After Eurovision Comes The Euroscramble: Europe's Latest "Silver Bullet", "Secret" Bail Out Plan

Tyler Durden's picture

Mere hours after the annual European Eurovision song contest ended at a cost to the host country in the hundreds of millions, money which should have been spent productively elsewhere but wasn't while providing utterly unnecessary distraction to hundreds of millions from what is truly important, we get another stark reminder that the continent is not only broke, but that it no longer even pretends to have credible ideas about how to go about fixing itself. The latest speculation: "Secret plans are being drawn up in Brussels for a European rescue fund that could seize control of struggling banks across the Continent. The scheme, which would be funded by a levy on banks, will be presented by supporters as a "silver bullet" that could halt the steady escalation of the eurozone debt crisis. It is being worked on in tandem with a proposal from Mario Monti, the Italian prime minister, for a Europe-wide guarantee on bank deposits. The proposal would throw the financial muscle of Europe's stronger nations, and healthy financial institutions, behind weaker countries and lenders. Proponents, including top advisers to the European Commission, say the removal of the threat of bank collapses would restore market confidence in Italy and Spain." In other words, last week's rumor that was supposed to be presented at the latest flop of a FinMin summit is once again being reincarnated as apparently nothing else in the European arsenal has any remaining credibility - and as a reminder, none other than unelected Monti's one-time employer Goldman Sachs said a eurowide deposit guarantee would not work.

The kicker:

"The bank scheme would see all eurozone lenders forced to pay an annual levy to a deposit guarantee scheme set up as a separate company. The company would be back-stopped with cash from the European Union, the European Central Bank or the new European Stability Mechanism."

Bottom line: the "silver bullet" plan is "secret? because it is a total farce, and nobody could possibly present it with a straight face for one simple reason - there is no source of money. No hold on, there is - Germany. And as Merkel made it very clear, Germany will not fund it. Why? Because once it starts, it won't end.

Why won't it end?

Instead of regurgitating what we have already explained countless times, here is a CTRL-C, CTRL-V of our article from a month ago, which explains that since the total undercapitalization of European banks is as much as €2.9 trillion, there is not one entity that can possibly backstop the entire towering edifice, which is the only possible thing that could restore confidence in Europe's financial system. Simply said: banks can not raise levies to prop up their peers, as they have to raise capital to support themselves! And anyone suggesting otherwise, is merely pandering for populist brownie points, and hoping their electorate is dumb enough to fail even elementary math. Our only question is how long will Merkel tolerate Monti's increasinly louder demands that Germany bail out Europe's insolvent states, such as Italy... and just how truly deep is the Italian "hole"?

From Zero Hedge, April 29, “A Trillion Here, A Trillion There...” – Why 90% Of The European Bank Sector’s Market Cap Is Vaporware*

Two weeks ago the BIS released the Basel Quantitative Impact Survey, "Results of the Basel, III monitoring exercise as of June 2011" which contained several very scary numbers that were noted in Zero Hedge yet which barely received any mention in the broader press. Because the numbers were all very, very large (think eyes glazing over 11-12 digits large), and because their existence meant that the long-term, chronic pain for Europe, which is and has been one of public (and selected private) sector deleveraging (which oddly enough is called “austerity” by everyone to no doubt habituate people to associate debt reduction with pain - where is "mean-reversionism" when you need it?), they, and the BIS report, were promptly buried under the dense foliage of the signal-to-noise forest. Yet it is numbers such as these, that provide us with the best possible glance at the entire forest, no matter how much the various global financial authorities enjoy inundating the hapless speculator crowd with endless irrelevant “trees” on a daily basis.

The numbers referred to are the BIS-suggested bank solvency deficiency to reach a viable capital level (not liquidity) explained as follows by UBS:

The QIS states that the June 2011 shortfall of common equity to a 7% common equity tier 1 ratio for major banks globally was €486 billion. We can estimate from this that the shortfall to a 10% common equity tier 1 is €1.02 trillion. Some years hence and before the mitigation that banks will undertake aggressively, but nevertheless, a trillion is a striking number.

