Where Did The Greek Bailout Money Go?: ESMT White Paper
Where Did The Greek Bailout Money Go?: ESMT White Paper
Where Did The Greek Bailout Money Go?: ESMT White Paper
ISSN 1866-4016
Citation
Rocholl*, J., and A. Stahmer (2016). Where did the Greek bailout money go?
ESMT White Paper No. WP1602.
Copyright 2016 by ESMT European School of Management and Technology, Berlin, Germany,
www.esmt.org.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without the permission of ESMT.
Contents
1.
Executive summary
2.
Introduction
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
4.
11
4.1.
11
4.2.
13
4.3.
15
5.
16
6.
Conclusion
19
References
20
Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
st
nd
Figure 4:
1 and 2
Figure 5:
uses [ bn]
12
Figure 6:
13
Figure 7:
14
Figure 8:
15
1. Executive summary
This paper analyzes the flow of money for the different Greek bailout funds and
concentrates on two key questions. First, where did the money come from? Second,
where did the money go to? Finally, the paper discusses the findings in a broader
context and derives policy implications.
Figure 1 presents the main results and exhibits that only 9.7 billion or less than 5%
of the total amount of 215.9 billion being distributed in the 1st and 2nd
programme were not used for debt-related payments and bank recapitalizations
and thus directly contributed to the Greek fiscal budget. In contrast,
139.2 billion 1 or more than 64% were used to repay the existing debt and serve
interest payments. Furthermore, 37.3 billion or 17% were used to recapitalize
Greek banks, while the remaining 29.7 billion or 14% provided incentives for
investors to engage in the Private Sector Involvement (PSI) in March 2012. 2
Figure 1:
The additional accrued interest payment of 4.9 billion, which was also part of the PSI, is
already accounted for in the general government interest payments.
2. Introduction
The question on how to treat Greek government debt has resulted in major
discussions among policy-makers, academics, financial specialists, and the general
public at least since the outbreak of the Greek government debt crisis in early
2010. This holds in particular for the question of where the money flew that was
designated for the Greek bailout. The analysis of this question has resulted in
vastly differing estimates by different individuals and institutions. The reported
values for the share of the funds from the first and second Greek bailout
programmes to go to creditors cover a range from 33% to almost 100%. But what is
the correct value?
A correct answer to this question is of crucial importance in the debate on how to
find the best recipe to fight this crisis as well as to best tackle future government
debt crises. The purpose of this paper is thus to shed light on the exact numbers
and provide transparency in a descriptive way. This study focuses exclusively on
the fiscal rescue packages, as agreed upon by European and international
institutions and parliaments, and ignores other types of intensely discussed
mechanisms including Target 2/ELA. The study extends an open invitation to fellow
researchers and the public to critically check the very detailed figures and thus to
create a sustainable and commonly agreed upon basis for further discussions.
The discussion in this paper is related, but not equivalent to the question of how
the cumulated Greek primary deficit after adjusting for the support to financial
institutions of 16.3 billion was financed in the years 2010-2014. 3
This analysis
would include a number of payments not analyzed in this article such as gains from
privatizations, short-term financing via T-Bills and repo operations, payments
caused by the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) and the Agreement on Net
Financial Assets (ANFA) programme of the ECB, contributions to European and
International Monetary Fund (IMF) programmes as well as the management of cash
reserves and arrears. Moreover, the first and second bailout programmes do not
cover the full 2010-2014 period.
Cumulated data from the Hellenic Statistical Authority (2014a), Press release and Hellenic
Statistical Authority (2015a), Press release.
The primary deficit in other sources may include the support of financial institutions.
Deficit and surplus data from different sources can vary depending on the use of ESA95 or
ESA10 accounting standards and the accounting methods of the IMF.
Detail of the request can be found in the official document: European Commission,
Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2015). Greece request for
stability support in the form of an ESM loan.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2012). The
Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, Occasional Papers 94, 5.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2011). The
Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, 5th ed., Occasional Papers 87, 5.
10
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2014). The
Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, 4th ed., Occasional Papers 192, 69.
Figure 2:
11
12
The complete planned disbursement schedule is available at: International Monetary Fund
(2014). Greece, IMF country report 14/151, 55.
