The country's slow-motion bank run could end the euro -- if the ECB lets it.
Bank runs usually have one speed: all-out-sprinting. But today, the Greeks are jogging.
There's been a quiet bank run in Greece the past three years. Since 2009, Greek banks have lost somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of their deposits. That's actually surprisingly low considering that a euro in a Greek bank doesn't look like it's worth as much as a euro in a German bank. The calculus is simple. Greece might turn its euros into cheaper drachmas and Germany won't. Why wouldn't more Greek people move their money to be safe?
Increasingly, they are. On Monday and Tuesday alone, Greeks withdrew over €1.2 billion ($1.53 billion). That's roughly 0.75 percent of remaining Greek deposits. This still-gradual bank run -- what FT Alphaville's Joseph Cotterill calls a "bank jog" -- is accelerating because Greek politics is making a Greek exit look more imminent.
It is a classic case of self-fulfilling economic expectations. Greeks are nervous about leaving the euro. The nervousness leads to a bank run. A bank run increases the chance that Greece will have to leave the euro. Which makes people more nervous. And around we go.
GOOD NIGHT, EURO
As Greek banks lose deposits, they need new sources of funding. But they can't raise money from markets. That leaves the ECB. The ECB has so far been a reluctant lender-of-last-resort, but it has been a lender-of-last-resort -- for banks, if not countries. The Cliff Notes version is that the ECB has kept Greek banks afloat by giving them money in exchange for collateral.* Warning bells might be going off. If Greek banks have good collateral, why can't they use it to get private loans? The answer is that they don't have good collateral. In other words, if Greece defaults and exits, the ECB will be stuck holding a bag of mostly worthless pieces of paper.
How big is the problem? Let's take a look under the hood of the ECB. The below chart courtesy of Scotty Barber shows so-called TARGET2 balances. It's a bit technical, but TARGET2 shows how much countries owe or are owed by the ECB. That's more or less a decent proxy for where deposits are moving from and to within the euro zone.
A Greek default would effectively cost the ECB roughly €100 billion ($127 billion), to be split between the remaining euro zone members.
Here's how this could push Greek out of the euro zone. Greek banks are running out of collateral. Even bad collateral. All they have is really bad collateral. As the bank jog speeds up, they need to get more and more money from the ECB. But they might not have good enough collateral to get it. The ECB can change its rules and accept dodgier collateral -- but that would open the ECB up to even bigger losses down the line, assuming a Greek exit is inevitable.
If the ECB says no, then the jig would be up for Greece. Its banks would run out of money. That's when the bank jog would turn into a full-fledged run and then a sprint -- if it hadn't already. Of course, when banks don't have money, nobody has money. The Greek government wouldn't have a choice: It would have to start printing new drachmas. Good night, euro.
AFTER GREECE ...
The damage won't stop there. Take a look at the TARGET2 balances again. Italian and Spanish banks are even more dependent on ECB funding than Greece. Already, there are signs of a bank racewalk going on among them. If the ECB cut the cord on Greece, Italian and Spanish depositors would frantically move their euros to German banks to protect themselves against the same fate. This deposit drain would eventually push them into the same collateral bind. The ECB would have to dramatically reverse itself to save the common currency.
Let's take a step back for a minute. The world of TARGET2 balances can be something of a rabbit hole, but there are two big takeaways here. First, the Greek bank jog will put more pressure on the ECB to do more. It will have to decide again whether or not to boot Greece from the euro zone. And second, a Greek exit would be a mess for Italy and Spain regardless of whether Greek politicians or the ECB makes the move.
It's hard to imagine the ECB pulling the plug on Greece anytime soon. Europe doesn't have anywhere near the bailout fund it needs ready, nor a consensus on euro bonds, nor on more aggressive ECB action. But the longer the ECB keeps Greek, Italian, and Spanish banks on life support, the greater the final cost if one of them exits -- and the greater the panic will hit the other countries in that event. The danger is that the ECB will lose its nerve -- that it will worry about potential future losses. That's what Bundesbank chief Jens Weidmann fretted over a few months back. That could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The biggest thing Europe has to fear is ECB fear of a euro breakup.
