The economic return of Iceland has proved that the joke was on us

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I think in America's case there wasn't all that much in the way of public money ultimately spent on the bailout, but damned if the Icelandic people aren't looking pretty sharp right about now.

Independent.ie - Dan White: The economic return of Iceland has proved that the joke was on us

WAY back in the autumn of 2008, the joke in financial circles was that the only difference between Ireland and Iceland was a letter and six months. Now, with the Icelandic banks preparing to issue foreign currency bonds once again, it turns out that the joke was on us.

Remember when the Icelandics did the unthinkable and, unlike Ireland, told bank creditors to take a hike? They also imposed capital controls and allowed the value of their currency to fall – the Icelandic krona has lost almost half of its value against the euro over the past five years.

The "experts" queued up to assure us that these latter-day Vikings would be severely punished for their impertinence. While no one forecast that a hole would open up in the North Atlantic and swallow Iceland whole, some of the predictions came pretty darned close.

Meanwhile, we in Ireland did what we were told and repaid over €70bn of bank bonds at par. By doing so, even at the cost of bankrupting the State, the "experts" assured us that we would retain the confidence of the markets. Now, four years later, it is clear that, not for the first time, the "experts" have got it wrong. Catastrophically and utterly wrong.

Since putting the taxpayer on the hook for the banks' debts, the domestic economy has shrunk by almost a quarter in nominal or cash terms. And any real recovery is still a long way off. The documents along with this month's Budget reveal that the Department of Finance is expecting Irish GNP, basically the domestic economy, to grow by 1.4 per cent in 2012 and 0.9 per cent next year. Other forecasters are taking a far more pessimistic view.

Way out in the North Atlantic, things have turned out rather differently. Economic growth is expected to be 3.1 per cent this year and 2.2 per cent in 2013. But surely after stitching up its bank creditors – the Icelandic banking default cost $85bn, a massive amount for a country with a population of 320,000 people – the country remains persona non grata with the international financial markets. Having been so badly bitten once, the markets must be twice or even thrice shy of Iceland.

Not so. The Icelandic treasury successfully flogged $1bn of 10-year bonds to investors in May. These bonds were initially priced to yield a spread of 407 basis points (4.07 per cent) over comparable US treasuries, a margin which has since narrowed to 296 basis points.

In the financial markets, as elsewhere in life, eaten bread is soon forgotten. Would-be investors in Icelandic bonds focus most of their attention, not on what happened in the past, but on what is likely to happen in the future.

What these investors see is that, by burning the bank bondholders rather than taking these debts on to the national balance sheet, the Icelandic sovereign is in a far stronger position to repay any future debts.

Compare this to the Irish situation. By being good boys did we retain the confidence of the markets? No we didn't. We too were locked out of the markets and were bounced into accepting an EU/IMF bailout in November 2010. Far from doing better than the Icelandics, we have ended up with the worst of all possible worlds. We are still stuck with the banks' legacy debts and, a few carefully choreographed fund raisings by the NTMA notwithstanding, the State remains largely reliant on official lenders to fund its activities. This is because investors can see that, with the debts of the Irish State likely to exceed €200bn – the equivalent of more than 150 per cent of GNP – by the end of 2013, there is no way the Irish sovereign can repay existing borrowings let alone any new loans it may seek to raise.

Now, as if to add insult to injury, the Icelandic banks are preparing a return to the markets. Unlike Ireland, Iceland immediately nationalised its bust banks in the autumn of 2008 but refused to assume responsibility for their liabilities. The cleaned-up Icelandic banks are now getting ready to issue foreign currency bonds, the proceeds of which will be used to help finance the thriving, export-driven Icelandic economy.

When we look at what has happened in Iceland, the proposed deal on legacy Irish bank debt tastes like very thin gruel indeed. Once again the Irish Government is talking up the chances of such a deal following last week's apparent agreement by EU finance ministers on a new eurozone banking supervision regime. The latest "deadline" for such a deal is supposedly the end of March 2013. Given that several previous "deadlines" have come and gone, don't hold your breath.

Maybe, instead of being the good boys it's time we followed the Icelandic example and indulged in some Viking-style plunder and pillage.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
Probably can't do that in the US since retirees have most of their savings in bonds. Is that correct or would it not affect them?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Maybe, instead of being the good boys it's time we followed the Icelandic example and indulged in some Viking-style plunder and pillage.