13
14
141.8 billion stemming from the EU and 11.9 billion from the IMF. 15 This leaves
18.8 billion undisbursed compared to the total amount of 172.6 billion initially
planned. Moreover, the Hellenic Financial Stability Fund (HFSF) paid back
10.9 billion to the EFSF in February 2015, which reduces the total disbursed EU
funds from 141.8 billion to 130.9 billion. 16
Figure 3:
15
A different rounding in the original documents of the IMF and EU leads to 153.8 billion as
the sum of EU and IMF payments.
16
European Financial Stability Facility, Lending operations, Greece. EFSF programme for
Greece (expired).
17
European Commission, The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, 69.
Figure 4:
18
19
20
10
Development Programme ADP), as set out in the MoU, which is executed through
the privatization entity Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund (HRADF). 21 The
privatizations are expected to generate 6.4 billion through the sale of Greek
government assets, which mainly includes airports, ports and public oil, gas and
water companies. 22
23
21
22
23
Full list provided in: The European Commission, on behalf of the European Stability
Mechanism. Memorandum of understanding for a three-year ESM programme.
budget,
net
of
payments
for
interest,
debt
repayments,
bank
recapitalizations, and debt restructuring measures. Obviously, there is no one-toone correspondence between the programme contribution and the accumulated
Greek primary budget deficit, as the latter includes other income streams, which
are described above.
24
This is the cumulated sum of debt payments for 2010-2014 of 96.1 billion, as provided
by: International Monetary Fund, Greece. IMF country report 13/20, 62, International
Monetary Fund, Greece. IMF country report 13/241, 60, International Monetary Fund,
Greece. IMF country report 14/151, 56, less 9.1 billion which were paid in 2010 before
the first bailout (European Commission, The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece.
Occasional Papers 77, 75.) and 0.1 billion paid in 2014 after the second bailout package
(European Commission, The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece.
Occasional Papers 192, 71).
25
Possible positive effects on the household during the time before repayment are not
analyzed as part of this paper.
26
The 9.1 billion in IMF loans are projections from the latest IMF review of the Second
Economic Adjustment Programme (IMF country report No. 14/151, 56). The 77.8 billion
also include 15.6 billion in projected repayments (IMF country report No. 14/151, 56).
Both numbers can be subject to adjustments.
27
Hellenic Statistical Authority (2014b), Press release 1 and Hellenic Statistical Authority
(2015b) 1.
28
29
30
11
12
and 0.1 billion in the last quarter of 2014. 31 The interest payments include, due to
data availability, full years and 4.9 billion of accrued interest as part of the PSI
programme. It is important to note that the debt repayments also include the
mentioned 9.1 billion debt repayments to the IMF.
While the repayment of maturing debt and the interest service to existing debt are
straightforward, the HFSF and the PSI payments require a more detailed
explanation. First, the HFSH was created in July 2010 as a private legal entity to
stabilize the Greek banking sector. It received a total committed volume of 48.2
billion as part of the second bailout package, out of which 10.9 billion were
repaid, resulting in a total amount of 37.3 billion. Second, the PSI payments were
originally planned to amount to 30.0 billion for the sweetener plus 5.5 billion for
accrued interest, while the actual payments resulted in 29.7 billion for the
sweetener and 4.9 billion for accrued interest, leaving a combined total of 34.6
billion. 32 The purpose of the PSI payments was to allow and provide appropriate
incentives for the Greek government debt restructuring in March 2012.
Figure 5:
1st and 2nd Economic Adjustment Programme sources and uses [ bn]
31
32
For each 100 of eligible bonds for which their holders accepted the debt swap
conditions, 15 were paid as EFSF notes as part of the second economic adjustment
programme, the so-called PSI sweetener, i.e. two bonds that mature on March 12,
2013 and March 12, 2014 with a fixed rate of 0.4% and 1.0%, respectively. Another
31.5 were provided as a series of 20 bonds issued by the Greek government with
equal nominal value to mature between 2013 and 2042 and with interest rates of
2.0% between 2012 and 2015, 3.0% between 2016 and 2020, 3.65% for 2021, and
33
Zettelmeyer, J., C. Trebesch, and M. Gulani (2013). The Greek debt restructuring: An
autopsy, Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper No. 13-8, 34.