* It's a bit more complicated than that. There are two ways banks effectively get money from the ECB. They can either pledge collateral to the ECB directly, or pledge collateral to their national central banks. The benefit of the latter option -- so-called Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) -- is that banks can use worse collateral. Still, the ECB has to okay the collateral. ELA are technically liabilities of each individual country, but if a country defaulted and left the euro zone, the ECB would be on the hook. Joseph Cotterill has a good summary of ECB versus ELA liquidity in Greece.
The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.
One of the first measures that Republicans in the 115th Congress proposed was the “Heartbeat Protection Act.” On January 11, a group led by Steve King of Iowa introduced a bill that would require doctors nationwide to “check for a fetal heartbeat” before performing an abortion, and prohibit them from completing the procedure if they found one. In December, Republicans in the Indiana state legislature put forth a similar measure. Governor Mike Pence vetoed it, observing that such a law would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional, but approved a 20-week abortion ban.
Opponents of the heartbeat bills have pointed out that they would eliminate abortion rights almost entirely—making the procedure illegal around four weeks after fertilization, before many women realize that they are pregnant. These measures raise even more elementary questions: What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?
As the party struggles to agree on a replacement, a group of GOP senators unveil a bill that would give states the option to keep it.
The vast majority of Republicans in Congress haven’t budged from their longstanding vow to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act. But as the party struggles to write a replacement, a few GOP lawmakers are declaring their support for keeping the law on the books in some form indefinitely.
A group of senators on Monday unveiled legislation that would give states the option of preserving Obamacare, securing federal support for a more conservative health-insurance system, or opting out of any assistance from Washington. Offered as a middle ground in the partisan health-care fight, the proposal breaks with years of Republican orthodoxy on the 2010 law, which party leaders have pledged to rip out “root and branch.”
The president repeated his belief that the U.S. should have taken Iraq’s oil, ominously adding that the CIA may “have another chance.”
Every American, regardless of who they voted for in the election, should be furious with President Donald Trump for what he told the CIA during a recent meeting at its headquarters. I do not mean his digressions about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and the number of times he has appeared on the cover of Time magazine, although it does not inspire confidence to see the president waste fleeting time with national-security employees on his vanity rather than our security.
It’s his comments on Iraq that ought to make Americans apoplectic, for in the space of seconds, Trump managed to utter words that are 1) morally repugnant, 2) certain to be exploited as a recruiting tool by America’s terrorist enemies, and 3) likely to help foreign adversaries diminish America’s reputation and power. For the sake of an indisciplined, self-indulgent riff, Trump made Americans less safe.
The president laid out 18 promises in a “Contract With the American Voter,” but he only managed to check off a handful by Monday.
“On Day One.” The notion of immediately turning the page on policy is a staple of presidential transitions, from Franklin Roosevelt’s “first 100 days” on, but Donald Trump made the promise of things he’d get done on his first day in the White House into a special mantra throughout the campaign.
The full list, as Tim Murphy chronicled, included some things that were either wildly implausible and evidently figurative, or things that are impossible to assess. (How would you “fix” the Veterans Affairs Department on Day One? What does it mean to start taking care of the military?) But Trump also laid out a set of 18 specific, discrete promises for his first day in office in what he called a “Contract With the American Voter.” So how did he do?
The president declared his own inauguration a national holiday. But the language he used says something more.
You could be forgiven for forgetting the National Day of Patriotic Devotion—technically, it happened before it was ever declared. Donald Trump established it with a stroke of a pen sometime after his inauguration; the official proclamation appeared Monday in the Federal Register.
That bit isn’t all that unusual. Presidents christen National Days Of Things all the time. President Barack Obama, for example, proclaimed the day of his own inauguration in 2009 a “National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation,” calling “upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.” He annually declared September 11 to be “Patriot Day.” But “Patriotic Devotion” strikes a different note—flowery, vaguely compulsory.
