Showing posts with label Land Value Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Land Value Tax. Show all posts

Sunday, August 17, 2014

17/8/2014: The Globalization Paradox and Land-linked Taxation


Couple of years ago, I wrote extensively on the efficiency of land-value or site-value taxes in raising public investment funding and alleviating the adverse impact of private rents accruing to landowners from public investment (see for example here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047518 and more extensive version: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029515). I have also covered the advantages offered by land-value taxation in the context of stabilising macroeconomic and tax environments and addressing key risks to these environments (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029519).

A new paper by Schwerhoff, Gregor and Edenhofer, Ottmar, titled "The Globalization Paradox Revisited" (July 22, 2014, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4878. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2469725) makes a similar argument, but within the context of the land linked taxes efficiency in alleviating a different problem. Note, emphasis in italics is mine.

Per authors: "According to the Globalization Paradox, globalization limits the freedom of choice for national governments. Capital mobility in particular induces tax competition, thus putting downward pressure on capital taxes. However, while capital mobility introduces the inefficiency of tax competition, it makes the allocation of capital more efficient. Whether national welfare and tax-financed public good provision increase or decrease through capital mobility depends on country characteristics. These characteristics include the relative capital endowment, the availability of taxes on fixed factors such as land and the preference for the public good. We compare the two second best settings of a closed economy and an economy with capital mobility to show that the relative capital endowment determines whether the net effect of capital mobility is positive. Fixed factor taxes have the potential to improve welfare by defusing the globalization trilemma through a reduction in the need for capital taxation."

Saturday, November 30, 2013

30/11/2013: Land Tax back in the (Irish) news


It appears that after years of research and arguments in the media, having first done the wrong thing, the Irish Labor Party is now drifting into the space of supporting the only tax that makes sense in the context of charging against fixed assets: land value tax.

The report on this are here: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/labour-annual-conference-votes-to-replace-property-tax-615824.html

Those of you who follow this blog and my research would be familiar with the following three papers on the topic:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029515
and
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047518
and
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029519

Additionally, Ronan Lyons also produced excellent research on the topic: http://smarttaxfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/site-value-tax-in-ireland-identify-consulting-final-report.pdf

Karl Deter contributed to public debate extensively: http://smarttaxes.org/a-fair-property-tax-a-public-debate/

And Smart Taxes network produced core research funding, supports and publications platforms: http://smarttaxes.org/

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

8/13/2013: Sunday Times, August 11: Wither Middle Ireland


This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from August 11, 2013.


Recent data from Irish retailers, aggregate services indices as well as household surveys paints a picture of an economy divided in misery and fortunes. Following an already unprecedented five years of straight declines, domestic demand, stripping out one-off effects, such as weather, continues to shrink. This is the paralysed core of our economy. At the opposite side of the spectrum, pockets of strength remain within some demographic groups – namely the young and mobile professionals and debt-free older households. These form a de facto sub-economy only marginally attached to Ireland’s long-term future. With personal consumption still accounting for over half of the total annual GDP, a society torn between these two divergent drivers of domestic demand, savings and investment, is an economy at risk.


On the surface, CSO data through H1 2013 shows that Irish retail sales (excluding cars) grew modestly in June 2013 when compared to the same period a year ago. Much of this growth was due to weather effects and these are likely to strengthen even further in the third quarter. However, removing food, fuel and bars sales, core retail sales were down 1.7 percent in value and were up 0.8% percent in volume in April-June 2013, year-on-year. In other words, core sales are still being driven primarily by price declines rather than by organic growth in demand.

Meanwhile, aggregate data released this week, covering services (as opposed to sales of goods alone) showed annual declines in June 2013 in accommodation, and food and beverage services activities.

The bad news is that five years into the process of reducing household expenditures, Irish consumers are still tightening their belts. Not only discretionary spending is dropping, but demand for staples is contracting as well. At the end of H1 2013, retail sales were down on 2007 levels for both durable and non-durable household consumption items, as well as food.

This data is largely consistent with the analysis of the household budget surveys released earlier this month.  These surveys showed that compared to 2009, Irish households have cut deeper into their bills in twelve months through Q3 2012. Demand for groceries, clothing and footware, recreation, health Insurance and education saw continued cutbacks. For example, in the 24 months prior to June 2011, 56 percent of Irish households cut down on food purchases. Further 51 percent cut spending in the 12 months through September 2012. Despite these already severe cutbacks, industry surveys show that Irish households are still concerned with high cost of basic consumables.