34
For a detailed analysis of the eligible bonds and hold-outs please view: Zettelmeyer et.
al. The Greek debt restructuring, 34.
13
14
4.3% thereafter. 35 This resulted in payments of 29.7 billion for the PSI Bonds and
62.4 billion for the government bonds. 36 Hence the government debt for
respective bonds was reduced from 199.2 billion to 92.1 billion, constituting a
debt relief of 107.1 billion or 53.7%. Additionally 4.9 billion were paid for the
accrued interest of the exchanged bonds. The restructuring was followed by a
11.3 billion debt buyback financed through the second bailout programme, in
which a nominal value of 31.9 billion of the newly issued Greek government bonds
were bought back, reducing the face value of Greeks government debt by further
20.6 billion. 37 Figure 7 exhibits that, as a result, with the new bailout loans from
the IMF and the EU, the overall Greek government debt decreased from 356.0
billion in 2011 to 304.7 billion in 2012. Put differently, the nominal gross debt
relief resulting from the 107.1 billion haircut and from the 20.6 billion bond
buyback programme was significantly reduced by the need to finance the HFSF and
PSI payments of 37.3 billion and 34.6 billion, respectively. The overall debt
burden only decreased 51.3 billion from 2011 to 2012. 38
Figure 7:
35
36
The numbers deviate from the official 15% and 31.5% of the 199.2 billion total bond
value taking part in the restructuring. Zettelmeyer explains the difference due to the
treatment of a 2057 English-law CPI indexed bond, which was only partly exchanged.
37
38
39
European Commission, Greece - request for stability support in the form of an ESM loan,
11.
15
16
2012
and
turned
into
primary
surpluses
in
2013,
not
considering
40
Third, one may wonder why investors were willing to finance absurdly high primary
budget deficits over many years and to help accumulate a public debt level of 330
billion or 146% of GDP by 2010. 41 Obviously, as reflected by the rather low risk
spreads on Greek government bonds before 2010, the fear of a sovereign
bankruptcy was rather mild. Financial institutions were helped in their investments
by the fact that the regulation on investing in (Greek) sovereign debt was mild or
non-existing. In particular, European banks did (and mostly still do) not have to
provide equity for investments in European sovereign debt nor, even more
importantly, do they face any maximum thresholds of how much they can invest in
these securities. This leads to the outcome that Greek banks had a combined
exposure of 54.4 billion towards its government. 42 These figures imply that
banking regulation needs to quickly and comprehensively adjust the standards for
lending to governments to those for lending to other institutions, in particular
private companies. Removing regulatory privileges for government debt is
important to loosen the widely cited nexus between banks and states and make the
financial system more resilient.
Fourth, there were reasonable and unreasonable arguments to not conduct a
haircut in Greek government debt in April 2010. The lack of an immediate
significant restructuring of Greek government debt was (correctly) anticipated by
investors in the years before 2010 and was mirrored in the relatively low risk
premia charged by these investors. The reasonable arguments comprise in
particular the fear of contagion just 19 months after the bankruptcy of Lehman
Brothers and the looming risk of another financial crisis. The unreasonable
arguments deal with the fear of major losses in particular in German and French
banks as major investors in Greek government debt, and the resulting necessity of
a recapitalization in these banks. It is reasonable to assume that the public debate
would have taken a different direction if losses had been borne by Germany and
France right away, making it more difficult in public sentiment to seek the
responsibility in Greece alone. In sum, the lack of a haircut and the subsequent
bailout packages led to the transfer of risk from private to public creditors. In
general, early creditor losses are important to achieve a significant reduction of
government debt, before any fresh funds should be put at risk.
Fifth, the question of debt sustainability is currently subject to major debates
between the Greek government, the IMF, and the European partner countries. The
41
Public Debt Management Agency, Economic indicators. The figures might vary between
IMF, OECD, PDMA and different sources due to different accounting details.
