Jump to content
Soviet.ie | Sóivéid.ie
Sign in to follow this  
Fodla32

Media Lying when it says free state has returned to the Bond Market

Recommended Posts

3/7/2012: Curb your enthusiasms?

 

 

Posted by Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev

 

So, the NTMA have issued a (welcome) note that Ireland is to resume auctions of T-bills. The note states that "on Thursday 5 July 2012. The NTMA will offer €500 million of Treasury Bills with a three-month maturity in its first such auction since September 2010."

 

 

 

 

The details of the auction on 5 July are as follows:

• Auction size: €500 million.

• Maturity: 15 October 2012.

• Auction opens: 9:30 a.m.

• Auction closes: 10:30 a.m.

• Settlement date: 9 July 2012.

 

This is potentially (pending results of sale, namely yield, volume and percentage allocation to non-captive banks and funds) a minor positive for Ireland. Minor, because:

  • Bills are NOT bonds - bills are short-term instruments, traditionally under 12 months maturity (bonds are over 1 year maturity).
  • Bills issued currently fall to mature within the period of existent EFSF funding programme, so in effect there will always be funds to cover these, short of a catastrophic collapse of the euro during the duration of the bills.
  • Issuance of bills has nothing to do in terms of signaling the state of public finances health or economic conditions health of the issuer, as both Greece (see here) and Portugal (here) have issued these during their tenure in the rescue programmes.
  • Portugal issuance (linked above) covered 18-mos bills, which would constitute a stronger positive signal than that of planned Irish sale, if there was any whatsoever informational content to these auctions.
  • Ireland has issued T-bills back in September 2010, and then it was NOT a signal of any confidence in Ireland's financial health.

The media statements that this sale shows that 'Ireland is back to bond markets' is fully incorrect. T-bills market is not the same as bond market. And T-bill instruments are distinct from the bonds. For example, T-bills were not covered by PSI default in Greece, unlike bonds.

 

Funding public spending via T-Bills is a (marginally?) riskier undertaking for the Exchequer because it implies transfer of any potential maturity mismatch risk onto the Exchequer. Maturity mismatch risk arises when the Government uses short-term debt to finance longer-term spending commitments.

 

So what is the 'positive' then in NTMA news? For now - just a hope we do not get a complete rejection (which is highly unlikely, as NTMA has primed the market already). We need to see results of the auction to tell if things are positive or not - e.g. how high is the demand from outside Ireland? how expensive is the funding obtained compared to secondary bonds markets on shorter maturity end? etc.

H/T for some of the above to: Prof Karl Whelan, Prof Brian M Lucey, Owen Callan (Danske Markets)

 

Update: There is a nagging question begs asking - why does Ireland need T-bill? Portugal and Greece might have used T-Bills to manage expenditure in the interim of disbursals of EFSF funds, which, especially for Greece this year, have been uncertain. Ireland is fully compliant with Troika requirements and is getting its money on schedule, with no uncertainty. In effect, therefore, either we are facing a shortfall on funding within the programme (unlikely in my view) or we are using T-bills (more expensive money raising) to finance that which we can finance at cheaper rates via Troika funds. The latter option is double-daft as the repayment of T-bills will be done out of the same Troika money. In this latter case, of course, the motivation can be to simply 'generate feel-good news' by the Government that 'Ireland is back to the (bond) markets'...

at 11:12 AM

 

 

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2012/07/372012-curb-your-enthusiasms.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a combination of spin, but also testing the water. These bills may not be bonds and may be much less risky for "investors", but it does give an indication of whether private money can be raised, even on much less risky terms. Until the government issue a bond release they have no concrete way of telling whether private capitalists (lets call them what they are, they are not investing in anything) will buy the bonds.

 

The more pertinent question in my mind isn't whether we can borrow money from private sources to fund our country, but whether we should be doing this at all. Money that has to be paid back with profitable interest for the private interests, and ensuring that successive governments dance to the tune of these very same capitalist "investors".

 

Of course wages need to be paid, in the short term, money will have to be secured, but there is absolutely no noise out there in media, even from those so-called revolutionary parties that do have some limited access to the media, about the long-term finacing of the state and whether private money and interests should be involved at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both PSF and the SWP were promoting the idea of repudiating the debt and not accepting the IMF bailout - on the very basis that it would be easier to "return to the bond market," if we didn't have the debt. They totally ignore the issues you are raising, and present borrowing from these swine as the most natural thing in the world to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

Of course wages need to be paid, in the short term, money will have to be secured, but there is absolutely no noise out there in media, even from those so-called revolutionary parties that do have some limited access to the media, about the long-term finacing of the state and whether private money and interests should be involved at all!

 

So where do you suggest the money should come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think within the Capitalist system, there is no choice but to borrow money from these parasites. That's really what capitalism is all about - owing your life to swine. I imagine what Lugh is saying is that we need to be presenting the people with a completely different model. Because, in reality, since capitalism began in Ireland, Ireland has been an exporter of capital. Even now, Ireland is a net exporter of capital. This will always be the case while Ireland's capital remains in private hands. Once it is nationalized, we will have very little need to borrow anything. And if we do, it should only be from fellow Socialist states, like Venezuela.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where do you suggest the money should come from?

 

From nationalising resources. And until such time as the wealth of the resources of the nation can be fully nationalised, then it should come from taxing the wealthy. The point is however that the State only needs to borrow money when its resources have been hocked off and are in private hands. We shouldn't have to pay interest and surrender our sovereignty just to get our hands back on our own wealth.

 

Of course this is not something that can happen overnight, but you don't even hear the SWP, and certainly not the provies, making serious noises about this. They seem happy to engage in Keynsian economics without any exit strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×