27/10/2013: Irish CDS spreads: a reason to smile for a change...

It might be disheartening sometimes (often) to read the newsflow involving Irish economy. But occasionally, there are some really worthy decent news... Here's an example: 12 months difference in CDS spreads:

First Q3 2012:

Now, Q3 2013:

That's a huge change... even though we are still far from where we want to be, the change is impressive.

Any source

8/10/2013: Jokers Burning Money: Public Sector Reforms - Village, October 2013

My article for the Village Magazine on pre-Budget 2014 analysis of health spending in Ireland: http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2013/10/gurdgiev-on-healthcare-jokers-burning-money/

Any source

8/10/2013: German Voters Go For Status Quo... Redux: Sunday Times September 29, 2013

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from September 29, 2013.


By any measure, last Sunday's German elections highlighted a resounding failure of the country electorate to connect with reality. Despite returning a number of historical outcomes, the voters reaffirmed the passive-conservative leadership mandate exercised by Angela Merkel since 2009. As the result, German policies are now likely to drift even farther away from the immediate needs of the euro area periphery, risking a renewal of the euro area crisis and a slowdown in the already less-than ambitious speed of European reforms. None of this is good news for Ireland.

The historical nature of the 2013 German elections is highlighted by the fact that Angela Merkel became the first euro area leader to be reelected as the head of state since the beginning of the Great Recession. And she has done it twice: first some 12 months into the crisis in 2009 and now 5 years from its onset. Ms. Merkel won the highest number of votes for her CDU/CSU party in 23 years. And she became the first German leader since the golden days of Konrad Adenauer back in 1961 to personally dominate the elections, instead of standing in the shadow of her party. Individually, all of these are rare events in modern German history. Taken together, they are probably unprecedented.

But herein lies the problem for all of us living outside Germany. The elections of 2013 have produced a strong mandate for doing nothing new when it comes to either the euro area or the larger Union reforms. The Chancellor re-elect retook the Bundeskanzleramt on a mandate of being a 'safe pair of hands'. The campaign her party waged focused on such important topics as charging foreign drivers for using autobahns. Instead of debating the core issues faced by the EU, and the role of Germany in this mess, voters largely engaged in navel-gazing. Satisfied with their relatively well-performing economy and receding immediate danger to the euro, they endorsed the leadership devoid of ideas, alternative views and aspirations. Not surprisingly, philosopher Jurgen Habermas declared the 2013 general election campaign a "collective failure" of the elites.

This means that the German elections left the core problems of the euro crisis unaddressed, raising the specter of renewed uncertainty about the future of the common currency area. This concern became immediately visible this week.

On Monday, ECB's Mario Draghi rushed to compensate for the policy paralysis signaled out of Germany by stating that the ECB is ready to deploy a new round of quantitative easing in the form of the third Long-Term Refinancing Operations (LTRO3). To remind you, the first two rounds of LTROs were the ECB’s ‘pre-nuclear option’ response to strategic threats to the euro area economy in late 2010-early 2011. The ‘nuclear option’ was the subsequent announcement of the stand-by quantitative easing programme, known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Mr. Draghi mentioning the prospect of renewing the LTRO scheme suggests that the ECB expects no change in euro area policies in the aftermath of last week’s elections.

Acknowledging this, Draghi also tried to push aside the pesky issue of the Greek Bailout 3.0. And in a direct reflection of the Berlin’s preferences, Draghi also downplayed the possibility of the ESM being licensed to provide financing cover for future bank failures.

Mr Draghi’s precautionary moves were timed perfectly. Following the elections, sovereign yields on all peripheral countries’ bonds rose relative to German bunds. Credit default swaps – insurance contracts underwriting sovereign bonds – also crept up. The markets are not buying the ‘return to status quo’ story as good news. This was contrasted by the domestic news which saw the German economic sentiment, as measured by the CESIfo index of economic conditions rise for the third month in a row. This marks fifteenth consecutive quarter of the CESIfo index reading above historical average. In contrast, euro area economic conditions index has been stuck below its historical average levels for eight quarters in a row through this September.

Since 2009 elections, Chancellor Merkel held back from directly leading the euro area and instead opted repeatedly to wait for an escalation of the crises before responding with un-prepared, often ad hoc and wrong-footed solutions. Best examples of this approach to leadership are the EU's failures in Cyprus and Greece. Both are directly linked to Ms. Merkel’s prevarication in the face of escalating crises. All were driven by swings in domestic public opinion, rather than by any cohesive principles.