UBS is perfectly happy to "go there":

A trillion here, a trillion there...


The QIS then goes on. The shortfall to the Liquidity Coverage Ratio is €1.8 trillion and 40% of banks have a LCR below 75%. And the shortfall to the Net Stable Funding Ratio is €2.9 trillion. A third of large banks would not meet the 3% tier one leverage ratio. These are gigantic figures relative to the size of the real economy.


Total bank debt issuance globally in the last 12 months was €1.1 trillion. That is, the shortfall in the Net Stable Funding Ratio is almost three year’s worth of issuance capacity.

In other words we not only finally have a problem quantified in terms of scale, but the scale happens to be very, very big:

These figures compare with global GDP of US$59 trillion (€45 trillion). In other words, the NSFR shortfall is equivalent to over 6% of global GDP. We would not regard this as insignificant.

One can just feel the smirk on the author's face as they added that last bit...

But forget global GDP - a number goosed by debt creation itself, and thus one which benefits from leverage, the very process the BIS is warning against.  Far more disturbing is this number when juxtaposed in the context of the European financial segment, also the inspiration for our title:

For Europe specifically, a related EBA publication15 implies a €511 billion equity shortfall to a 10% common equity tier 1 ratio. This is 90% of the €565 billion in free float market capitalisation of the European bank sector. The Basel III leverage ratio of large banks as of June 2011 would have been a measly 2.7%; the LCR just 71%, representing a shortfall of €1.2 trillion; the NSFR shortfall is €1.9 trillion. Total European bank debt issuance over the last 12 months has been less than €600 billion.

In simple terms, virtually the entire equity buffer of the European financial system, or 90% to be exact, would be wiped out if instead of focusing on maxing out risk returns by unsustainable leverage, Europe’s banks were to actually seek to transform into viable, stable entities, in the process marking their massively mismarked asset base to market. Something tells us that the equity tranche in Europe, and elsewhere, would be rather averse this dramatic writedown in valuation merely for the sake of avoiding future taxpayer bailouts. After all that’s what naïve, stupid, $0.99 cent iApp-fascinated taxpayers are there for: to be abused.

In other words, thanks BIS but your math is not welcome here. The can will promptly be kicked down the road or else.

Yet what is most troubling is that there appear to be no way out for European banks, in other words not even the status quo’s favorite pastime – can kicking – is very sustainable at this point:

Returns on banking are now quite inadequate to attract significant fresh equity into the sector. The regulatory agenda means that there is likely to be little confidence in this changing over the next several years. Banks must therefore turn to the state for their incremental capital or seek to shrink their profile into the amount of stable funding and equity they presently have. Deleveraging is alive and well and living in the euro area.

And just a tangent, the BIS data and analysis was of June 30. That's before all the fun in Europe really started.

Needless to say, raising $2+ trillion in new capital over the next 5 years will be next to impossible as European banks are hardly what one would call profitable (implying retained earnings as a source of capital is nothing but a cruel joke; now as for retained losses...), and as we saw when UniCredit tried to raise some equity in the open market only to see its stock get annihilated in January, pitching capital raises through equity issuance to Euro fins is the surest way for any investment banker to get sacked.

Which means one thing: as markets get progressively smarter (yes, it will take a while) that there is a difference between capital and liquidity, and demand it from banks that otherwise risk a Lehman-like fate, the asset dispositions, i.e., sales of the blue-light special variety, are about to kick into high gear. Here, while for every buyer there may be a seller, when faced with a known onslaught of about $2.9 trillion in asset sales over a period of time, one thing is certain: it will be a mecca of a buyer’s market as liquidations become wholesale and prices across most asset classes tumble as a result.

And as noted in the post just prior, courtesy of Europe’s Dead Bank Walking list, the market will know just where to go first (and second, and third, etc) for the biggest liquidation deals once the “For Sale” signs are posted.


* Vaporware in a Jon Corzine sense, circa November-December 2011; not in the context of Duke Nukem

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fips_OnTheSpot's picture

The endgame starts by collecting the assets/collateral.


