Cloudy Full Forecast

Reflections on Iceland and the financial crisis - Part 4

By Peter Ewart & Dawn Hemingway

Monday, October 31, 2011 03:45 AM

 Photo of Strokkur Geyser courtesy of “Visit Iceland”- http://www.icetourist.is/DiscoverIceland/

Part 4  - The financial geyser

By Peter Ewart & Dawn Hemingway
 
(Click here for previous articles in series).  
 
From the Second World War onwards, Iceland had followed a social democratic model of a "mixed economy" with an expanded social safety net, and a social contract between capital and labour. This was the same model that all other "Western" industrialized countries followed to one degree or another. But by the 1980s, this "model" was in trouble, both economically and politically. To boost profits and improve their balance sheets, the financial oligarchy and the political elites were marching down the "new" road of "Thatcherism" and "neo-liberalism", and Iceland was no exception.
 
A new government came to power in the early 1990s with the aim of slashing corporate taxes, eliminating regulation, and privatizing state assets. Key to its agenda was the privatization and "freeing up" of the banking sector (which had been mainly publicly owned before), a longstanding desire of certain Icelandic bankers and neo-liberal politicians. Iceland was to become a "global financial hub" that would soon rival Switzerland.
 
The possibilities were endless, and the sky the only limit. As the President of the Kaupthing bank, Sigurdur Einarsson, who would later become a fugitive from justice, claimed in the best new age jargon: "If you think you can, you can" (1). And so, a process began that culminated in the formation of a gigantic financial bubble the size of which this hardworking, small country had not imagined even in its wildest dreams.
 
And the economy did expand, slower at first during the 1990s, then picking up momentum and skyrocketing after 2000. The privatization of the banks resulted in the country being flooded with new foreign investment. The currency strengthened and interest rates rose. "Nouveau riche" Icelandic investors in league with foreign financiers engaged in a flurry of acquisitions, hostile takeovers, and consolidations that busted up the old Icelandic business elite. As later investigation would reveal, cronyism, fraud and insider manipulation were rampant, but for now the economy was booming.
 
Traditionally solid and profitable enterprises like Icelandair had their assets sold off and were transformed into "investment companies". Longstanding domestic businesses became multinationals, and, of course, leading the pack, were the three major Icelandic banks that aggressively expanded both at home and abroad. Freed of regulation, the banks pressured ordinary Icelanders to take out large mortgage and consumer loans with low down payments; abroad, in Britain, Scandinavia and elsewhere, these same banks rapidly piled up acquisitions and opened up new subsidiaries. Through all of this, the Wall Street credit rating agencies gave Icelandic banks top ratings just as they had done for Wall Street’s Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
 
As deregulation took effect, foreign financiers and hedge funds circled, then glided into the Icelandic economy. It was as if the glass walls of the country's little "aquarium" had been broken down once and for all, and now Iceland was part of a much larger economic "pool", one that had new species swimming in it, including, as was later discovered, some very large sharks and barracudas.
 
The results of all this frenzied activity were phenomenal. In 2003, total bank assets were 200% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the entire country. By 2007, bank assets had ballooned to over 900%. For its part, the Icelandic stock market jumped by over 500% between 2002 and July 2007 (2). Real estate prices in Reykjavik rose 72% in the same time period.
 
Traditionally, Iceland had been relatively egalitarian in terms of income disparities, and those who did have wealth tended not to flaunt it. But all this changed very quickly. Inequality increased dramatically and a small number of tycoons grew fabulously rich. As Magnus Helgason notes, "The average income of people in the wealthiest 1% went from being roughly five times the average income in 1993 to being 27 times higher in 2007" (3).
 
In the latter stages of the bubble, the new Icelandic tycoons became atavistic, dredging up the most backward features of the old Norse society, casting themselves as "corporate Vikings" who, like the Vikings of old, would "strike fear" abroad and raid the world for plunder (4). 
 
Domestically, the financiers and politicians promoted the idea that all this new wealth would eventually "trickle down" to ordinary Icelanders. And, indeed, it appeared to be doing just that. Icelanders consumed 29% more in 2008 than they did in 2002. However, there was a catch. Actual incomes only went up 15%, while household debt skyrocketed by 77%. As in other countries, pensioners, single mothers and other low income earners were left far behind during the "boom" (3). 
 
The banks, aided by the government and the corporate media, mounted a relentless campaign to goad traditionally cautious and conservative Icelanders into using their homes as "giant ATMs". After all, housing prices were continuing to climb and everyone was ahead of the game. It was a "win - win situation" for everyone.
 