42
17
18
Greek government, probably correctly so, points out that the current sovereign
debt level, in particular after the political and economic turmoil in 2015, is
unsustainable and concludes that another debt restructuring would be necessary
already at this point of time. The other side argues that a significant restructuring
of existing debt has already taken place in the form of a lengthening of debt
maturities and a reduction of interest rates. More importantly and less openly
argued in public, Greek partners have lost trust in the Greek government to not
start the same accumulation of sovereign debt again once another debt
restructuring will have taken place (first implication). Second, while they
acknowledge the Greek progress in closing the primary budget deficit, significant
progress in structural reform still needs to take place (second implication).
Furthermore, banks are not constrained by regulation in their general ability to
finance the Greek state again by investing significant amounts of funds into Greek
government debts (third implication). These aspects together suggest that there is
good reason to delay the discussion on another debt restructuring in Greece to the
time when the Greek government will have built trust again to maintain a balanced
budget, when it will have finally implemented important structural reforms, and
when banking regulation has accepted the necessity to remove the regulatory
privileges for bank investments in government debt.
6. Conclusion
This paper provides a descriptive analysis of where the Greek bailout money went
since 2010 and finds that, contrary to widely held beliefs, less than 10 billion or a
fraction of less than 5% of the overall programme went to the Greek fiscal budget.
In contrast, the vast majority of the money went to existing creditors in the form
of debt repayments and interest payments. The resulting risk transfer from the
private to the public sector and the subsequent risk transfer within the public
sector from international organizations such as the ECB and the IMF to European
rescue mechanisms such as the ESM still constitute the most important challenge
for the goal to achieve a sustainable fiscal situation in Greece.
This study offers an open invitation to other researchers to critically check the
detailed figures presented in this paper and to further the analysis of the primary
deficit financing and broader implications such as the distribution effects of bailout
programmes on the Greek economy and other EU member states.
19
References
Eurogroup (2015). Eurogroup statement on the ESM programme for Greece.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/press-releases-pdf/2015/8/40802201771_en_
635751847200000000.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Banking Authority. 2011 EU-wide stress test results.
http://www.eba.europa.eu/risk-analysis-and-data/eu-wide-stress-testing/2011/
results (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
(2015). Greece request for stability support in the form of an ESM loan.
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/documents/2015-0710_greece_art__13_eligibility_assessment_esm_en.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
(2012). The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, Occasional Papers
94. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/
pdf/ocp94_en.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
(2011). The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, 5th ed., Occasional
Papers 87. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_
paper/2011/pdf/ocp87_en.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
(2014). The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, 4th ed.,
Occasional Papers 192. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/
occasional_paper/2014/pdf/ocp192_en.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
(2011). The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece, 3rd. ed., Occasional
Papers 77. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_
paper/2011/pdf/ocp77_en.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs, Greece. Financial assistance
to Greece. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/greek_loan_
facility/index_en.htm (accessed April 27, 2016).
The European Commission, on behalf of the European Stability Mechanism.
Memorandum of understanding for a three-year ESM programme (2015).
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/greek_loan_facility/pdf/
01_mou_20150811_en.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
(2013) European Financial Stability Facility. http://www.efsf.
europa.eu/attachments/EFSF%20FAQ%2004032013.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016).
Authors
Jrg Rocholl is President of ESMT European School of Management and Technology
in Berlin and member of the economic advisory board of the German Federal
Ministry of Finance.
Axel Stahmer is an Albert Einstein scholar in the Berlin Doctoral Program in
Economics & Management Science (BDPEMS) at ESMT.
About ESMT
ESMT European School of Management and Technology was founded by 25
leading global companies and institutions. The international business school offers
a full-time MBA, an executive MBA, an executive MBA/MPA, a masters in
management as well as open enrollment and customized executive education
programs. ESMT focuses on three main topics: leadership and social responsibility,
European competitiveness, and the management of technology. ESMT faculty
publishes in top academic journals. Additionally, the business school provides an
interdisciplinary platform for discourse between politics, business, and academia.
ESMT is based in Berlin, Germany, with Schloss Gracht as an additional location
near Cologne. ESMT is a private business school with the right to grant PhDs and is
accredited by the German state, AACSB, AMBA, EQUIS, and FIBAA. www.esmt.org
ESMT
European School of Management and Technology
Faculty Publications
Schlossplatz 1
10178 Berlin
Phone: +49 30 21231-1279
[email protected]
www.esmt.org