For Ireland, this mode of leadership spells lack of progress on key issues.

Gauging German public opinion there is currently zero appetite to shift away from the pre-elections status quo in which the Irish crisis is seen as largely self-induced and peripheral to German interests. This means that Germany is likely to continue supporting Irish debt sustainability rhetorically, while opposing practical resolution of the debt overhang. This week, Ms. Merkel gave another loud endorsement to Irish Government policies during the crisis. As she did so, the Irish Government – usually not known for its skeptical pragmatism – was actively pushing the timeline for banking debts problem resolution out into the later months of 2014. My gut feeling is that we can expect this timeline to stretch beyond 2015. Instead of allowing restructuring of our banking debts, Berlin will nod approvingly to a precautionary line of credit for Ireland via set-aside stand-by facility at the ESM. This credit will be provided on current ESM funding terms, some 1 percent below the cost of IMF funding and with longer maturities. Which is the good news.

In exchange for this token gesture we will be required to strictly adhere to fiscal adjustment targets for 2015. We will be further subjected to a new multi-annual fiscal programme stretching into 2018-2020 to be supervised by the EU Commission. ECB – by proxy, the German government – will be watching from the shadows.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Draghi statement this week indicates, Germany will block ESM from having any powers in dealing with future banking crises. Our retrospective banks debt deal will then have to wait until a new funding facility, most likely administered by the ECB, comes into place. Pencil that for sometime in 2016. Pushing legacy debts incurred by the Exchequer as the result of rescuing our banks into the hands of the ECB is likely to cost us. Frankfurt can, and potentially will, demand something in return for this. One thing the ECB can ask for is accelerated sales of the Central Bank-held Government bonds (the fallout from the Promissory Notes deal done earlier this year).  The ECB already has the power to do so. It also has a direct incentive: the bonds are set against our banks borrowings from the euro system. Of course, this will mean that we will be trading one debt for another, as accelerated sales of bonds will erode the temporary fiscal ‘savings’ achieved by the Promo Notes restructuring.

But the cost of the EU/German ‘assistance’ for Ireland will most likely extend further than bonds sales acceleration and new fiscal targets setting. German political agenda is well-anchored to continued saber-rattling on the need for corporate tax harmonization across the EU. With the 2009-2011 Franco-German tax harmonisation initiative all but dead, the focus in the next two-three years will shift toward advancing the consolidated common corporate tax base (CCCTB) proposals that suit German interests more than any other form of tax coordination. Based on her record to-date, Ms. Merkel is a fan of the CCCTB as are all of her potential coalition partners and the German voters.

German elections are also promising to create less certainty as to the structural reforms in the European Union space. Last Sunday’s results produced strong votes for the anti-euro party, Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD). The party also did well in the previously held local elections. The new Merkel-led coalition will have to show caution when facing any prospect of further harmonisation and consolidation of power in Brussels.

When it comes to structural reforms, German public prefers for euro area to focus on specific hard fiscal targets and on replicating Germany's own structural reforms of the 1990s. While such reforms can be beneficent to the euro area peripheral states, for Ireland they offer only marginal gains. German reforms of the 1990s have focused on two core policy pillars: increasing flexibility of the labour markets and decreasing the burden of the welfare state. These came at a cost of continued consolidation of German economy around larger enterprises and suppression of domestic demand and household investment.

Ireland today requires some reforms in the social welfare system. But we also need to break up our dominant market players in the domestic sectors and to increase our households’ spending and investment.

In short, in the wake of the German elections, there is preciously little that Ireland can expect in terms of the European support for our recovery. Europe, with German blessing, will most likely lend us a hand to help us out of the 'safe' boat of the Troika programme. Thereafter, swimming in the turbulent waters of the Eurozone crisis will be up to us. Let's hope Budget 2014 provides generously for flotation vests.