Population of Iceland = ~320,000

This means the population of Iceland is slightly less than Santa Ana, California (yeah I never heard of that city either)

It is a lot easier to plunder when there are lots of people bigger than you to plunder.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
That's stupid, iceland is 3 times the size of my tiny ass city.

Also, the value of iceland's currency plummeted by 40%, they didn't get out of this unscathed.

Lastly, iceland defaulted on FOREIGNERS who had deposits with Iceland while insuring Icelanders, that's a pretty easy thing to do.

Only thing i really agree with is that Iceland prosecuted their bankers and we didn't. Everything else is apples to oranges.

And the smart thing to do, instead of bailing out the banks, would have been temporary nationalization of the banks which would have punished both the executives and shareholders. That was the only other real option for the US and other big countries. We couldn't do what iceland did.

Edit: forgot to mention that Iceland is a fishing/natural resources country with a small population, they'll be fine in the long run. America is (or is turning into) a 'services' industry, we're fucked.

Edit 2: Oh god, what the fuck, ireland is on the Euro while iceland has it's own currency, again, apples to oranges.
 
Last edited:

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
You can either pay for it by bailing out banks or by debasing currency and paying a ton more yield on new issues. There's no free lunch.

In 2005 US 10year yield was around 4.2, iceland was issuing around 6.2. Their cost of borrowing essentially doubled.
 
Last edited:

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Let's see. A 40 percent drop in the value of their currency and they just had a year of economic growth of 3.1 percent.
I would guess the average Icelanders standard of living will be back to the level it was before the crash sometime in 2095.

Ask yourself how well you would be doing if a 600 dollar computer now costs 1000 or a gallon of gas is 6.50 instead of 3.50.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Let's see. A 40 percent drop in the value of their currency and they just had a year of economic growth of 3.1 percent.
I would guess the average Icelanders standard of living will be back to the level it was before the crash sometime in 2095.

Ask yourself how well you would be doing if a 600 dollar computer now costs 1000 or a gallon of gas is 6.50 instead of 3.50.

Or if a $200K house cost $500K? Oh wait...
 

Ichigo

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2005
2,158
0
0
Let's see. A 40 percent drop in the value of their currency and they just had a year of economic growth of 3.1 percent.
I would guess the average Icelanders standard of living will be back to the level it was before the crash sometime in 2095.

Ask yourself how well you would be doing if a 600 dollar computer now costs 1000 or a gallon of gas is 6.50 instead of 3.50.

Value lost against the Euro... Foreign exchange rates are not the same as inflation. What are you talking about?

You sound like a teenager who read 2 pages of Freud trying to tell his female friends why they want a penis.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You can either pay for it by bailing out banks or by debasing currency and paying a ton more yield on new issues. There's no free lunch.

In 2005 US 10year yield was around 4.2, iceland was issuing around 6.2. They cost of borrowing essentially doubled.
Apparently one of the casualties of the Great Recession was the definition of "looking sharp".
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
This article is missing some key points.

Of note Iceland never defaulted on their public government debt. However Iceland did allow foreign banks to fail as in they allowed those banks to eat the majority of the toxic debt from their melt down. Thus they allowed failure to occur in the marketplace but again this failure was redirected at foreign banking firms in the case of Iceland. Lastly much of Ireland's debt is held publicly and Ireland itself being part of the EU cannot and could not just walk away from its public debt or allow EU banks to eat their toxic debt and devalue the Euro.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
That's stupid, iceland is 3 times the size of my tiny ass city.

Also, the value of iceland's currency plummeted by 40%, they didn't get out of this unscathed.

Lastly, iceland defaulted on FOREIGNERS who had deposits with Iceland while insuring Icelanders, that's a pretty easy thing to do.

Only thing i really agree with is that Iceland prosecuted their bankers and we didn't. Everything else is apples to oranges.

And the smart thing to do, instead of bailing out the banks, would have been temporary nationalization of the banks which would have punished both the executives and shareholders. That was the only other real option for the US and other big countries. We couldn't do what iceland did.

Edit: forgot to mention that Iceland is a fishing/natural resources country with a small population, they'll be fine in the long run. America is (or is turning into) a 'services' industry, we're fucked.

Edit 2: Oh god, what the fuck, ireland is on the Euro while iceland has it's own currency, again, apples to oranges.

So are you implying the value of the Euro would have plummeted 40% had Iceland not taken it up the ass by the banksters? If that is indeed the case perhaps the rest of the Eurozone would have taken the assraping for Ireland, after Ireland gave the banksters both middle fingers of course, since they would be affected just as much?