I guess some banks with very ancient root are delighted.

Eireann go Brach's picture

Obama will fund it! He has the unlimited black Amex card!

Colombian Gringo's picture

Nothing will ultimately work. Europe will fall apart from too much debt.

The trend is your friend's picture

Borrowing more money to pay down old debt, depositor guarnatees by banks who have to pay into the scheme, LTRO1, LTRO2, ESM, EFSF etc etc all require money that just isn't their.  I can explain this to my 8 year old and he gets it.  the Math just doesn't work.  Why do these idiots think they are smarter then the laws of hysics and want to defy gravity.

Precious's picture

Right now they are busy, like Jerry Brown, on the great liberal paradox: How to divvy up everything nobody has anymore.

francis_sawyer's picture

Well when that one fails, I'd suggest that they reveal the 'double secret' bail out plan... Furthermore, I'd suggest they put Neidermeyer on it... He's a sneakly little shit...

Oh regional Indian's picture

There is only one way the banking system will die: 


Get most of your money out, keep enough for them to not be able to charge you and low enough so it is a cost to them.

Bleed them dry. I'm doing it. I have a minimum balance in one account. Just in case. 

They hate it. Don't close any accounts. Just keep minimum balances. 10 bucks here, 30 bucks there. 

Occupy your Bank in a FlashMob. Just hang out by  the hundreds in a line to with-draw 40 dollars from the teller. Take Coffee and chocolates for the tellers, but crowd the bank.

DON"T USE A CC, except if you are using it to rip the bank off by doing the zero% offer rotation game.

If you know how to game the bank itself, with it's own rule-shit, do it.

Else, Credit Union or physical which you have no qualms in converting, on the day of need, for cash money.

Bleed them dry.

If a billion people start doing it tomorrow, it'll hit them really, really, really hard.

A billion pin-pricks of accupuncture therapy for the global banking system.

I'd call that righteous anarchic action. Kinetic too.

BTBD (Bleed The Banks Dry)



valley chick's picture

exactly what is planned for Tuesday morning before the "market" opens....I no longer even have an ounce of faith in the credit union. 

macholatte's picture

Yes. Very good advice.... do not "close" your accounts.

Also, may I suggest one more little tid bit.... expand your own personal credit system. Apply for every credit card and credit line you can possibly find. Increase your limits for the credit cards & credit lines you already have. Borrow a small amount from one (say $250) and kite the payments (pay one using the credit from another) in your own personal daisy chain. Pay the fees and interest and make them happy and you get a better credit rating & higher limit and nothing is ever really going to come out of your pocket. Do this for a few months or a year or two or however long you can. You could work a system like this into several hundred thousand dollars of credit, maybe a million or more. Then on "bug-out day" you max out all your cards and lines, buy physical, pay the additional fees for credit card transactions, take delivery, fly to Vegas or Atlantic City, get a room and lose it all in a delusional fit of irresponsibility and temporary insanity and don't look back. Your own personal BK won't be so bad and you'll be just one of many, many victims of the financial system.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Hah! I like it. Beer and Floating in Las Vegas.


roadhazard's picture

I'm pretty sure excessive activity on your cards would get an eyeball the first day.

valley chick's picture

just enough to keep it open is the intent.  :)  As I do not understand all that is posted, I read and reread articles to try to understand while others are flipping burgers for the holiday weekend.  Thanks for all the help for it is greatly appreciated!

Ahmeexnal's picture

The revolution can't be that far off if valley chicks are on ZH and aware of the fraudulent ponzi global scheme.

valley chick's picture

actually valley chicks is for my chickENS... :) 

THX 1178's picture

BTFD-- Bleed The Financiers Dry

blunderdog's picture

Just don't carry your cash in Tennessee.

Dave Thomas's picture

Yes, it's called Civil Forfeiture, and it's all the rage with Law Enforcement. All that undocumented cash might be drug, or worse, TERRIRIST MONEYS!

Darth..Putter's picture

When a withdrawl of the money that I have "loaned" to the bank is viewed as a margin call, then they'll be getting a hint.