And why shouldn't ordinary Icelanders believe them? International bodies ranked Iceland as the "least corrupt society" in the world. Many Icelanders believed they lived in a country where "fair play, equality and - above all - honesty" prevailed, and that included leading politicians and business people (5). 
 
But then in 2006, what is now termed the "Geyser crisis" hit. The name was appropriate. The economy, like superheated water, had built up enormous amounts of pressure. Then some financial analysts in the U.S. and Britain issued warnings about the Icelandic economy. Sensing blood, billionaire hedge funds and currency manipulators in New York, London and elsewhere leapt into action. Using "weapons of financial mass destruction" such as Credit Default Swaps, they ganged up and tried to "short" the Icelandic banks and currency, betting that these would crash. As Asgeir Jonsson points out, "hedge funds, like wolves, hunt for yield in packs. The force of numbers increases the chances for their trading strategy's success, especially in smaller markets" (1).
 
While, as the U.S. sub-prime crisis later revealed, investment banks like Goldman Sachs were shorting their own customers, other Wall Street and London-based financiers, acting in concert and spreading false rumours, tried it on an entire country; in this case, Iceland. For these hedge funds, "taking down a whole country [was] more gratifying to the ego ... than taking down a mere corporation." One British financier even boasted that he wanted to be "known as the man who bankrupted Iceland" (1).
 
For two months in 2006, the Icelandic stock market and currency took some big hits, but the crisis eventually seemed to fizzle out. A huge amount of excess liquidity in international markets poured into Iceland and disaster was averted, at least temporarily. The Icelandic economy took off again with banks leading the way. "Icesave", the newly-launched online venture of the Icelandic bank Landsbanki, became wildly successful in just a few months attracting many British and Dutch depositors with its rock bottom fees and competitive interest rates. "Spoiled as gamblers," Jonsson writes, Iceland's bankers "were unable to quit while ahead" (1).
 
Iceland had appeared to escape the Geyser crisis. However, as anyone visiting the geysers of Iceland's famous Haukadalur site knows, avoiding being drenched by one geyser, such as Strokkur, doesn't mean that you will escape the original old "Geysir", which slumbers nearby but which, once in a while, still blows, shooting a column of hot water and steam high into the air.
 
And so it was that, in the fall of 2008, Lehman Brothers, the Wall Street investment bank and a mainstay of the global financial community, collapsed, triggering a huge crisis in financial markets. Much of the world was drenched, but Iceland was swept away in a torrent.
 
The results were swift and brutal. The three main Icelandic banks - Landsbanki, Kaupthing, and Glitnir - collapsed and the country's currency plummeted. 75% of Icelandic stock market value was destroyed in a financial “Twilight of the Gods”.
 
And even worse things were yet to come.
 
Next article in series: "Part 5 - A terrorist state"
 
(1) Jonsson, Asgeir. Why Iceland? New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
(2) Helgason, Magnus. "Bubblicious!" Reykjavik Grapevine. Online. http://grapevine.is/Home/ 4 Aug. 2010.
(3) Helgason, Magnus. "The consumer's republic of Iceland". Reykjavik Grapevine. http://grapevine.is/Home/ 1 June 2011.
(4) Helgason, Magnus. "The corporate Vikings". Reykjavik Grapevine. Online. http://grapevine.is/Home/ 21 July 2010.
(5) Helgason, Magnus. "The decade of failure". Reykjavik Grapevine. Online. http://grapevine.is/Home/ 26 Jan. 2011.
 
* Photo of Strokkur Geyser courtesy of “Visit Iceland”- http://www.icetourist.is/DiscoverIceland/

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

A Greek, a Spaniard and a Portugese walk into a bar to have a few drinks.

Who picks up the tab?

A German.
And what else could the German do with Greek, Spanish or Portugese "money", Prince George? He didn't want anything exactly proportional "in trade" from those countries when his country was running a 'trade surplus' with them. So how are they to then pay their bills to him for the surplus of exports he sent them over imports he received from them?
The interesting thing about these kind of articles is that they all follow the exact same path.

There's the 'perfect' world of the 'social democratic' State. Which is deviated from ~ but we're never told much about "why", if it was so perfect, this HAD to happen.

Let alone why anyone would even think it would be desirable that it should. If it really WAS so 'perfect', that is.