The bottom line is most of the "developed" world got suckered into the biggest con of all times. Iceland is the only one with the balls and brains to tell the con artists to go fuck themselves. What is really cool is that it was the people themselves that made this happen and not their government. If I recall, they actually had a protest outside of one of their government buildings with pitchforks and torches or something of the like.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Value lost against the Euro... Foreign exchange rates are not the same as inflation. What are you talking about?

You sound like a teenager who read 2 pages of Freud trying to tell his female friends why they want a penis.
Because we all know Iceland manufactures everything an Icelander could ever want. Oh wait . . .

This article is missing some key points.

Of note Iceland never defaulted on their public government debt. However Iceland did allow foreign banks to fail as in they allowed those banks to eat the majority of the toxic debt from their melt down. Thus they allowed failure to occur in the marketplace but again this failure was redirected at foreign banking firms in the case of Iceland. Lastly much of Ireland's debt is held publicly and Ireland itself being part of the EU cannot and could not just walk away from its public debt or allow EU banks to eat their toxic debt and devalue the Euro.
It's a bit of a gray area since these banks were largely going bust due to Icelandic banks' junk bonds and Iceland's citizens were enjoying the largess from those junk bond sales, but it seems to make sense to me that a nation (especially a very small nation with limited means) does not have an obligation to bail out foreign banks operating on its soil. Why should a foreign bank be able to buy bonds with huge returns but also receive protection if those bonds fail? Likewise, what's wrong with a nation saying it will insure the deposits of its citizens, but not deposits of non-citizens in the same banks? Take care of your own first, in all things.

I would like to know what idiots are buying these new bonds though. I've got some prime Tennessee beach front property that's going fast and it's right up their alley . . .
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Because we all know Iceland manufactures everything an Icelander could ever want. Oh wait . . .


It's a bit of a gray area since these banks were largely going bust due to Icelandic banks' junk bonds and Iceland's citizens were enjoying the largess from those junk bond sales, but it seems to make sense to me that a nation (especially a very small nation with limited means) does not have an obligation to bail out foreign banks operating on its soil. Why should a foreign bank be able to buy bonds with huge returns but also receive protection if those bonds fail? Likewise, what's wrong with a nation saying it will insure the deposits of its citizens, but not deposits of non-citizens in the same banks? Take care of your own first, in all things.

I would like to know what idiots are buying these new bonds though. I've got some prime Tennessee beach front property that's going fast and it's right up their alley . . .

I do agree that letting these foreign banks fail was necessary recourse for the correction needed into their economy. It is what allowed them the latitude to be able to clear the table and start over again. Thus I'm not so much arguing against why they did so but more pointing out that their troubles were not as closely linked to their own government's debt (which they have not and did not default on) as say Ireland who has some major debt issues relating to their own government rather then being linked to non-EU foreign banks.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I do agree that letting these foreign banks fail was necessary recourse for the correction needed into their economy. It is what allowed them the latitude to be able to clear the table and start over again. Thus I'm not so much arguing against why they did so but more pointing out that their troubles were not as closely linked to their own government's debt (which they have not and did not default on) as say Ireland who has some major debt issues relating to their own government rather then being linked to non-EU foreign banks.
True, and Dan White is ignoring that all-important point; he only wants the debt to "go away". No doubt on which side of the aisle he sits.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
That sucks. I still have a lot of friends up there.
Well, pen pals mostly.

I worry about them. For a long time they enjoyed a very civilized society. 2nd only to Switzerland or maybe Holland.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Ireland's economy is in the shitter isn't it?

Why even try to discredit the iceland recovery, it already happened.

In Argentina they told the banks to screw off for all the wrong reasons. What it really boils down to is responsibility. Those who incurred bad debts and credit eat losses. If the banks screwed up, let them eat their losses.

Argentina told the banks to screw off - good. Then they turned around and printed money and other games. They paid for it later.

It comes down to letting people who should be eating losses eat said losses and not trying to protect them.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Nice strawman. I don't care what Iceland does. What I responded to was simply stupid.

images


Your grasp of basic macroeconomics is clearly lacking.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
images


Your grasp of basic macroeconomics is clearly lacking.
:D +1

Techs and I don't agree on much, but while his 2095 comment was clearly intentional hyperbole, his basic point was I think irrefutable. Even a nation like Iceland, a net exporter, takes it in the shorts when their currency falls 40%.