We look after your interests

(+34) 93 626 47 75

Torres Sarrià, Carrer de Can Ràbia, 3-5, 4ª Planta BCN 08017

(+34) 91 794 19 82

Pº de la Castellana, 93 2nd floor MADRID 28046

Cluster Family Office Blog

Eurozone tested positive for Covid-19

Those of you who read us regularly will know that we have been saying for years that the Eurozone, as we know it, is neither viable nor sustainable. We warned this almost a decade ago (how time flies!), when the banking crisis was straining the seams of the Eurozone to the limit, and the dreaded Men in Black (MIB) of the Troika were scrutinising the public accounts of the Mediterranean countries of the south. The much-vaunted and politically correct concept of «More Europe» repeatedly hit the wall of the rich and productive North, which preferred a simple and profitable market union to a political, monetary and fiscal union.

.

Thus, the MIBs more or less discreetly shielded the Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) to avoid the free bar that we demanded from the South. Only in exchange for this and the stubbornness of the Eurobureaucrats to kick the can down the road and postpone the moment of truth, the Eurozone went ahead with all its incompatibilities and manifest unsustainability. The hope - in which nobody believed any more - was that with the help of the ECB's QE, and a few years of pseudo-bonanza, the South would, macroeconomically speaking, catch up with the North for once and for all. But the circle has remained unsquared for all these years.

.

The final blow to the economies of the South has come in the form of the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus pandemic, also known as Covid-19 disease. In this mother of all health crises, which is as bloody as it is short-lived, economies as large as Italy or Spain would need a shower of billions in debt (Coronabonds, Eurobonds or whatever you want to call them), which the northern Europeans are not prepared to finance jointly. Paradoxically, this time Merkel is not the standard-bearer of the NO to the free bar but the Netherlands, although it is also true that it is easy for the Germans to play the good cop with the bad Dutch cops. For whatever reason, the South (including France) is trying to take advantage of the final stretch of Merkel's political career to make some desperate concessions in spite of fierce Dutch opposition. The fact is that whatever comes after Merkel is likely to be much less inclined to make concessions to the South, remember the populism that Wolfgang Schaeuble achieved with his proposal to expel Greece from the System. A proposal that, on the other hand, made all the economic sense in the world.

.

Today, what the Netherlands and its circle of influence openly propose is a Europe as a simple common market (sound familiar?). And this idea of the EU coincides with the UK's idea of the EU, which has always been so vilified by Euro-bureaucrats. So this drift towards a «Less Europe» with which the North would feel comfortable could be the way forward, despite the opposition of the countries of the South, since we know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But there is one small detail that complicates this idea of Europe: the Euro. A Common Market loses much of its meaning and simplicity if the monetary policy of all its members must necessarily be the same. In other words, having the same currency exchange rate, the same price of money (interest rates) and a single issuing bank (ECB), puts us back at the same starting point where we are right now. In other words, the South urgently needs trillions to survive, as well as a depreciation of the currency to regain competitiveness and hopes for growth, but the North is not willing to grant it at the expense of its economies. And this constant refusal is generating the rejection also of the European project by the countries of the South, since they know that the - insufficient - financial aid granted by the North will bring with it the relentless return of the dreaded IMFs, which entail the absolute loss of budgetary, fiscal and economic sovereignty in the countries of the South. The EU seems to be finally facing the final wall of the cul-de-sac along which it has been kicking the can down the road since 2011.

.

The glimmer of lucidity in the face of this permanent flight forward that the coronavirus has precipitated seems to be coming from France. Emmanuel Macron told none other than the Financial Times this week that the pandemic has brought the EU to a «moment of truth».». It is no coincidence that  Shahin Vallée, former advisor to the President of the European Council and strongman of the French Ministry of Finance, proposes to create what he calls «the coalition of the will» within the EU. In other words the EU to split into groups according to their intention to evolve towards «More» or «Less» Europe. Thus, countries that want more integration could keep their single currency and monetary policy, giving up sovereignty in exchange for a growing and irreversible fiscal and political union. But what is more curious is that those countries that want less integration, once freed from those who want «More» Europe, could also remain integrated. That is to say that the two incompatible parts would accommodate each other once they are freed from each other, resulting in a Europe not only with two speeds but with two different currency rates, two central banks and two different monetary policies. It would not be a Europe in perfect equilibrium, but it would be much more stable than the unsustainable powder keg in which Covid-19 leaves us.