BOX-OUT:

Marking the fifth anniversary of the Banking Guarantee of September 2008, there are plenty of stocktaking exercises going around. Yet, for all the ‘Fail’ marks being rightly handed out to the Guarantee, all signs in the streets suggest we have learned next to nothing from our past errors. This week offers at least two such examples. Firstly, the crisis showed that a non-transparent system of monitoring and managing financial risks will result in the connected-few gaming the entire system. This week, Minister Noonan intervened in the process of winding down the IBRC, bending the rules that normally apply to company liquidations. Granting anonymity to the funders of the toxic banks comes as a priority in this country. Unintended consequence of this is that it also perpetuates the cronyist relationship between the financial services and the state – exactly the outcome we should have learned to avoid. Secondly, we know that principles-based regulations require swift, robust and unambiguous enforcement. Also this week, the Central Bank effectively shut the door on any further investigations into Anglo dealings with the regulators that could have arisen from the infamous Anglo Tapes. Five years in, there are zero prosecutions, and scores of closed investigations. To paraphrase Bon Jovi’s famous refrain: the less we learn, the more things stay the same…

Any source

2/10/2013: Euro area sovereign crisis: predictable and reasonably priced?

• Can a model-based credit ratings system be used to predict future fiscal distress? Answer seems to be: yes.
• And have the fiscal downgrades of the euro area peripheral states been predictable in advance? Answer seems to be: yes.
• In other words, are the downgrades warranted by the actual pre-crisis dynamics in the economies? Answer seems to be: yes.
• Lastly, were there useful signals of stress build up that could have been considered by the policymakers prior to the onset of the crisis to alleviate or prevent the collapse of euro area peripherals? Answer seems to be: yes.

A new paper from CEPR (DP9665) titled "Sovereign credit ratings in the European Union: a model-based fiscal analysis" and authored by Vito Polito and Michael R. Wickens (September 2013: http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP9665) presents "a model-based measure of sovereign credit ratings derived solely from the fiscal position of a country: a forecast of its future debt liabilities, and its potential to use tax policy to repay these." [emphasis is mine]

The authors "use this measure to calculate credit ratings for fourteen European countries over the period 1995-2012. This measure identifies a European sovereign debt crisis almost two years before the official ratings of the credit rating agencies."

Ouch!

Now, the fourteen European (EU14) countries in the model-based calculations are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the U.K.

So the main findings are: "…The model-based credit ratings:

1. Anticipate the downgrades of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the U.K. that occurred from the end of the 2010s; 
2. Downgrade Greece to the lowest rating (coinciding with its highest default probability) from at least mid 2000; 
3. Suggest that the Italian sovereign credit rating has been overstated. 
4. For all other countries, the model-based credit ratings are similar, but not identical, to the credit ratings provided by the CRAs 

"An implication of these results is that the cross-section distribution of the model-based sovereign credit rating is no longer concentrated within the investment grade prior 2010 and it starts changing significantly from 2008. This suggests that a model-based credit rating would have identified and signalled to market participants signs of the impending European sovereign debt crisis well before 2010, when the CRAs first reacted to the crisis."

And the kicker: "A by-product of the methodology proposed in this paper is the quantification of a country's debt limit (measured as its maximum borrowing capacity) and how this changes over time. The numerical analysis suggests that for most EU14 countries the scope for increasing borrowing capacity by increasing taxation is limited as actual tax revenues are similar to tax revenues maximized with respect to tax rates."

In other words, we've run out of the road for taxing our way out of the crisis.

"Our findings suggest that EU14 countries are more likely to be able to raise debt limits and achieve fiscal consolidation by reducing their expenditures than by increasing taxes."

Any wonder? Ok, check out the first link here: http://www.fergco.co/2013/10/2102013-low-tax-free-market-economy.html

Any source

29/9/2013: Economic Sentiment in Europe: Not Exactly a 'Crisis Over' Signal

There's a lot of optimism in the air nowadays across the EU with eurocrats of all shades of grey busying themselves declaring the end of the euro crisis... and the media is firmly on the bandwagon too - even signs of shallower contractions are interpreted as 'huge bounces' into growth.

Amidst all of this, the data on economic sentiment across all productive sectors, collected by the European Commission is a bit more sombre.

Take this simple chart, showing how economic sentiment in the euro area compares against the same in the EU27.

Yep, that's right: in September 2013, economic sentiment in the euro area was at the lowest point compared to the economic sentiment in the EU27 for any month since the formation of the euro... in fact, it was at the lowest point since July 1988 when many EU27 non-euro nations were struggling members of the Warsaw Pact. Congratulations on that recovery, folks!