Households’ propensity to cut costs has risen in the twelve months through September 2012 compared to the 24 months period to June 2011 as those still holding onto their jobs are now shifting into deeper cost savings mode. This busts the myth that the only people forced to severely cut their spending are the unemployed and the poor. The largest proportion of severe cuts in the earlier part of the recession fell onto the shoulders of the households where at least one person was jobless, followed by students. Back then households in employment were the category second least impacted by household budgets cuts. Last year, households still in employment were the second most likely to reduce spending. Significantly - households with some members on home duties, retired or not at work due to illness or disability posted the shallowest average cuts of all demographic groups.

The above explains why the data from multiples retailers in Ireland has been showing a V-shaped pattern of changes in consumer demand, with higher demand witnessed in lower-priced categories of own-brand goods supplied by discount retailers, such as Aldi and Lidl, and the premium own-brands of traditional multiples, such as Tesco. Demand for mid-range priced goods usually purchased by the middle class continued to fall.

Ditto for the luxury end of the market, with exception of Dublin, as sales of food and drink in specialist stores have fallen almost 20 percent on pre-crisis peak. Exactly the same pattern of shift away from the middle of price range sales emerged in the demand for electrical goods.


The drivers for the above trends are crystal clear. Middle Ireland is under severe pressures financially, while Happily-Retired and Yappy Irelands are having a relatively easy recession or living through the good times. The main force working through the Irish domestic demand is that of polarization of households not along the lines of employed v unemployed, but along the more complex and fragmented demographic lines.

The average number of spending cutbacks in 12 months through September 2012 for households with no person at work stood at 2.6 categories of spending. The same numbers for households with one and two persons working were 3.3 and 3.2 categories, respectively.

This pattern of cutbacks and income distribution changes across the households is also strengthening over time. In effect, due to Government policies, Ireland is becoming a country with severely polarised distribution of financial well-being. This polarisation is contrary to the one witnessed in normal economies and is different from the one that majority of out policymakers and analysts have been decrying to-date.

The Great Recession has finally exhausted ordinary savings of both working and unemployed households, while lack of income growth has meant that even those in employment are now sinking under the weight of debt and tax and cost inflation driven by the State budgetary policies to-date.

Last week, CSO reported distribution of the households by their ability to manage bills and debts over 12 months prior to July-September 2012. Of households with at least one adult aged 65 and over, up to 28 percent were experiencing difficulties in managing their debts and bills. For households with all adults under the age of 65 the corresponding number was up to 46 percent. Up to 69 percent of the families with children were in the same boat. The older the respondent was, the less pressure on paying their bills their reported.

In normal economies it is the older families that face tighter budget constraints. In today's Ireland it is the younger and the middle-age families with children that are being pressured the hardest by the crisis. This bedrock of financial health in the normal times has been pulled from underneath the economy by the Great Recession.

At the same time, the crisis has generated a new class of the relatively well-off. Based on employment levels and quality, earnings, as well as regular and irregular bonuses data, three sectors in the Irish economy stand out as the winners during the crisis: the ICT services, specialist exports-focused services and international financial services. All three sectors are dominated by younger workers with high percentage of employees coming from abroad and working on a temporary assignment basis here. The demographic they represent is primarily from mid-20s through mid-30s, with smaller size families. These groups of employees are also heavily concentrated geographically, with exporting services sectors workers primarily living in Dublin, followed by a handful of other core urban areas.

Even as early as 2006-2007, market research has shown that these types of households favour premium consumption of convenience food, spend more of their income on going out and travel abroad, and less on purchases of durable goods, household goods, education and health insurance. They do not invest in this economy and hold off-shore most of their long-term savings. Their financial investments are also held and managed abroad and often include mostly shares and options in their own employers. Their children are not going to continue growing up in Ireland and will not be a part of our future workforce. The skills they accumulate while working here are transitory to the overall stock of Irish human capital. On a social level, their demand for entertainment is currently best exemplified by the booming restaurants and bars across the D2-D4-D6 areas of Dublin and stands in stark contrast to Middle Ireland’s hollowed out town centres and neighborhoods with empty storefronts and vacant building sites.