Cadavre's picture

"Secret plans are being drawn up in Brussels for a European rescue fund that could seize control of struggling banks across the Continent. The scheme, which would be funded by a levy on banks, will be presented by supporters as a "silver bullet" that could halt the steady escalation of the eurozone debt crisis.

Sounds a lot like the slash and burn the money centers ran on the small banks in the US. WaMu branches were bought off for 150K each. The money centers got the deposits, the custommers, and the brach plant assets (the building) at one tenth (or more) than cost to build them.

Little banks can't afford levies - so along come Daddy Warbucks, Blankenfien the Hudd, who, after running down the little banks, that didn't enjoy access to the a repo window and a book full fraudulent non-performing MBS CMO and CDO's (assuming small banks didn't get into equities or swaps like the big boys, and invested in bonds that Greenburg of AIG described "no market value" as "unable to determine a market value" and then, when asked what caused the collapse, Greenberg concluded, "it was a tsunami".

The small banks will be toast - and it appears that was the game plan all along - smother the "saplings" and have the commons buy them for Street's White Shoe Boyz, at pennies on the dollar.

The DoJ didn't even open a criminal file on those fucks. When Lehman filed bankruptcy - that was that - using dunce logic to imply the lack of a DoJ filing is easy: nothing to investigate because Lehman was belly up.

What kind of logic is that? The only investigation the DoJ did that was remotely close to the counting room fraud going on at the money centers, was to snag Spitzer's cross state line pantie sniff purchase, WHILE HE WAS BUILDING A CASE AGAINST AIG!

Then the distractive "who did it" rhetoric was shifted to the rating agencies. And for a while it was the Evil Rating Agencies failure to vet the underlying loans (you'd think the loan officers would be doing that, right?). And the fingers pointed (with extreme prejudice) especially hard when the USD was down graded.

The bribees, flush from a good pore sucking at one of the many K-Street Kiddie Brothels hooted and hollered and CSPAN blasted - but did ask as single question about a single the agencies signed off on. They didn't even look at the prospectus for the fraud bonds.

Lehman was the intended sacrificial lamb. They bunted the ball to first base, and the money centers advanced to third. They were intended to fail. Chanos shorts on Lehman were scripted in the game plan too.


One would have thought the CSPAN Kiddie Brothel Patrons Acting Troupe would've pounced - but they were caught between a bribe and pictures of them playing find the quarter with little Teddy.

THE PROSPECTUSES FOR THE BONDS WERE A F*CKING LIE: THE PROSPECTUSES WERE FRAUDULENTLY TAILORED TO MAKE JUNK LOOK LIKE TRIPLE AAA PAPER. THE BOND PACKERS ISSUERS F*CKING LIED ON THE PROSPECTUS TO GET THE JUNK FEDERALLY INSURED. Had anybody, other than an amateur trader, who was an MD that didn't enjoy "doctoring", this would not have happened. Had the DoJ been investigating AIG like Spitzer, instead spending OUR resources to nail the Spitz for a 1500$ blowjob (is that what the DoJ/ FBI do these days - run down interstate credit card blowjob purchases, on a guy investigating an 800K$ donor (AIG) to the Obromey campaign?).

Maybe we should replace DoJ and SEC white collar posses with amateur traders that actually look at the loans underlying a bond and the attached prospectus. GS (and others) who were servicing for amateur trader MD who provided White Shoe Fraudsters with the specifications for a couple of "pay as you go" CDS on a couple of bonds jumped in later. Only problem was: their CDS offers were bets against bonds they had packaged and sold to investors - oh yeah - and sharted a big dump of bs bonds at FNMA (the commons) - the f*cks got back par on the principal after they had already banked the fees and fat "factor=1" coupon receipts. WHere was JoJ, looking for false flag patsies for the next, and very needed distractions so  CNN'S /FOX'S  RSS feeds wouldn't blast the word "fraud".

The doctors story is here:

“On May 19, 2005, Mike Burry completed his first subprime mortgage deals, buying $60M in credit default swaps from Deutsche Bank – $10M each on six different bonds. By the end of July (2005), he owned credit default swaps on $750M in subprime mortgage bonds.”