Things behind the above numbers are even worse. Here's a chart plotting economic sentiment across the three sets of countries that are members of the euro area: the euro area core (Austria, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands), the periphery, and the rest...

Things are improving, all right, but are these improvements a miracle of the euro area recovery or a bounce from somewhere else? Take again the gap to EU27...

Now, we already know about downward direction across the euro area relative performance as a whole. Now we also know that all  part of the euro area are under-performing relative to the EU27 and that this underperformance has accelerated in recent months for two sub-regions other than the 'periphery'. Worse, the core is about to hit the levels of sentiment under-performance comparable to the peripherals back in H1 2013, while the non-core, non-periphery states are about to converge in earnest with the periphery. This is some 'improvement'...

Any source

17/7/2013: Wrong Austerity Compounds the Failures of the Monetary Union

Recent CEPR paper DP9541 (July 2013), titled "Debt Crises and Risk Sharing: The Role of Markets versus Sovereigns" by Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan, Emiliano Luttini, and Bent E Sørensen (linked here: www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP9541.asp) used "a variance decomposition of shocks to GDP", in order to "quantify the role of international factor income, international transfers, and saving in achieving risk sharing during the recent European crisis."

Basic idea of the exercise was that a lack of saving in good times may reduce consumption smoothing in bad times, forcing households to cut back their spending and consumption more dramatically once recession hits.

Under perfect risk sharing, the consumption growth of individual countries should be completely independent from all other factors, conditional on world consumption growth.

The authors of the study "calculate how much of a shock to GDP is absorbed by various components of saving, in particular government saving, and other channels, such as net foreign factor income for the sub-periods 1990-2007, 2008-2009, and 2010." The key finding here is that "overall, risk sharing in the EU was significantly higher during 2008-2009 than it was during the earlier period, but total risk sharing more or less collapsed in 2010." Notably, 2010 is the year when European economies embarked on 'austerity' path, primarily and predominantly expressed (especially in the earlier stages) in tax increases. It is worth noting that there virtually no reductions in public spending during 2009 or 2010 across the EU and even in countries where spending was cut, such as Ireland, much of the reductions came from indirect taxation - e.g. transfers of health spending from public purse to private insurance.

Further, the authors "study how the crisis a affected risk sharing for "PIIGS" countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), which were at the center of the sovereign debt crisis, compared to non-PIIGS countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom)."

Again, the findings are revealing: "For 1990-2009, risk sharing was mainly due to pro-cyclical government saving but the amount of risk sharing from government saving turned negative in 2010 for the PIIGS countries: government saving increased at the same time as GDP decreased." In other words - this is the exact effect of austerity as practised by the EU periphery.

"For [euro area peripheral] countries our measure of overall risk sharing turns negative because (conditional on world consumption growth) the decline in GDP in 2010 was accompanied by a more than proportional decline in consumption. This mirrors the behavior of emerging economies where government saving typically is counter-cyclical as shown by Kaminsky, Reinhart, and V egh (2005)."

Crucially, the study shows that there is basically no risk-sharing mechanism that operates on the entire euro area level. Even common currency zone - via lower interest rates - does not deliver risk sharing in 2010 and has potentially a very weak effect in 2008-2009 period. Worse, for the euro area peripheral states, euro has been a mechanism that seemed to have removed risk sharing opportunities both in and out of the crisis:

"…although non-PIIGS countries shared a non-negligible amount of risk during 2000{2007 while the PIIGS shared little risk in those years: in the good year 2005, consumption increased faster than GDP leading to "negative risk sharing." In 2008 and 2009 the major amount of GDP risk is shared for non-PIIGS with low consumption growth rates in spite of large drops in GDP, with the amount of risk shared in 2008 over 100 percent (positive consumption growth in spite of negative GDP growth). For the PIIGS, consumption declined very little in 2008 in spite of a large drop in GDP, while the drop in GDP in 2009 clearly led to declining consumption and, in 2010, consumption fell by almost as much as GDP, indicating little risk sharing."

Top line conclusion: once the authors "decompose risk sharing from saving into contributions from government and private saving", data reveals "that fiscal austerity programs played an important role in hindering risk sharing during the sovereign debt crisis."

Any source

8/7/2013: IMF on Euro Area: Repetition in the Endless Unlearning of Reality

IMF released its statement on 2013 Article IV Consultation with the Euro Area

The Statement reads (emphasis mine):
"Policy actions over the past year have addressed important tail risks and stabilized financial markets. But growth remains weak and unemployment is at a record high."