Today’s Ireland is a society where the middle class and large swaths of the upper-middle class have been dragged under water by the combination of the unprecedented crisis, compounded by rampant state-sanctioned cost inflation and legacy debt.

The data on domestic demand suggests that we might be entering a classic ‘Bull trap’. Here, tight rental markets in the leafy South Dublin neighborhoods fuels sales of rentable properties to service the needs of the Yappy Ireland. These pockets of activity are at a risk of generating inflated expectations of incoming prosperity. Don’t be fooled by this – the risks to the real Irish economy are still there, in plain view, in the streets of real Ireland.

Recognising this reality requires the Government to reconsider the tax increases that are impacting adversely the middle and the upper-middle classes. It also means that the State must reform, rapidly and thoroughly the semi-state sector to reduce the cost drag exerted by the Irish utilities, transportation, health and education services providers on Middle Ireland families’ balancesheets.  Lastly, prudent risk management requires for us to manage very carefully the process of mortgages arrears restructuring and debt work-outs. While many economy have survived sovereign and banking sectors busts, no economy can emerge from a crisis having destroyed its middle classes.



Box-out:

In Ptolemaic cosmology, astronomers believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. To balance this Universe, Ptolemists used to draw complex sets of larger and smaller circles - known as epicycles - to describes their orbits around the Earth. The problem with epicycles spelled the demise of the Ptolemaic cosmology in the end: as the known number of planets and stars increased, the system of superficial orbits rapidly collapsed under its own complexity. The Ptolemaic absurdity, however, is still alive today in Irish economic policies. A year ago, the Government had a clear choice of policy options: a site-value tax (SVT) that can be levied on all forms of properties, including land, or a residential property tax that can be levied only on structures. In a study covering all known forms of policy mechanisms used to fund public infrastructure around the world,  submitted to the Department of Environment, I have argued that one of the major advantage of the SVT over a property tax was that it would have incentivised more efficient use land, reducing land hoarding and speculation. There were multiple other advantages of SVT over the property tax as well. Alas, the Government opted for a property tax favouring under-use of land over all other properties. This tax suits the major lobbies influencing the State: farmers and well-off rural landed families. Fast-forward eight months from last December: this week, Dublin City Council called for a levy on unused vacant sites. Hundreds of sites lay vacant across the city - blotching the cityscape and posing a threat to personal safety to many workers, as well as an unpleasant reminder of the property bust and economy's dysfunctionality to the would-be foreign investors. Dublin City has been trying to force this land back into development since 2009, although no one in the city has a slightest idea where the demand for such development might come from. Thus, our Ptolemaic system of economic policies is about to draw yet another contrived, complex and inefficient balancing circle on the map of our tax policies to compensate for the Government's rejection of the site value tax. After all, managing the superficial complexity of a political economy that attempts to appease the landed classes, while satisfying the needs and demands of foreign investors and urban authorities is an arduous task

Saturday, July 21, 2012

21/7/2012: Sunday Times July 15 - No growth in sight



This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column for July 15, 2012.


This week, the Central Statistics Office published long-awaited Quarterly National Accounts for the first quarter 2012, showing that in January-March real Gross Domestic Product fell 1.1 percent to the levels last seen around Q1 2005. Gross National product is down 1.3% and currently running at the levels comparable with Q1 2003 once inflation is factored in. Rampant outflow of multinational profits via tax arbitrage continues unabated, as GDP now exceeds GNP by over 27 percent.

There is really no consolation in the statistical fact that, as the National Accounts suggest, we have narrowly escaped the fate of our worse-off euro area counterparts, who posted three quarters of consecutive real GDP contraction since July 2011. Our true economic activity, measured by GNP is now in decline three quarters in a row in inflation-adjusted terms.

Our real economy, beyond the volatile quarter-on-quarter growth rates comparatives, hardly makes Ireland a poster child for recovery. Instead, it raises some serious questions about current policies course.

Save for Greece, five years into this crisis, we are still the second worst ranked euro area economy when it comes to overall performance across some nineteen major indicators for growth and sustainability.

Our GDP and GNP have posted the deepest contraction of all euro area (EA17) states. Assuming the relatively benign 2012 forecast by the IMF materialise. Q1 results so far point to a much worse outcome than the IMF envisions. Total investment, inclusive of the fabled FDI allegedly raining onto our battered economy, is expected to fall over 62% on 2007 levels by the year end – also the worst performance in the EA17. Despite our bravado about the booming exporting economy, our average rate of growth in exports of goods and services since 2007 is only the fifth highest in the common currency area.