Goldman convinces AIG to provide this same corporate credit insurance to the subprime mortgage market. Goldman created a security called the synthetic mortgage bond-backed CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation).

This bill repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, and relaxed the rules separating commercial banking from investment banking. But more importantly, it blocked the regulation of derivatives, disposing of any collateral requirements so the likes of AIG and Bear Stearns could sell CDS’s unabated.

.. again ,,,

...disposing of any collateral requirements so the likes of AIG and Bear Stearns could sell CDS’s unabated.

Tsunami my ass

mvsjcl's picture

Awesome post. Thanks.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"the great liberal paradox:  How to divvy up everything nobody has anymore."

Funny, because the facts suggest that much of the public debt they are trying to hide through increasingly insane schemes exists in the first place because the wealth of the West has been handed to a few thousand individuals at the top and the population has been handed a bill for what is popularly known as "public debt."  In America, 400 individuals now control more wealth than literally one half of the entire population.  The money did not disappear and it was no divied up by "liberals."  It was taken by oligarchs.  The right/left game that you seem to enjoy is there to confuse and distract.  Worked quite well on you.

Precious's picture

Like all confiscatory socialists, you are a covetous idiot.

LetThemEatRand's picture

And I suppose you are one of the 400?  I doubt it.  More likely just a wanna be who drinks the kool-aid.  

Precious's picture

... in addition to your martyr complex.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Is that what they say about people who point out facts instead of repeating blind ideology?  

Precious's picture

Concentration of power in the hands of a few is not what the Eurocrats are concerned about.  It is their mantra.

macholatte's picture

The right/left game that you seem to enjoy is there to confuse and distract.


Bingo!  Two dimensional thinking is all the sheeple can handle. It's a sporting event.

Precious's picture

I guess it beats "Victimology 101".

LetThemEatRand's picture

You were the one bitchin' about liberals taking your wealth.  I guess that means you took advanced courses in victimology with a concentration in hypocrisy.  

THX 1178's picture

Damn those derivatives-flogging socialist pigs with their credit-default-swaps and their mortgage-backed-securities. Damn them to hell for transferring all of Wall Street's wealth to Main Street.

Precious's picture

Don't look now, but those politicians and financeers go in the same revolving door each day to hold conferences on how to separate you muppets from your trinkets.

THX 1178's picture

yepperino... Blame on both sides... not just one. But this is not "the socialists" fault alone. Free markets generate corporations and corporations don't like competition-- monopolies and cartels... Monsanto and the Fed. Governments are corrupt to no end and the politicos who WANT to affect change are powerless to do so-- our governing system is long obsolete. Ron Paul for example. Looks like we're totally fucked.

Precious's picture

Blaming corporations for social inequity is like blaming water for getting you wet.

THX 1178's picture

Less than 100% of corporations have a negative affect on humanity, but more than 0% of corporations have a negative affect on the humanity. I don't hate all corporations-- I drive a Ford, I own a computer and all of its components, I use soap and toothpaste and all the rest of that stuff... but it seems that there is a small-but-significant subset of "the private sector" that is particularly destructive and harmful to humanity and our freedom: Finance Capital. Not all members of this subset are bad, but the ones that are have really fucked us over-- like tremendously fucked us over. The Federal Reserve is also a banking cartel according to The Creature from Jekyll Island; whether or not you believe that book is up to you, but the men who wrote the federal reserve act were businessmen-- tycoons--moguls! They were not bearded Marxist radicals or pamphleteering strongman-upstarts or intellectual so-and-sos. The oil cartel is no different. Also... I never said anything about social inequality, so... whatever.

Pure Evil's picture

Then why is Jerry Brown trying to plug a 16 billion deficit shortfall with tax raises?

Precious's picture

Because like most confiscatory socialists, the brat never learned to live within his means.

Pure Evil's picture

Well, if I were Rand, I'd say the oligarchs were using poor ole Jerry to collect their tribute.