.

All this could well be covered up under the same Europeanist sheep's clothing, of course. That is to say, using euphemisms that might even keep the less informed in European inopia (continue to call both currencies the Euro, continue to call both issuing banks the ECB, etc.). But there would be undeniable differences, such as, for example, the value of the euro in the southern countries, which could be 20 or 30% lower than the euro in the north. Of course, they would initially be quoted at par, intervened by the ECB, to avoid as far as possible the implementation of corralitos in order to prevent the flight of assets from the south, but they would necessarily drift apart over time. Post-covid19 rates would not diverge in the short or medium term, as everyone needs zero or negative rates at the moment. But in the medium term, Northern Europe could finally follow in the footsteps of the Fed. gradually increased the price of its strong Euro. Maybe we could even see a political and fiscal union beyond the mere common market in one of these - at least - two distinct zones, who knows, since the circle is much easier to square with truly converging economies and a club with fewer members and more common interests.

.

So, how should southern wealthy individuals position themselves in the face of such a post-pandemic scenario? Well, obviously they should avoid accumulating assets in the South or in the South, i.e. avoid having real estate anchored in the less wealthy EU countries (Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and even France). Instead, they could hold them in countries that are likely to be able to sell in Euros that are not affected by the depreciation against the Euro in the North. Or hold them directly outside the EU, for example real estate in the USA, buying them still with the only existing Euro and not with the future devalued Euro of the South. As for financial assets, obviously shares of companies from these southern countries should also be avoided in portfolios, and of course their public and private debt. Moreover, as we have said countless times before, and today more emphatically than ever, the more safety steps we can add between our money and the need to collect or confiscatory In the southern states, we will sleep better at night. We must be aware that in times of extreme situations, extreme solutions will be taken, which we would never have foreseen just 6 months ago.

.

What is undeniable is that even if this EU evolution takes more or less time to arrive and Euro-bureaucrats keep banging their heads against reality, this pandemic is going to leave the West's economic and political supremacy mortally wounded. Covid-19 will have a clear winner, if anyone is going to win in this pandemic, and that winner is none other than China. Not only because it has coped and preserved its economy in an exemplary manner during the epidemic, but also because the rest of the world will inevitably set back several years of economic growth. And that will radically accelerate the leadership of China and its very powerful economic orbit (Vietnam, Korea, Malaysia, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, etc., even India itself), making Asia the new centre of the world. It is true that many will say that the figures of contagions and deaths from the coronavirus in China are unreliable. But let's not kid ourselves, because the figures for many Western countries are not reliable either, and very few question them.

.

In these weeks and months of the pandemic, we have seen how each country has handled the health crisis in very different ways. The results are as diverse as the idiosyncrasies of the respective governments and citizens. And in the European Union, especially in the South, we find countries (read Spain and Italy) that are managing the health crisis in a more than dubious way. Once again we are seeing the differences between North and South within the EU, also in health policy management. The only thing that will probably remain of this European union after the pandemic will be the relative resilience of the northern economies, and the common market that has always been advocated by the most realistic.

.

Golden times for the awakened investor. We warned mid-March and also last day 1st April (by the way, the markets have risen close to 30% since the lows of that time). This crisis will change a lot of things in Europe, and at the same time it is uncovering huge opportunities. Imagine if we can take advantage of the restructuring of the Eurozone and the Euro, if we can invest in healthcare companies around the world and especially in China, or if we can take advantage of the pull of the stock markets and economies of what will be the new centre of the world. And all this with the wind at the back of every central bank on the planet. Unfortunately times are bad for the local investor with local assets.

 

Farewell to the Sovereignty Standard. Infinite money is the new standard.

Although most investors have never looked beyond the Solvency Standard, we must not forget that it is now 48 years since the US monetary authorities decided to abandon the Gold Standard – that is, the pegging of the dollar’s value to that of the precious metal. The practice of pegging money to a commodity that conferred intrinsic value upon it was widespread not only in ancient times but also throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and so its abolition in the early 1970s caused considerable unease amongst US savers, who were accustomed to sleeping soundly in the knowledge that they could exchange their bank notes for a proportion of gold. The difficulties faced by issuers in maintaining the value backing for their currencies were in crescendo, with the result that the proportion of intrinsic value in the money issued gradually decreased, thereby allowing the money in circulation to increase beyond the limit originally set by material wealth (commodity) itself.

