Should the eurozone allow for orderly defaults?


letter in yesterday’s FT by Annerose Tashiro of law firm Schultze & Braun in Frankfurt, argued that the eurozone should consider adapting a restructuring plan akin to the US bankruptcy code – the so-called Chapter 9 – which enables American municipalities and cities to default . She argued,

Looking into the framework that Chapter 9 provides, such a municipality would not be under the threat of any sort of liquidation or dissolution. There would also be no estate in the traditional sense and no assets – so no one is suggesting that the Greek school system should be sold off to pay its debts.

Similarly, a leader in today’s Handelsblatt makes a forceful case for  allowing and providing for organised bankruptcies within the eurozone. “Only when investors know their risks, prices can fulfill their role in the market place”, the leader argues, noting  that “neither banks nor countries should be ‘too big too fail’”. It calls for an insolvency procedure to be ready in a couple of years time, as “Greece might default after all”.

These are valid points which EU leaders would do well in taking aboard. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble has consistently argued for the introduction of some sort of orderly insolvency procedure to deal with a sovereign default within the eurozone, fearing for Greece’s in a first instance.

Such a mechanism would have several appealing aspects from a German – and economic – point of view:

- Crucially, it would transfer risks from taxpayers to creditors (where the risks belong). At the moment, German taxpayers are potentially liable for some €120 billion – a crazy amount by all standards. In total, roughly €29 billion has already been dished out to Greece as part of the first rescue package, with Germany being liable for a substantial part of that sum. The rest of the bailout package is theoretical at the moment.

However, should Greece continue to tap the bailout funds, and other countries – such as Ireland, Portugal or, heaven forbid, Spain – follow suit, these bailout fantasy sums would no longer be theory but will become an absolutely massive liability on the books of Bundesministerium der Finanzen.

A chaotic default following taxpayer-backed loans would combine the worst of all worlds, and would be a disastrous blow to both the euro and the European Project as a whole. Even if the risk of a eurozone country defaulting was tiny (and it isn’t), you can see why German politicians don’t want to take this gamble.

- And close to German hearts, an insolvency procedure could encourage fiscal discipline. As a leader in the FT argued last week, “In a union so clearly unable to control the fiscal habits of its member states, the threat of default would be a powerful check on excessive borrowing and irresponsible lending.”

This is also why a permanent bail-out fund at the EU-level, as some have argued for, could be probematic, as it potentially opens up another avenue for moral hazard – in addition to being wholly undemocratic.

- It could allow for Germany to sneak in other changes to eurozone governance, including temporary suspensions of voting rights for countries breaking soon to be toughened up EU budget rules.

Whether a Chapter 9-style mechanism or something else, any concrete proposal for an orderly default procedure is bound to come up against massive political challenges. The elephant in the room is Treaty change. Germany seems inclined to push for changes at the level of all 27 member states, which would require all EU countries to agree. Alternatively, the eurozone could establish such mechanism outside the EU Treaties, which, incidentally, would circumvent Britain.

An insolvency procedure would involve a clear transfer of powers from member states to the EU, as national laws must be brought in line with whatever is established at the European level.

BUT, instead of taxpayers footing the bill for the poor decisions of governments and companies they cannot vote out of office, such an arrangment would mean that ultimate liability will rest with those who actually made the mistakes.

If a bankruptcy procedure means no more taxpayer funded or ECB-led bailouts of governments – which have no basis in the rule of law in the first place – the net effect could actually be a fairer and more democratic eurozone.

  1. #1 by Anonymous on September 30, 2010 - 4:26 am

    Well spoken. Indeed, liability should rest with the one that made the mistake. Elseways, it would smell too much like communism.

  2. #2 by DOCM on September 30, 2010 - 10:58 pm

    The only slight difficulty is the systemic importance of banks in their symbiotic relationship with states (or, rather, the coffers of states). The governments of the EU would not be in the hole in which they find themselves were it not for this relationship. (Oxford Dictionary: Symbiosis = 1. an association of two different organisms living attached to each other or one within the other, usually to the advantage of both. 2. a similar relationship between people or groups.)

    Sweden found out the impossibility of breaking this relationship during its banking crisis in the 90s. The UK found out in the recent past. (Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, Bank of Scotland etc.) Membership of a currency union adds to the difficulties but it does not cause them.

    Germany is caught whichever way she turns. The only solution is to create a rising tide which lifts all boats and enables countries indebted to European banks – and especially German banks – to service their debts. Merkel, who is without any doubt economically illiterate, is doing the very opposite insisting on a crash diet for all countries irrespective of their actual weight and their need for it.

  3. #3 by Sean Murtagh on October 1, 2010 - 10:03 am

    No Country within the EU has got the luxury of either a government or democracy as they are all run by CORPORATIONS. Find out the real meaning of a CORPORATION and it will help you to understand what this mean for society in general.

  4. #4 by Sebastian on October 6, 2010 - 2:22 pm

    The article makes several very good points. But there is one thing that worries me in this analysis. There isn’t a clear picture of what would happen to euro should a country default. This kind of a shock could have big consequences for the monetary union, which in turn could send shockwaves through the foundations of EU. We should be very careful with this kind of ideas, lest we regret their implementation later.

  5. #5 by Albanian on February 9, 2011 - 4:04 am

    These are good points, but EU wants the cake and eat it too. If one defaults, rates will rise for EVERYONE in the Eurozone since a possible default will be priced in future bonds. Until now it was a theoretical possibility, that’s all.

(will not be published)