Precious's picture

Problems with Oligarchs is the furthest thing from the Eurocrats' minds.  They are having lunch together as we speak.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Tighten your belt.... Jamie lost another $5b.

Precious's picture

I am the invisible man.  What they affect has nothing to do with the direction or outcome of my life.

LetThemEatRand's picture

It affects you if you pay taxes, have cash savings or bonds, own stocks, believe in any form of individual liberty, etc.

Precious's picture

... (muffled snicker) ...


oh... I just live by the river and eat locusts.

Overfed's picture

That .00001% control so much wealth because the other 99.9999% give it to them freely out of their own stupidity. Every time you use a Visa card, credit or debit, you are making them richer. Any time you buy anything on credit, you are making them richer. Every time you shop at a big box chain retailer instead of a locally owned or even regional chain, you are making them richer. And so on and so forth.

The very rich are going to keep getting richer until everybody else finally pull their heads out, which probably isn't ever going to happen.

Precious's picture

Right.  And the muppets in the retail investor market have agreed to play using Bernanke's loaded dice, just like the dummies who fly Air-TSA agree to let someone stick a probe up their ass.  Isn't their consent to such abuse patently obvious?

LetThemEatRand's picture

I fly frequently for business, but I do not have the means to own my own plane or otherwise use non-public airports.  If I go to the airport and I don't consent to the probe, I am arrested and probed further and/or placed on the no fly list.  If I don't fly, my business suffers. In light of the your-non muppet status, care to enlighten me on a solution?  I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary and that hasn't helped so far.  

Ahmeexnal's picture

You fly frequently for business?

You have publicly stated you are a florist.  Do you have to get on a plane to deliver floral arrangements to your customers in person?

Sorry pal, but the ZH bullshit detector has just gone off the charts (like the Fukushima rad detectors on reactor 2).

Your bend over attitude might suit you well, but I've got bad news for you and your statist buddies.

The time to refresh  the Tree of Liberty has come.

WillyGroper's picture

And why couldn't he choose from which international market to buy from?–-flower-markets-of-the-world

Maybe bullshit, maybe not. Perhaps your meter needs re-calibrating. 

Libertarian777's picture

much like a central planner likes to lump everyone into an 'average', you cannot just look at the top 400 richest americans and say it shouldn't be that way.

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, these people are entrepreneurs, they worked hard on an idea, got good people behind them and went to produce things people want (tangible or not). I don't beget them being wealthy.

On the other hand, the Larry Summers, Dick Fulds, Angelo Mozillo's, Corzine's of the world got their wealth through their connections in government, through fraud or through our currency debasement. Those people did not earn their wealth by contributing, but instead by extracting from the population.

So I don't agree with 'taxing the rich more'... those entrepreneurs who made their money should get to keep it not have it taken by the government, who would give it to the extractors (economic rent seekers) of the world. We should however prevent future extraction by not allowing implicit government guarantees for any company, especially the banks. Forget re-implementing glass-steagall, lets remove FDIC insurance for any bank that is leveraged. Let banks who take deposits earn their money the traditional way, with loan vs deposit spreads, not levered up derivative positions using depositor funds as collateral/capital.

nmewn's picture

Stellar comment.

I believe this is the distinction that goes unremarked on...

"Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, these people are entrepreneurs, they worked hard on an idea, got good people behind them and went to produce things people want (tangible or not). I don't beget them being wealthy.

On the other hand, the Larry Summers, Dick Fulds, Angelo Mozillo's, Corzine's of the world got their wealth through their connections in government, through fraud or through our currency debasement. Those people did not earn their wealth by contributing, but instead by extracting from the population."

I don't hate the rich for being rich but I do hate >>>some<<< of the rich for how they became rich. I also hate the little ass maggots that dangle off their posterior who enable them under the guise of being enlightened, kind and generous with others earnings.

Why is it necessary to have debt in the trillions created pursuing unworkable government business models when the end result is already known?

Furthermore, why hasn't Corzine been indicted?'s rhetorical, we all know why...cronies are never brought before the justice created by their accomplices.