Ireland’s unemployment is up by a massive 220%, the fastest rate of increase in the euro zone. Employment rate is down 20% - the sharpest contraction relative to all peers. Other than Estonia, Ireland will end 2012 with the steepest increase in government spending as a share of GDP – up 18% on 2007 levels. We have the second worst average structural Government deficit for 2007-2012 excluding banks measures and interest payments on our debt. By the end of 2012, our net Government debt (accounting for liquid assets held by the state) will be up more than eight-fold and our gross debt will rise 354%. In both of these metrics Ireland is in a league of its own compared to all other member states of the common currency area.

The latest data National Accounts data confirms the above trends, while majority of the leading economic indicators for Q2 2012 are also pointing to continued stagnation in the economy through June.

Purchasing Manager Indices (PMI) – the best leading indicator of economic activity we have – are signalling virtually zero growth for the first half of 2012. Manufacturing PMI has posted a robust rate of growth in June, but the six months average remains anaemic at 50.7. The other side of the economy – services – is under water with Q2 activity lagging the poor performance achieved in the first quarter. 

In the rest of the private economy, things are getting worse, not better. Live register was up, again, in June, with standardized unemployment now at 14.9%. Numbers on long-term unemployment assistance up 6.8% year on year. Factoring in those engaged in State-run training schemes, total number of claimants for unemployment benefits is around 528,600, roughly two claimants to each five persons in full employment. Construction sector, the only hope for many long-term unemployed, posted another monthly contraction in June – marking the sharpest rate of decline since September 2011. Retail sales, are running below 2005 levels every month since January 2009 both in volume and value terms. Despite June monthly rise, consumer confidence has been bouncing up and down along a flat trend since early 2010.

Meanwhile, net voted government spending, excluding interest payments on Government debt and banking sector measures, is up 1.9% year on year in the first half of 2012 against the targeted full year 3.3% decrease. Government investment net of capital receipts is down 19.1%. This means that net voted current expenditure – dominated by social welfare, and wages paid in the public sector – is up 3.3% on same period 2011, against projected annual decrease of 2.2%. Although not quite the emergency budget territory yet, the Exchequer performance is woeful.

And the headwinds are rising when it comes to our external trade. By all leading indicators, our largest external trading partners are either stagnant (the US), shrinking (the Euro area and the UK) or rapidly reducing their imports from Europe (the BRICs and other emerging economies).

The question of whether Ireland can grow its economy out of the current crisis is by now pretty much academic. Which means we need radical growth policy reforms.

Look at the global trends. In every five-year period since 1990, euro zone average annual real economic growth rates came in behind those of the advanced economies. As a group, other advanced economies grew by some 15 percentage points faster than the euro area during the pre-crisis decade. Both, before and since the onset of the Great Recession, euro area has been a drag on growth for more dynamic economies, not a generator of opportunities. Within the euro zone, the healthiest economies during the current crisis – Germany, Finland and Austria – have been more reliant on trade outside the euro area, than any other EA17 state.

This is not about to change in our favour. Data for China shows that the US now outperforms EU as the supplier of Chinese imports. Europe’s trade with BRICs is deteriorating. Combined, BRICs, Latin America and Africa account for less than 5% of our total exports. In the world where the largest growth regions – Asia Pacific, Africa and Latin America are increasingly trading and carrying out investment activities bypassing Europe, Ireland needs to wake up to the new geographies of trade and investment.

Given the severity of economic disruptions during the current crisis, Ireland requires nominal rates of growth in excess of 6-7 percent per annum over the long term. To deliver these, while staying within the euro currency will be a tough but achievable task. This requires drastic increases in real competitiveness (focusing on enhanced competition and new enterprise creation, not wages deflation alone) in domestic markets, including the markets for some of our public sector-supplied services, such as health, education, energy, transport, and so on. We also need aggressive decoupling from the EU in policies on taxation, immigration and regulation, including that in the internationally traded financial services, aiming to stimulate internal and external investment and entrepreneurship. We must review our social policies to incentivise human capital and support families and children in education and other forms of household investments.

Like it or not, but the idea that we must harmonize with Brussels on every matter of policy formation, is the exact opposite of what we should be pursuing. We should play the strategy of our national advantage, not the strategy of a collective demise.




