The Money View

John Whittaker: Eurosystem balances explained

[The following guest post is by John Whittaker, from whom we have learned much of what we know about how the European payments system works.  See his terrific papers here and here, both of which reward close study.  He has been looking over the last couple Money View posts, and the comments to those posts, and has this to say.]

I'm having some trouble dealing with who said what and where, but let me just try to deal with a couple of points.
1. The SMP (outright) purchases of peripheral government debt ‘by the ECB’ reside on the balance sheets of the NCBs. This may be verified by looking, for instance, at the notes to asset line 7.1 in the accounts in the Bundesbank 2010 annual report. The aggregated figure for SMP across all NCBs is included in the consolidated financial statements of the eurosystem “Other claims on euro area credit institutions in euro”.

2. The confusion about whether the TARGET2 debts of the peripherals are to the ECB or the NCBs is largely irrelevant. According to the ESCB statute, the debts are to the ECB (and so are the claims of those in TARGET2 credit). But what matters is who bears losses in default; legally, this would be all NCBs in proportion to their capital keys but, practically, it would be those NCBs that can afford to. And for NCBs, you can read governments, since they are the owners of NCBs. So I don’t share the concern expressed by some writers about the ECBs or the NCBs running out of capital: all losses ultimately accrue to governments: any NCB that is deemed insolvent (according to the accounting system being used) will be recapitalised by its government.

3. Tornell and Westerman (and others) argue that the Bundesbank’s TARGET2 lending is limited by the zero bound on its lending to its banks (refinancing). This is not correct. If Bundesbank refinancing falls to zero but its banks continue to receive transfers from other eurozone banks, then the German banks acquire claims on the Bundesbank or 'excess reserves'. They would be in the same position as British or US banks are as a result of quantitative easing. Granted, they might not like the low (currently 0.25%) interest rate at the 'deposit facility', but there are other avenues by which the Bundesbank could provide them with a higher reward. The bottom line is that there is no limit to TARGET2 balances (unless the ECB decides to cut eurosystem credit to, say, Greece, which would result in Greece being chucked out of the euro - a point I deal with in my later paper).




As the Euro-zone's private banks have the options to finance debt via two options, any intervention seems to gridlock as the "most effective" intervention (from a deficiency view) would turn out with least impact as it would be evaded actively evaded. "The hedge funds", as David Cameron recently was cited, "would outsmart the policy makers".

However if the option to outsmart within the Euro-zone is not possible, outsmarting is no longer a problem...

Though controversial, my question is:
How would a trading tax (like VAT) imposed on the financial system alone, impact the trade in the Euro zone?

Principle: Any trade performed by banks is taxed with the transaction, whereby the capital movement is taxed directly at rate set by the Euro zone (appx ~ 2.7-3.1%), just as if shareholders return is paid out with every transaction, and not just quarterly or annually. In this analogy the shareholders receiving the tax are the national treasuries which obviously are the ones accountable.

Speculation on consequences:
- Businesses and private tax-payers in the Euro zone are having fiscal stability "clear guidelines" as the interest rates are not adjusted and only the financial sectors speculative trading will be inhibited by the cost of the transaction. The region will thereby not have incentive from destabilisation.

- The national treasuries can use the tax to create new loans once they are within their policy-set limits.

- The inter-currency trade will on short term be reduced, but this would help to stabilise the Euro zone, and as debt is resolved to healthy levels converge into credibility.

Any views on this at INET?
Kind Regards,


"The aggregated figure for SMP across all NCBs is included in the consolidated financial statements of the eurosystem “Other claims on euro area credit institutions in euro”."

No, they are under "Securities held for monetary policy purposes" together with the CBPP and CBPP2.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <blockquote> <br> <cite> <code> <dd> <div> <dl> <dt> <em> <h2> <h3> <h4> <img> <li> <ol> <p> <span> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <tbody> <td> <tr> <ul>
    Allowed Style properties: display, float, height, margin, margin-bottom, margin-left, margin-right, margin-top, width
  • You may insert videos using embed codes like these:
    • [video_large:KoqLu5CKx-o]
    • [popupvideo_mini:KoqLu5CKx-o right]
    • [lightboxvideo_mini:KoqLu5CKx-o]
    • [text_popupvideo:KoqLu5CKx-o nostart noicon|Click here to open the video.]
    • [text_lightboxvideo:KoqLu5CKx-o|Open this video in a lightbox.]
    To learn more, please click on the "More information..." link below.

More information about formatting options