And then the 'greedy' or 'crooked' banksters get in there, and the fallacy of the old canard of prosperity through greater exports, and the natuarally greater efficiency of privatising everything in sight, and flogging whatever can be flogged off to foreign investors, etc. At the end of the article we've been exposed to a lot of information, but there's really no suggestion for how the 'problem' that started the whole downward process, and the ones that are now larger that developed from it, could have been differently dealt with.

The feeling I get is that the author, not only Peter, but a whole host of similar thinkers and writers, believe that because there was an artificial shortage of 'money' in the face of an obvious 'physical' plenty, we should've continued to make a real shortage of the 'plenty', so the facts would fit the figures.

This goes back to the excellent description of 'socialism' I read many years ago. It's "monopoly State capitalism with control by Finance". And it really doesn't matter WHO "owns" the Bank. So long as the POLICY it follows ties into the above.
Socredible ..... you forget that Spain is/was the darling country for their southern hideaway and both poured money into not only that country but also Greece to a lesser extent and Portugl to a still lesser extent ..... There was even a time when things were going really well that some migrated to Florida and bought condos there.

Even Canada's foreign exchange deficit was at one time caused by vacationing and retiring to the southern USA. One hardly hears anything of that anymore.

A good friend of the family has many millions of euros invested in vacation homes in Mallorca and my father's sister had a smaller sum invested in Fuertoventura. About all one can eat in the restaurants in some of those locations is German and British food.

Benidorm on the Costa Blanca was practically a German and English speaking community in the downtown highrise condo district. I have not been there for some time, so do not know if the Spaniards have slowly started to make inroads into their community again.

Looks like they even have a TV soap opera about Benidorm. Accordng to the link below, Benidorm has a population about the size of PG. They get/got 5 million visitors a year. Look at the skyline with that few number of people.

And they do not even have a forestry industry ... ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benidorm
Forgot to mention the "both" I referred to was Germany anbd Britain.
So the father of two sons of a family that lives in Germany lamented in an e-mail recently that one of the sons has been collecting unemployment insurance for about 4 months and that he just took off to for a nice diving vacation in Egypt.

In the meantime, his other son, who has a well paying job, still pays taxes and for social programs such as unemployement insurance, has too many financial worries to be able to afford to go on a vacation.

The ways of the modern western economy. If we do not keep making things or doing things and spending, spending, spending, the economy will crash ......

If anyone wants to change, then take a serious look at the notions socredible raises and se if anyone has actaully applied it in the real world, or start to slow down and make sure that it is not done at a pace that will crash the system around us.

Maybe peacetime Marshall plans don't work.
So socredible, would you say that the take away from this series so far is that Peter and Dawn had a nice vacation in a place that they likely have not been to before?

;-)
Hey, Socredible, it's supposed to be a JOKE, heard on CBC Radio One!

In Germany people pay taxes for every thing imaginable, they save up for a rainy day, pay a huge % of their wages and salaries into retirement schemes, etc.

No German can retire with a full pension at age 50 or 55, as they are used to doing in Greece.

Athens has over 3,000 private homes with in ground swimming pools (Google Earth evidence) but the city's tax assessment roles list only 17, (seventeen).

Tax avoidance is a great scheme if one does not expect to get lifetime entitlement benefits from a government which does not collect the taxes required to pay for it all.

If the Greeks made goods (cars, appliances, etc) and competed within the Euro Zone as the Germans do, they (the Greeks) wouldn't have to rely on exports of olive oil, wine and feta cheese only.



The travelogue portion of this series is quite interesting, Gus. I've never been to Iceland, and it's unlikely I'll ever travel there. Or to any of the other European countries, whether they've been laid low by the current crisis, or are in peril of being next, or are still supposedly solvent.

I don't discount what Prince George has to say about the Greeks, and their feelings about taxes and entitlements.

But I don't believe that Greece, or Spain, or Portugal, would ever be allowed to become a serious 'competitor' within the Euro zone when it comes to manufacturing the same products Germany makes either.

I'm told by those who should know, several friends who've come from, or lived in, China, that the retirement age there at full pension is 55. And that their retirees fare far better there than our's do here in regards to comparing the average standard of living between those still 'earning their keep' and those being kept. And it's rising for both, while our's seems to be going the other way. Comparing it to the 'cost of living', that is. There is no push there to lengthen the employment period, or to try to encourage people to stay in the workforce longer.

Perhaps the Greeks realised they were being set up to be 'milked' when they joined the European Union, despite all the likely hype about how much 'prosperity' was going to flow their way from such a move. And they decided to 'get while the getting's good'.