Box-out:

Recent decision by the Government to introduce a market value-based property tax instead of the site value tax is an unfortunate loss of opportunity to fundamentally reform the system of taxation in this country. A tax levied on the property value located on a specific site effectively narrows the tax base to exclude land owners and especially those who hold land for speculative purposes in hope of property value appreciation lifting the values of their sites. In addition, compared to the site value tax, a property levy discourages investment in the most efficient use of land, and reduces returns to ordinary households from property upgrades and retrofits. Perhaps the most ridiculous assertions that emerged out of the Government consideration of the two tax measures to favour the property levy is that a site value tax would be less ‘socially fair’ and less transparent form of taxation compared to the property tax. By excluding large landowners and speculative land banks owners, and under-taxing properties set on larger sites, a property tax will be a de facto subsidy to those who own land over those who own property in proximity to valuable public amendments, such as schools, hospitals and transport links. By relating the volume of tax levy to less apparent and more numerous characteristics of the property rather than more evident and directly comparable values of the adjoining land parcels, the property tax payable within any giving neighbourhood will be far less transparent and more difficult and costly to the state to enforce than a site value tax. In a research paper I compared all measures for raising revenues for public infrastructure investments. The study showed that a site value tax is an economically optimal relative to all other tax measures, both from the points of capturing privately accruing benefits from public investment and enforcement. This paper was presented on numerous occasions to the Government officials and senior civil servants in charge of the tax policy formation over the last three years. 

Thursday, April 26, 2012

26/4/2012: Sunday Times 22 April 2012: Water and Property Taxes


Here's my Sunday Times article from April 22, 2012 (unedited version, as usual):



Years ago, I quipped that Ireland doesn’t do evidence-based policies, instead we do policies-based evidence. Current whirlwind of taxation initiatives is the case in point. These include the household charge and its planned successor a property tax, plus the water charge and its twin meter installation charge. These policy instruments are poorly structured, rushed in nature, and are not based on hard economic analysis.


Water is a scarce resource, even in Ireland. On the supply side, we have abundant water resources in some locations and bottlenecks where population concentrations are the highest and where the bulk of our economic activity takes place. Reallocation of water to reflect demand/supply imbalances is a political issue, and creation of a monopolized system of water provision is not an answer to this. More effective would be to encourage local authorities to sell surplus water into a unified distribution system. Coupled with a structural reform and consolidation of the local authorities, this approach will incentivise productive economic activity in water-rich, less developed regions and provide competitive pricing of water.

Water delivery infrastructure is free of political constraints, but faces huge capital investment and operational problems. These factors are determined by treatment and transmission systems, and water quality monitoring capacity in the system. Chronic underinvestment in these areas means that Ireland’s quality of water supply is poor and water losses within the system are staggeringly high. Delivering this investment is not necessarily best served by a centralized monopoly of water provision. Only pipe infrastructure should be a monopoly asset, charging the transit fee that will reflect capital investment and maintenance needs of the system. Treatment and part of monitoring network can be retained at the local level to provide for local jobs and income.

Water charges are the best tool for demand management, a system of incentives to conserve water at the household and business level, as well as the revenue raising to sustain water infrastructure. In this context, a water charge is the best policy tool.

Currently, we pay for residential water via general taxation. If the policy objective is to improve water supply systems and create more sustainable demand, water charges should replace existent tax expenditure. In addition, higher level of collections is warranted to allow for investment uplift. Current price tag is estimated around €1.2 billion. Of these, ca €200 million come from business rates which feature a low level of compliance. Assuming half the normal rate of M&A efficiencies from consolidating the system of local water authorities, factoring in a 50% uplift on businesses rates compliance and allowing for a 25% investment buffer, annual revenues from residential water supply system should be around €900-950 million. This is the target for revenues and at least 1/3 of this target should go to reduce the overall burden of income taxation.

To deliver on the above target, we can either conceive a Byzantine, and thus open to abuse and mismanagement, system of differential allowances, rates and exemptions. Alternatively, we can take the existent volume of residential water demand and extract from this current price per litre of water. This rate should allow a 10-15% surcharge to incentivise future water conservation and to finance investment in water supply networks. Use this system for 3 to 5 years transition period. Thereafter, the market between the local authorities will set the price.

