James Saft

Iceland’s remarkable return to growth shows once again that in this crisis the best policy is often the one that will make international partners most angry.

Having been reviled and chastised when it refused to make good the outsize debts of its banks, Iceland this week capped a striking turnaround when it announced that its economy expanded by 1.2 percent in real terms in the most recent quarter, its first such rise in two years.

This is in stark contrast to Ireland, whose pliability and inability as a member of the euro zone to act unilaterally leaves it with a still crashing economy which must service ever more debt by making ever deeper cuts to public spending.

Iceland, which sailed into the crisis in 2008 as essentially a small fishing fleet with a massive hedge fund attached, looked its predicament square in the eye and followed a set of policies seemingly designed to tick off both its friends and enemies, doing its small but mighty best to beggar its neighbors by letting its currency crash, imposing capital controls and, crucially,  refusing to make whole the global creditors of its three failed international banks.

While an International Monetary Fund and multilateral package was eventually agreed, and a deal with Britain and the Netherlands over debts from Icesave Bank are currently being hammered out, Iceland’s leaders, at least the current ones, seem convinced that making bank creditors share its pain was the right course.

“The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail. These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state should not shoulder the responsibility,” Iceland’s president, Olafur Grimsson, said last month, tweaking the nose of EU officials who are insisting that Ireland make good all senior creditor calls on its own distended banking system.

“Bondholders should not rely on the government stepping in and bailing them out,” Iceland Central Bank governor Mar Gudmundsson said last week. “They should do their due diligence.”

“I think the Irish are accepting that they were probably too fast in guaranteeing the whole liabilities of banks. Now this is turning out to be a big burden because the assets of these banks turned out to be much worse than they thought.”

Indeed. Though Iceland has a 6.3 percent budget deficit this year, it is on track to soon record a surplus, while Ireland’s deficit this year is 32 percent if the cost of bank bailouts is included. Similarly, Iceland’s unemployment rate has fallen by almost a quarter to 7.3 percent, as against more than 14 percent in Ireland.

LEARNING FROM MAHATHIR
It is all strangely reminiscent of Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad, who attracted international condemnation when in 1998 he rejected IMF measures, instead pegging the ringgit to the dollar and imposing widespread capital controls. Your correspondent was among those who stroked his chin and said that Malaysia would rue the day it cut itself off from international capital, but of course this proved to be far off the mark.

Malaysia recovered robustly, foreign capital eventually flowed and more to the point, the country and its Asian neighbors learned the importance of being able to self-insure against the vagaries of global capital flows, leaving them by and large better prepared for the most recent crisis than the rest of the world.

While Mahathir was a strongman acting against international and internal advice, Iceland’s mulishness has been a model of democracy. In a March referendum 93 percent of voters rejected a deal with Britain and the Netherlands to repay 3.9 billion euros of Icesave losses. Even more striking, and a contrast with a singular lack of prosecutions elsewhere, was the decision of Iceland’s parliament to refer to the legal system  criminal charges surrounding the crash against former Prime Minister Geir Haarde.

To be sure, Iceland may have succeeded in rejecting the international consensus precisely because it is so small — many argue that a default by Irish banks would cause another global banking crisis costing far more than 30 or 50 percent of Irish GDP.

Quite possibly it would, but that does not mean that the policy of pretending that banks are not insolvent and loans not underwater is wise. The tepid, halting and largely jobless recovery argues that it is not, that debts need to be properly purged before both borrowers and lenders can play their respective roles.

Regardless, the great victory of Icelandic stubbornness is not just in its recovery but in winning a fairer division of the burden than in Ireland, Greece, or for that matter, the U.S.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. email: jamessaft@jamessaft.com)

From Dublin to Paris to Budapest to inside those brown UPS trucks delivering holiday packages, it has been a tough few weeks for savers and retirees.

Moves by the Irish, French and Hungarian governments, and by the famous delivery company, showed that in the post-crisis world retirees, present and future, will be paying much of the price and taking on more of the risk.

This goes beyond merely cutting back on pension benefits, rising to actual appropriation of supposedly long-term retirement assets to help fund short term emergencies.

Let’s start with Ireland, which is kicking in 10 billion euros from its National Pensions Reserve Fund into an 85 billion euro package of support for its banks.

Trust me, this does not reduce the risk profile of the NPRF, which was set up as a sovereign wealth fund to help pay for state retirement benefits.

Putting aside jokes about sovereignty and wealth, of which there is appreciably less in Ireland than formerly, this is effectively a transfer of wealth from the Irish people to its banks. Or rather, to the institutions, mostly European banks, which hold Irish bank debt, none of whom as senior creditors will share in the pain.

In many jurisdictions if Ireland were a corporation and the NPRF part of the corporation’s pension fund, then making such a move would be illegal, and quite rightly so.

Of course this is not the first time that the NPRF has been used in this way. It has already “invested” 7 billion euros into Irish banks and has pledged another 3.7 billion to struggling Allied Irish Banks.

Also under consideration is a regulatory move that would effectively compel some private Irish pension funds to hold more Irish government debt, thereby providing the state with a captive investor base but hugely raising the risks for savers.

On to Hungary, which is seeking to cut its very high level of public debt as it prepares for entry to a euro single currency which may well self-destruct before it ever gets the chance to join. Hungary’s government last week finalized new rules designed to force members of private pension plans to opt back into a state controlled pay-as-you go option.

The idea, such as it is, is that participants in the private plans will fork over their $14 billion or so in savings, equal to about 10 percent of Hungary’s GDP, to the government in exchange for a pledge of a pension from the state. Hungary plans to use the funds to make pension payments to current retirees this year and next as well as to pay down government debt.

It is, in short, an outrage.

PACKAGES SOMETIMES GET LOST
Earlier this month France launched a move similar to Ireland’s as part of legislation that raised the age of retirement.

France is transferring more than 20 billion euros of assets belonging to its Fonds de Reserve pour les Retraites (FRR), a funded portion of its retirement system, to Cades, a fund designed to be run down to pay for social benefits.

The transfer will take place over a number of years and the mix of assets held by the FRR in the meantime will shift radically, implying a large shift to government debt. Very convenient for the French Treasury but perhaps not so good for future retirees.

Finally, let’s turn to UPS, which earlier this month became one of the most notable of a string of U.S. companies to sell bonds in order to fund its obligations to its underfunded pension fund. UPS sold $2 billion of bonds due in 2021 and 2040, with the longer dated portion yielding about 5.0 percent.

A decade of paltry equity market returns and current low bond yields, which are used to calculate future liabilities to retirees, have left many firms, including UPS, with funding deficits.

Debt financing pension obligations is in essence a plan to try and make a spread between the cost of financing and the returns the company is able to make on its pension assets.

Borrowing to speculate in financial markets to make up for a lack of previous saving; what could possibly go wrong?

To be fair, UPS, which is one of many large U.S. corporations making similar moves, can’t be equated with Ireland or Hungary. UPS has the same legal obligation to its pension fund no matter how it chooses to fund it, so the bond issue from that perspective does not raise the risk for retirees.

That said, a participant in a company pension plan is dependent on the ability of the company to meet its obligations. The more debt the company takes on, the higher that risk is.

Savers of all types are being asked to shoulder risks they did not sign on for, the costs of which they will inevitably bear.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.email James Saft at jamessaft@jamessaft.com)