Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter  Follow us on LinkedIn

Article List:

 

This brief was prepared by Administrator and is available in category
International: United States
25 October 2011

Douglas J Elliott’s Congressional testimony - the eurozone crisis and implications for the United States


Default: Change to:


Elliott testified today before the International Monetary Policy and Trade subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee of the House. From an American standpoint, the euro crisis is deeply concerning, in part because the path it follows is likely to be the main determinant of whether the US goes back into recession.


"If Europe were to be shaken by a series of nations defaulting on their government debt, I am convinced that the continent would plunge into a severe recession. Their recession would trigger a recession of our own, although a less severe one, through a number of links across the Atlantic.

First, there is trade. Over $400 billion of our exports in 2010 went to the European Union. We should expect to lose a significant portion of this while Europe is in deep recession. At the same time, European firms would likely gain market share at the expense of American sales and jobs, as the euro depreciated and difficulties in selling within Europe spurred greater export efforts. Beyond Europe, emerging market countries like China also export substantial amounts to Europe and would find their growth slowing considerably. Our exports to those nations would be hit.

Second, there is investment. US firms have over $1 trillion of direct investment in the European Union. Profits from those operations, which are significant for our global firms, would decline markedly. We also have large sums invested in other nations, outside of Europe, that would be caught up in the same synchronised economic decline.

Third, there are financial flows. US banks, and their subsidiaries, have $2.7 trillion in loans and other commitments to eurozone governments, banks, and corporations, and roughly $2 trillion more of exposure to the UK. US insurers, mutual funds, pension funds, and other entities also have a great deal committed to Europe. Credit losses would set back the progress we have made in moving beyond the financial crisis. Those losses would be exacerbated by problem loans in the rest of the world, including our own country, induced by global economic problems.

Fourth, there is the effect on business and consumer confidence. We saw a taste of this in August, when problems in Europe quickly communicated themselves to our own financial markets and to confidence levels. Individuals and businesses are already scared. They would surely pull back on spending and investment still further if the European situation went badly wrong.

The combined effects of these four channels would almost certainly be enough to put us back in recession, although it is difficult to quantify the effects precisely, especially since there are numerous scenarios for exactly how the euro crisis could blow up.

Europe will probably muddle through, even though the process will be ugly and frightening. However, there is perhaps a one-in-four chance of a truly bad outcome, leading to a series of national defaults that include Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy. There is also a small chance of one or more countries leaving the euro, which would create still more damage. My one-in-four probability estimate is necessarily a very rough one. There are many different ways things could go wrong, since the eurozone is made up of 17 nations with their own political, economic and financial systems. Each risk has a low probability, but there are a multitude of those risks, so they add up.

The actions expected to be announced this week may well improve the situation, but will be far from sufficient to resolve the core problems. First, government leaders are unwilling to increase their national commitments to the European Financial Stability Facility beyond the previously agreed €440 billion, which is clearly inadequate to reassure markets, especially since much of that is already committed. Therefore, they are looking for ways to leverage those funds to get closer to the €2 trillion or so of capacity that is really needed. It appears this will be done by providing guarantees or insurance on a portion of the value of bonds issued by troubled eurozone countries. This is better than doing nothing, but is unlikely to restore markets in those countries to anything like normal operations.

Second, a bank recapitalisation that adds approximately €100 billion of capital is also a step forward, but, again, will not lay investor fears to rest. The IMF recently estimated that sovereign debt problems had eaten away at least €200 billion of economic capital from the European banks. Adding a figure half that large is unlikely to impress markets.

The technical details of the recapitalisation will matter as well. If designed badly, the plan could even do harm by encouraging European banks to cut back on lending and to sell existing assets, potentially creating fire sales such as contributed to the financial crisis in 2008. A serious credit crunch would likely plunge Europe into recession.

Third, strong-arming investors into “voluntarily” accepting losses of 40-60 per cent on their Greek government bonds will certainly add to the risks of contagion if market concerns about other troubled eurozone countries spike again at some point.

Whatever happens this week, we would be wise to prepare, in case the crisis worsens. We should continue to strongly encourage the Europeans to take the necessary steps. We should continue to provide US dollar swaps to the European Central Bank for them to use to help their banks with dollar-based funding needs. Our regulatory agencies should continue to monitor the exposure of our financial institutions to European risks, but without making the euro crisis worse by overreacting.

Finally, we should stand ready to consider ways in which the IMF might provide further assistance to Europe. The eurozone has the joint resources to solve its own problems, but participation by the IMF brings multiple advantages. First, it increases the total pool of resources, in order to reassure extremely jittery markets. Second, it can impose some discipline on the borrowers through conditionality on its loans, which is easier for an outside party to demand. Third, it can provide quite considerable technical aid in dealing with economic restructurings, such as are needed in this case. This technical advice carries more weight when the IMF is also committing money.

This is a European problem and they will need to provide the backbone of any solution, but it is strongly in our interests to help in any reasonable way that we can."

Full testimony



© Douglas J Elliott


< Next Previous >
Key
 Hover over the blue highlighted text to view the acronym meaning
Hover over these icons for more information



Add new comment