So what needs to be done, you might ask? Oh, nothing new, really. Euro area needs:
-- To take "concerted policy actions to restore financial sector health and complete the banking union". Wait… err… this was not planned to-date? Really?
-- "continued demand support in the near term and deeper structural reforms throughout the euro area remain instrumental to raise growth and create jobs". In other words: find some dish to spend on stuff and hope this will do the trick on short-term growth. Reform thereafter.

Not exactly encouraging? How about this: "…the centrifugal forces across the euro area remain serious and are pulling down growth everywhere. Financial markets are still fragmented along national borders and the cost of borrowing for the private sector is high in the periphery, particularly for smaller enterprises. Ailing banks continue to hold back the flow of credit." So the solution is - more credit? Now, what did we call credit in old days? Right… debt, so: "In the face of high private debt and continued uncertainty, households and firms are postponing spending—previously, this was mainly a problem of the periphery but uncertainty over the adequacy and timing of the policy response is now making itself felt in falling demand in the core as well." Wait a second, now: more credit… err… debt will solve the problem, but the problem is too much debt… err… credit from the past…

Ok, from IMF own publication earlier this year, what happens when credit - debt - is let loose:

Source: http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2013/03/05/a-missing-piece-in-europes-growth-puzzle/


Just in case you need more of this absurdity: "…reviving growth and employment is imperative. This requires actions on multiple fronts—repairing banks’ balance sheets, making further progress on banking union, supporting demand, and advancing structural reforms. These actions would be mutually reinforcing: measures to improve credit conditions in the periphery would boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors, which in turn would help restore competitiveness and raise growth in these economies. A piecemeal approach, on the other hand, could further undermine confidence and leave the euro area vulnerable to renewed stress." Oh, well, 5 years ago we needed

1. 'actions on repairing banks balance sheets' - five years later, we still need them;
2. actions on 'supporting demand' - aka, no tax increases and some investment stimulus - five years on, we still need them;
3. actions on 'advancing structural reforms' and five years on, we still need them too;
4. "measures to improve credit conditions in the periphery would boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors" - wait a second ten years ago we had easy credit conditions in the periphery and they failed comprehensively to 'boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors', having gone instead to fuel property and public spending bubbles… five years since the start of the crisis, we now should expect a sudden change in the economies response to easier credit supply?

IMF is more sound on banks: "bank losses need to be fully recognized, frail but viable banks recapitalized, and non-viable banks closed or restructured". But, five years, bank losses needed to be fully recognised too and we are still waiting. And when it comes to closing or restructuring non-viable banks, pardon me, but where was the IMF in the case of Ireland when the country was forced by the ECB to underwrite non-viable banks with taxpayers funds?

"A credible assessment of bank balance sheets is necessary to lift confidence in the euro area financial system." Ok, we had three assessments of euro area banks - none credible and all highly questionable in outcomes. Five years in, we are still waiting for an honest, open, transparent assessment.

Cutting past the complete waffle on the banking union and ESM, "The ECB could build on existing instruments—such as a new LTRO of longer tenor coupled with a review of current collateral policies, particularly on loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)—or undertake a targeted LTRO specifically linked to new SME lending." Ooops, I have been saying for years now that the ECB should create a long-term funding pool for most distressed banks, stretching 10-15 years. Five years into the crisis - still waiting.


On structural reforms, IMF is going now broader and further than before and I like their migration:

"For the euro area, …a targeted implementation of the Services Directive would remove barriers to protected professions, promote cross-border competition, and, ultimately, raise productivity and incomes. A new round of free trade agreements could provide a much-needed push to improve services productivity. In addition, further support for credit and investment could be achieved through EIB facilities. The securitization schemes proposed by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank could also underpin SME lending and capital market development." Do note that the last two proposals are still about debt generation (see above).

"At the national level, labor market rigidities [same-old] should be tackled to raise participation, address duality—which disproportionally hurts younger workers—and, where necessary, promote more flexible bargaining arrangements. At the same time, lowering regulatory barriers to entry and exit of firms and tackling vested interests in the product markets throughout the euro area would support competitiveness, as it would deliver a shift of resources to export sectors [ok, awkwardly put, but pretty much on the money. Except, greatest protectionism in the EU is accorded to banks and famers, and these require first and foremost restructuring]."