The charge, should apply to all households consuming publicly-supplied water. For poor households who cannot afford the charge, means-tested social welfare payments should be increased to cover water allowance based on the family size and characteristics. Savings generated by some households should be left in their budgets. The resulting system will be ‘equitable’, and economically and environmentally sustainable.

A complicated pricing structure of exemptions and allowances, backed by a quango and a state water monopoly, will not deliver on any the above objectives.


A different thinking is also needed when it comes to structuring a property tax. The latest instalment in the on-going debate on this matter is contained in the ESRI report published this week. In the nutshell, the ESRI report does two things. First, it proposes an annual tax on the value of the property while applying exemptions for those with incomes below specific thresholds. Second, the ESRI report attacks the idea of a site value tax as being infeasible.

Both points lead to an economically worst-case outcome of a property tax that falls most heavily on younger highly indebted families, thus replicating the distortionary effects of the already highly progressive income tax.

An economically effective system of property or site-value taxes should be universal, covering all types of property and land, regardless of ability to pay. Why? Because a property or a site value tax offers the means for capturing the benefits of public amenities and infrastructure that accrue to private owners. These benefits accrue regardless of the households’ ability to pay. Low-income household facing an undue hardship in paying the rates can be allowed to roll up their tax liability until the time when the property is sold.

My own recent research clearly shows that a site value tax imposed on all types of land, including agricultural and public land, represents a more economically efficient and transparent means for capturing private gains from public investments. It is also the least economically distortionary compared to all other forms of property taxation. This is so because a land value tax increases incentives for most efficient use of land and decreases incentives to hoard land for speculative purposes. A traditional property tax, in line with that proposed by the ESRI, does the opposite.

With a deferral of tax liability for those unable to pay, a land value tax will bring into the tax net those who hold significant land banks and/or own large parcel properties, but who are not investing in these lands and are not using them efficiently. The system will allow older households to retain their homes, but will charge fair fees on the property value that has nothing to do with these households own efforts when the gains are realized either at sale or in the process of inheritance.

The ESRI argument against implementing a site value tax is that the lack of data and a small number of land transactions in the economy prevent proper valuation. This argument is an excuse to arrive at the desired conclusion of infeasibility of the site value tax. Ireland is starting property valuation system virtually from scratch. Thus, unlike other countries, we have the luxury of doing it right from the start. Compiling a database for land valuations is easier than for property valuations precisely because sites have much less heterogeneity than the properties that occupy these sites. In simple terms, value of property is determined by the value of buildings located on it, plus the value of the site. The former is much harder to value than the latter. The value of a specific site can be backed easily out of an average or representative value of the properties located within the vicinity of the site, plus by referencing directly specific attributes of the site.

As with the water charges, the property tax system must be designed not from the premise that the Government needs a quick hit-and-run revenue fix, but from the premise that we need a new approach to taxation. Such an approach should aim to reduce the burden of taxation that penalises skills, work effort, entrepreneurship and discourages households from investing in their own human capital and properties. Instead, the burden of taxation should be shifted on paying for specific benefits received and on privately accruing gains from public investments and amenities. In this context – both water charges and a property or a site value tax represent a step in the right direction. But to be effective, these policies must be structured right.


Charts:



Box-out:
Just when you thought the taxpayers can breath easier when it comes to the banks, the latest data from the Irish, Spanish and Italian authorities shows that the banks of the European ‘periphery’ have dramatically ramped up their holdings of their countries’ Government bonds. In 3 months through February 2012, Irish banks increased their holdings of Government bonds by 21%, Spanish – by 26%, Italian – by 31%. Back in late 2008 I warned that the banking crisis will go from the stage where sovereign debt increases will be required to sustain zombified banking systems, to the stage when the banks will be used as tools for financing over-indebted sovereigns, to the final stage when the weak nations’ sovereign debt will become fully concentrated within the banking systems they have nationalized. Sadly, this prediction is now becoming a reality. As GIPS’ banks increased their risk exposures to the Governments that underwrite them, German and French banks have been aggressively deleveraging out of the riskiest sovereign bonds. In Q1 2012, Portugal ranked as the second most risky Sovereign debtor in the world in CMA Global Sovereign Credit Risk Report, Ireland ranked seventh and Spain ranked tenth, with Greece de-listed from the ratings due to its recent default. This concentration of risk on already sick balancesheets of the largely insolvent banks is a problem that can reignite the Eurozone banking crisis.