Zo verantwoordt Captial Economics het Nexit-rapport van de PVV

Vorige week schreven wij over het rapport dat Captial Economics maakte in opdracht van de PVV. NRC-journalist Tom-Jan Meeus bracht naar buiten dat in het ‘initial proposal’ voor het rapport werd gewaarschuwd voor de mogelijkheid van een kredietcrisis die zou betekenen dat de overheid staatssteun aan de private sector (de banken) zal moeten verlenen.

Dat was een totaal ander beeld dan wat werd geschetst in het eindrapport. Daar was onder meer de zin ‘nervousness about redenomination risks and capital controls may lead to a credit crunch, which means the government would have to support the private sector’ verdwenen.

Het eerste rapport schatte de impact, kortom, veel groter in dan het eindrapport. Hoe zit dat? Senior Economist Andrew Evans van Capital Economics reageerde per e-mail op vragen van HP/De Tijd.

In our initial proposal we stated that any currency volatility would impact upon Dutch Banks’ balance sheets and may lead to credit issues requiring government support. We also stated that any such impact would be short lived and, after the initial transition, Dutch banks could benefit from a currency appreciation. (-) Our analysis for the final report suggested that there was not likely to be a significant structural revaluation of a new Dutch currency in the medium term and thus would not pose a threat to banking stability. This is a more cautious finding than the currency appreciation that we considered in our initial proposal.”

De ‘short-lived’ problemen worden in het tweede rapport minder belicht en heel anders getoonzet door Capital Economics. In plaats daarvan wordt de focus gelegd op de langere termijn waarin het allemaal goed komt. Hoe lang de ‘short-lived‘ onzekerheid kan zijn zien we nu bij de Britten en over hoe heftig de gevolgen kunnen zijn is Capital Economics nog steeds niet duidelijk. Daarom vroegen we Andrews in een tweede mail om opheldering.

What is ‘short lived’ in this case? A few weeks, a few months, a few years? Furthermore, as it appears to me, Capital Economics had different positions on this [the impact] in the initial proposal and the final report. I would like to know what the actual position is of Capital Economics, so I have two final yes or no questions:

* Does Capital Economic (still) thinks that a Nexit, and the nervousness about redenomination risks and capital controls, may lead to a credit crunch?
* which means the government would have to support the private sector?

Andrews: “As I’m sure you can appreciate this is a particularly busy time for us. Please refer to our report which addresses these questions and contains the underlying analysis; chapters 9 and 11 cover the issues that you are particularly interested in. Our findings are set out clearly in the report and we stand by these.

We are now two and a half years on from the release of that report and to address further specific questions would require additional resource and budget.”

Voor wie het hele rapport er op wil naslaan: dat kan op de website van de PVV.