.

From that point onwards, intrinsic value began to be gradually and more or less subtly replaced by confidence (fiat) in the issuer. In fact, in some countries such as China, parts of what is now Canada, and other European countries and kingdoms, this path of no return towards fiat money began centuries ago. The new fiat money standard quickly took hold in the West during the 20th century, driven by the economic pressures resulting from the world wars, thereby placing the value of money entirely in the hands of (fiat) in the states, which were, unsurprisingly, delighted by the opportunities for political manipulation of money that this afforded them. With the end of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971, the US definitively buried the intrinsic value of its currency, and fiat money became the global standard – in case anyone still had any doubts. From then on, obviously, some states fared better than others – take, for example, the US versus Argentina, Venezuela or the ‘banana republics’ and their hyperinflation. But even for the top performers, the confidence of most savers in their respective governments has not been enough to prevent a loss of purchasing power over the years.

.

The fiat money system is here to stay, clearly, and we will never again see our money pegged to any real asset. It is simply too tempting for governments to have the power to create an infinite supply of electronic (formerly printed) money. But despite this endless possibility, which hyperinflationary ‘banana republics’ have been abusing, That Fiat standard was self-imposed, based on a criterion that has been key for almost 50 years: solvency. In this way, by linking the ability to create an infinite amount of money to the limits of solvency for repaying debts, Fiat money has, in fact, been the replacement of the gold standard with the solvency standard. In other words, trust in the state had a limit, which was none other than its actual ability to repay its debts and balance its books between public spending and tax revenue from the population without causing inflation to spiral out of control. For this reason, for decades there have been countries whose currencies depreciated against others due to mismanagement, forcing those states to cover their budgetary excesses with new money or public debt, which in turn fuelled inflation. This public debt had to be considered attractive enough for private capital from domestic and foreign investors to finance it. Investors who, consequently, demanded in return an interest rate commensurate with the risk that that state would be unable to pay its debts without printing banknotes, and that inflation would therefore erode its purchasing power. In other words, interest rates which in turn placed a price on the currency issued by each state, based on its ability to balance its books and its inflation rate, that is to say its Solvency.

.

We therefore had a system whose insolvency was self-regulating, since anyone caught in an unstoppable spiral of debt at rising interest rates and galloping inflation would default within a few years, dragging their economy and that of their ill-advised fellow citizens into ruin. But as politicians have never known how to steer the economy, the abuse of debt – even in countries that kept their inflation under control – began to bubble up. Until the debt crisis of 2007 struck, followed by the crash of 2008. By then, excessive debt was so widespread and insolvency so high that the risk of default by insolvent parties was systemic, starting with the entire Western banking system. Solution: Draghi’s famous phrase, «whatever it takes«In other words, central banks will generate as much money as is needed to turn the insolvent into the solvent and thus save the system. Because with infinite liquidity, the insolvent party never goes bankrupt; they simply extend and roll over their debts to infinity and beyond, allowing creditors to avoid having to set aside provisions for bad debts beyond what their balance sheets can bear. It’s a bit like the ostrich that buries its head in the sand.

.

The new standard is therefore that of fiat money, but for the past decade it has also been infinite by decision of the world’s most powerful central banks. In other words, The money needed to keep banks, large systemic companies and the states themselves afloat is being created and will continue to be created, as is the case in the southern part of the eurozone, by adding zeros to its debt and with negative interest rates (we already discussed this 6 years ago in financial repression). Some of the obvious drawbacks are that we are allowing zombie companies – inefficient and up to their ears in debt – to survive, as they repay their maturing debts with new money created by central banks in exchange for their worthless IOUs. Another fatal drawback is that sub-zero interest rates not only keep insolvent public and private entities afloat but also provide even greater incentives for private borrowing. For all these reasons Solvency is no longer a ratio to be taken into account. It will also be chaotic that all these ultra-low-yield instruments are sweeping aside anyone who has made income their modus vivendi or modus operandi – that is to say, private rentiers, pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and other sources of capital seeking to avoid stock market volatility. To date, we have only A decade of zero interest rates, but the damage that quantitative easing will cause in the medium and long term is devastating for the sustainability of funded pension schemes (just as the ageing population we are also experiencing is for pay-as-you-go pension schemes).

.

