US economy reintroduces a level of confusion and uncertainty for investors surrounding when the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates. News out of Washington last Thursday threw an absolute curveball at the Fed’s escape plan from zero interest rate policy. As a topic that was previously over-discussed and framed by the financial media, the IMF as the de facto global monetary policy authority has entered the discussion. Previous statements from the US Fed and their Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) ensured for investors that the data dependency of the US Fed would dictate when we would see higher interest rates. The plea from the IMF Thursday could reshape this debate.

Ultimately, the typical investor has to question whether the Fed raising rates in the second half of 2015 or the beginning of 2016 would really make any material difference. And the assumption is a very likely, no. But it is important to discuss the motivation behind the IMF speaking out in this nature and entering an arena they typically stay absent from, which is imposing their view on US monetary policy. Furthermore, what are the risks they are implying, which really centres on the uncertainties in the global economy at present time?

PIMCO founder Bill Gross made the strongest argument for why the IMF made this recommendation to Chair Yellen and the FOMC. Gross suggests that in a post gold standard world where the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, the global economy looks to it for stability. Thus, the IMF makes their case to the US Fed to remember to move slowly because as we see liquidity taken away from the global markets, US policy shocks have far reaching effects as witnessed over the last 8 years.

The problem this creates for the US Federal Reserve is their mandate to the US congress is to make policy decisions based on domestic employment and inflation. Global financial stability, which is arguably in their realm of interest, doesn’t dictate when they should raise rates. And as many economists have argued this week, waiting until 2016 with the jobless rate trending lower and expected to be below 5 per cent, is waiting too long to raise rates. As St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard discussed last week, the Fed will be proactive in raising rates, not reactionary.

One could argue in many instances the Fed’s policy is aligned with the interests of the global economy, but this decoupling notion (of US and global growth) that was introduced in September of last year is once again exhibiting its challenges. If the Fed were to wait, they are giving credence to the IMF’s implied concerns.

It circles back to the earlier question of does it really make a difference when the Fed raises rates? No, not when. It’s clearer, however, a reputable institution doesn’t so much see trouble with when the Fed acts, but the effects of raising rates. It’s a liquidity issue for markets that risk the readjustments, like a 40 basis point swing in US treasuries in a moment’s time which we saw in October, 2014, or the German 10 year bund yield moving from one twentieth of a per cent to eight tenths of a percent in less than week.

The IMF has warned. Now we wait and see.