In short - little new imagination, loads of old statements replays and little irony in recognising that much of this has been said before… five years before, four years before, three years before, two years before, a year before… you get my point.

Any source

26/4/2013: ECB's policy mismatch in 6 graphs

For those interested in the monetary drivers of the current euro area crisis, here's an interesting new paper from CESifo (WP 4178, March 31, 2013): "The Monetary Policy of the ECB: A Robin Hood Approach?" by Marcus Drometer, Thomas I. Siemsen and Sebastian Watzka.

In the paper, authors "derive four sets of counterfactual national interest rate paths for the 17 Euro Area countries for the time period 1999 to 2012. They approximate desirable national interest rates countries would have liked to implement if they could still conduct independent monetary policy. We find that prior to the financial crisis the counterfactual interest rates for Germany trace the realized EONIA rate very closely, while monetary policy has been too loose especially for the southern European countries. This situation was inverted with the onset of the financial crisis. To shed light on the underlying decision rule of the ECB, we rank different rules according to their ability to aggregate the national counterfactual paths to the EONIA rate. In addition to previous literature we find that those mechanisms which care for countries who fare economically worse than the Euro Area average perform best."

Paper is available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2244821

Here are few charts, illustrating the results. In these TR references Taylor Rule, quarterly estimated backward-looking Bundesbank rule denoted BuBa, monthly estimated Bundesbank rules with interest rates smoothing denoted BuBaS and BuBaGMM respectively for backward- and forward-looking, and realised EONIA rate.

Legend:

CHARTS

Per authors: "Two results are worth noting.

First, the counterfactual interest rate path derived from the original Taylor rule and our baseline counterfactual path (quarterly estimated backward-looking Bundesbank rule) trace each other very closely. In fact, they are hardly distinguishable. The monthly estimated Bundesbank rules with interest rate smoothing (backward- and forward-looking) deviate sometimes considerably from the quarterly paths. …all four paths yield qualitatively similar results...

Second, …all four counterfactual paths for Germany lie strikingly close to the actual realization of the EONIA rate. Especially
for the southern European countries the ECB’s monetary policy has been too loose according to all four counterfactuals."

And more: "For all four sets of counterfactual national interest rate paths the Robin Hood rules outperform the standard decision rules. Especially our "economic-needs"-rule performs exceptionally good across all four specifications. Moreover, the forward looking model performs worse than the three backward looking specifications."

In other words, ECB policy rules were completely mis-matching the reality in all countries, save Germany, with (per charts above) mismatch most dramatic in… right… Ireland.

Any source

16/4/2013: One question, Mr Market, please...

A uncomfortable question:

Faith seems to have no bounds once sentiment shifts. The Market seemed to have maintained confidence in EU's crisis-fighting 'measures' despite the fact that Cyprus case revealed an obvious lack of any real crisis-fighting 'measures' to-date.

The entire periphery-fixing policy tool kit in Europe - now into the sixth year running - still boils down to

1. Rolling out unfulfilled promises (ESM banks-sovereigns break, OMT, a banking union, fiscal policies coordination, fiscal supports for growth - do recall that EU keeps talking about the need to 'support' growth and yet does nothing about providing such supports), 
2. Dogmatic ECB stuck in a rates and money supply policies that neither ease currency and interest rates pressures, nor provide a break from the failed transmission mechanism, and 
3. Internal devaluations of the worst kind (ad hoc loading of debt on economies already carrying too much debt & lack of reforms in the real economy - keep in mind, setting deficit targets ≠ reform). 

So would The Market please run this by me: What HAS changed between Ireland 2008 (the beginning of the euro crisis) and Cyprus 2013 (it's latest iteration) other than the channels by which more debt is being piled onto over-indebted economies hit by crisis?

Well, not much. Yesterday, IMF has issued a statement on Greece (that's right - the second country that was 'repaired' by the EU approach to crisis, ...and then repaired again... and again) claiming that with the fourth round of 'reforms' promised, Greece is now (still?) on a sustainable debt path. Never mind that the 'sustainable debt paths' so far for Greece have meant debt/GDP ratios bounds for sustainability rising from 'under 120%' within Programme 1 to 'under 200%' within Programme 4.

Any source