However, the most curious thing about the current situation is that it may be surprisingly sustainable, as it has advantages such as the fact that we can kick the can down the road when it comes to mass bankruptcies for decades – who knows, perhaps even for generations. We simply need to get used to the idea (and we’re already doing so) that sovereign debt, for example, far exceeds 100% or even 200% of GDP. After all, what does the debt-to-GDP ratio matter if solvency is a problem that central banks have left behind with their new «Infinite Money Standard»? Thus, we see how states keep themselves and their banks solvent by creating money without it entering significant circulation, since the vast majority of these flows do not leave the debt circuit perpetuated between central banks, private banks and state-owned, quasi-state-owned or systemic companies. In a word, we are living in the paradise of ‘too big to fail’. Under this new system of infinite liquidity, the effects of the dreaded ‘austericide’ – championed by the German hawks – can be mitigated, as it fosters inefficient and anaemic economic growth whilst keeping inflation at rock-bottom levels and also warding off the dreaded deflation. But the short-sighted benefits do not end there; in this vicious cycle, politicians can secure re-election without having to make bold decisions or think beyond one or two parliamentary terms – which is their usual intellectual horizon.

.

So what are the risks of this infinite liquidity? Well, as well as providing the perfect breeding ground for the inefficient allocation of money whose price is close to zero, hyperinflation would be another factor that could ultimately cause this new system to implode. But as we saw 10 years ago in «The illusion of wealth and the Quantitative Theory«An increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the velocity of circulation is not sufficient to drive up prices. And the tap controlling the speed at which money flows through the veins of the population – that is, the so-called real economy – is entirely controlled by central banks, governments and private banks.”.

We are therefore entering a profound era in which the Solvency Standard has become obsolete, and in which infinite liquidity will keep zombie companies, banks, states and governments afloat, whilst also giving them an air of normality to which we are already becoming scandalously accustomed. So let’s put the low volatility aside and the comfortable life of the rentiers of yesteryear, the natural selection of the insolvent and inefficient, and a reasonable cost of capital.

.

Infinite Money is the New Standard, and we must learning how to make ends meet in this new era that is set to last for several decades (we’re already a decade into it). Just look at the chaos that ensued as soon as attempts were made to turn off the tap in 2018 (chart at the top of the article). As a result of the market turmoil, central banks have begun to backtrack, reopening the tap in 2019 and 2020. Rentier investors and conservative investors (sic) who still believe they can beat inflation with low volatility are being misled by their financial advisers and/or bankers. In this environment of zero interest rates and excessive debt, neither today nor for many years to come will it be possible to generate solid, sustainable returns that outpace inflation without taking on enormous risk. And that risk is none other than lending our money to issuers of debt and structured products – whether guaranteed or otherwise – and other forms of financial engineering, which are effectively ‘zombies’ kept afloat only by an endless supply of money.

.

The million-dollar question is whether we can throw the savings of the most conservative investors into the arms of virtually zombie banking products, trusting that the era of infinite money is here to stay. The answer is that many have been doing so for a decade and it has worked out relatively well for them (although they have hardly kept pace with real inflation), given that no deposit, guaranteed product or fixed-income portfolio has gone bust under the leadership of Draghi, Yellen or Bernanke. But the fact that a political decision has been taken to keep insolvency afloat does not make those investments solvent. Therefore, barring a very few exceptions involving alternative income-generating assets – such as life settlements or certain segments of the US mortgage market, which exhibit moderate volatility but offer quarterly liquidity and selective access – the most conservative investors would do well to accept the volatility of the stock markets countries whose economies are still growing and will continue to grow for at least a decade. And to invest in those growing assets and markets, they must look for the best funds in the world, without the huge restrictions imposed by minimum investment amounts or marketing regulations in Spain.

.

In this era of infinite money, which is here to stay – as the famous soap opera used to say – one could say that without volatility, there is no paradise.

Security Notice

We have been made aware of phishing and spoofing attempts involving fraudulent email addresses and domains that closely resemble our official company communications. These unauthorized communications are not sent by our company and may falsely impersonate our employees or representatives.

Our company is not responsible for communications, requests, or transactions originating from fraudulent or unauthorized email addresses or domains. Please verify that all communications originate from our official email domain before responding or sharing any information.

If you receive a suspicious email claiming to be from our company, please do not respond, click any links, or provide any information. Contact us directly using the contact information published on this website to verify its authenticity.