A No. 1 bestseller by a respected physician argues that gluten and carbohydrates are at the root of Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, depression, and ADHD. What to make of the controversial theory?
“If you could make just three simple changes in your life to prevent, or even reverse, memory loss and other brain disorders, wouldn’t you?”
So asks Dr. David Perlmutter, in promotion of his PBS special Brain Change, coming soon to your regional affiliate. Three changes. Simple ones. Wouldn’t you?
The 90-minute special is a companion to Perlmutter’s blockbuster book on how gluten and carbs are destroying our brains. In November it became a New York Times number one bestseller. Since its September release, as Perlmutter told me, “It’s never not been on the bestseller list, frankly.”
“Is it still number one?” I asked. A pause over the phone as he checked. In modern interview style, we were both also on our computers.
The HBO documentary delves into the disturbing 2014 case of two Wisconsin girls who say they stabbed their friend to appease a bogeyman-like figure.
One late spring day in 2014, three girls entered the woods in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Two walked out unharmed. A 911 call made not long after revealed the hazy outline of a vicious attack—one of the girls had been found by the side of the road covered in blood, having crawled there to get help. In the days and weeks that followed, details emerged that were no less disturbing: The three girls, all 12 years old, were best friends. The victim had been stabbed 19 times with a 5-inch blade and had barely survived. After being taken into police custody, the other two girls told interrogators what had happened: They had lured their friend into the woods to kill her so that they could appease someone called Slenderman.
“What do we want? Data! When do we want it? Forever!”
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Jane Zelikova is not a “protest person.”
“I’m so anti-protest, and so anti-demonstration,” she told me. “Growing up in the U.S.S.R., I always have that sense that protest is theater.”
Even after she moved to the United States, she retained her suspicion of demonstrations large and small. They seemed to rarely achieve their goals, and they reminded her of the government-planned pageantry of her youth. As a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder, she attended a protest during the run-up to the Iraq War—only to leave before it ended out of personal unease.
Since then, her research into community ecology has taken her to the tropical rainforests of Costa Rica and the high-elevation deserts of Utah. It let her spend months studying leafcutter ants, a colony-dwelling creature that grows fungus for its food; and it introduced her to Pseudobombax septenatum, a tree sheathed in photosynthetic bark that can store water in its trunk for months at a time.
The president has reinstated a contentious policy that blocks funding to international family-planning organizations unless they agree not to promote abortion.
On Monday, just days after hundreds of thousands of women marched on Washington, as well as in hundreds of cities around the nation and the world, to call for, among other issues, the protection of women’s reproductive rights, President Donald Trump signed offon the first anti-abortion policy of his term.
It was expected: Almost immediately upon entering office, every new administration since 1984 has repealed or reinstated, according to its party’s position on abortion rights, a rule that prohibits foreign organizations that receive U.S. family-planning funds “from providing counseling or referrals for abortion or advocating for access to abortion services in their country.”
This rule, known as the Mexico City policy, blocks U.S. family-planning assistance to these groups, even if their abortion-related activities—including information, referrals, or services—are conducted with non-U.S. funds. Opponents to the restriction have dubbed it the “Global Gag Rule” because it hinders communication between health-care providers and patients.
With a pen stroke, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, imposed a federal hiring freeze, and reinstated the “Mexico City policy” on defunding international abortion-related services.
President Trump marked his first full business day in office with three major executive orders, each one aimed at fulfilling campaign promises he made last year.
His most significant order immediately withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral free-trade agreement between the U.S. and eleven other Pacific Rim countries. The pact, aimed at counterbalancing China’s growing economic clout in east Asia, was among the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievements and a cornerstone of the pivot to Asia.
But the agreement also drew its share of domestic criticism on both sides of the campaign aisle. Both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who initially supported it, and her primary rival Bernie Sanders criticized the pact for not doing enough to support American workers. Trump was among its most vociferous critics, at one point calling it “a continuing rape of our country.”