Showing posts with label Irish property crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish property crisis. Show all posts

Thursday, December 19, 2019

19/12/19: Irish Planning Permissions 3Q 2019: Some Goods, Some Bads


The latest Irish data for Planning Permissions approvals is a mix of some good news, some bad news and some ugly trends. Here is the summary of them for 3Q 2019:

  1. Overall, planning permissions numbers for housing applications are up 4.02% y/y - this is the good news. Better news: cumulative 1Q-3Q 2019 numbers are up 7.12%  on the same period in 2018.
  2. New dwelling planning permissions are up 6.01% y/y - this too is the good news. Also exciting: cumulative 9 months permissions are up 6.33% y/y.
  3. Other new construction ex-dwellings permissions are up 6.29% - another bit of good news.
  4. Extensions and alterations-related planning permissions are up only 1.42%. But this is offset by the cumulative 9 months gain of 7.65% y/y. Which is a nice number.
  5. Bad news: private homes permissions are up only 1.13% y/y in 3Q 2019, and worse news: the same are down massive 5.57% y/y on a cumulative basis for the first 9 months of 2019.
  6. Great news: apartments permissions (for units, not aggregated over schemes) are up massive 80.15% in 3Q 2019 y/y and are cumulatively up 86.81% y/y for the first nine months of 2019.
  7. Average area of the houses for which new permissions are grated is up 0.82% in 3Q 2019 compared to 3Q 2018, but average area of the apartments with new permissions granted is down big time: down 14% y/y in 3Q 2019 and on average down 7.1% in the first 9 months of 2019.
So we are planning more apartments (good), not as significantly more homes (bad), but our apartments planned are getting smaller (bad). 



Now for some other bad news, or trends, rather. 

Given the demographic demand and the state of construction industry in the post-crisis period, we are continuing to under-supply new housing to the markets. Based on the assumed demand for 25,000 new homes annually, cumulative undersupply of new permissions to build residential units since 1Q 2010 currently stands at around 81,900 units and although this number is finally declining (since 4Q 2017), at the current rate of new planning permissions approvals (Q1-Q3 2019 figure), it would take almost 6.5 years to clear the backlog. That is, assuming in the mean time, there is no new recession to knock out the wind from the building and construction sector, and/or no significant inward / return migration to boost demand. Accounting for depreciation at ca 4100 units per annum (https://www.savills.com/insight-and-opinion/savills-news/273944/john-mccartney--housing-obsolescence-commonly-overestimated--and-depreciation-heavily-concentrated-in-rural-ireland) extends this horizon to 10.3 years. 

Saturday, December 29, 2018

29/12/18: Vultures, Prime Ministers and the Mud of 'Values' in Newtonian Finance


In a recent conversation with the Irish Times (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/leo-varadkar-defends-vulture-funds-and-criticises-practices-of-irish-banks-1.3742477), Ireland’s Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Leo Varadkar, “has defended so-called vulture funds”, primarily U.S-originating buyers of distressed performing and non-performing mortgages, “stating that they are more effective at writing down debts than banks which “extend and pretend” rather than reaching settlements with homeowners.”

Mr Varadkar alleged that:

  • “…homeowners whose mortgages were sold off to such funds would be “no worse off” than those whose loans were owned by the banks.”
  • And, “he disagreed with the use of the term “vulture fund” and criticised the practices of our own banks.”

A direct quote: “I’m always reluctant to use the term vulture funds because it is a political term. What we’re talking about here is investment banks, investment funds, finance houses, there are lots of different things and lots of different financial entities there and the term is used, vulture funds. But you’ll know from the numbers that they’re often better at write-downs of loans than our own banks. Our own banks tend to ‘extend and pretend’ rather than coming to settlements with people.”

Let’s deal with Mr. Varadkar’s claims and statements:


1) Is ‘vulture fund’ or VF a political term? 

The answer is no.

As a professor of finance, I use this term without any political context or value judgement. As do Investopedia, and the Corporate Finance Institute (CFI), along with a myriad of text books in finance and investment, as do the Wall Street, Bloomberg, Reuters, Wall Street Journal… In fact, all of the financial sector. For example, CFI defines VFs as “a subset of hedge funds that invest in distressed securities that have a high chance of default”. So, Mr. Toaiseach, the term ‘vulture fund’ is a precisely defined concept in traditional, mainstream finance. It is not a political term and it is not a term of ethical value assigned to a specific undertaking. In fact, as a finance practitioner and academic, I see both positive and negative functions of the VFs in the markets and society at large. Just as a biologist would identify positive aspects of the vulture species in natural environment.

Vulture Funds are invested in and often operated by ‘different financial entities’, including ‘investment banks’. They are a form of ‘investment funds’ when they are stand-alone undertakings. Which covers the entirety of the Taoiseach’s argument on this.

As an aside, a term ‘financial house’ used by the Taoiseach is not a definable concept in finance in relation to mortgages or other assets lending. Instead, FT defines a financial house as “A financial institution that lends to people or businesses, so that they can buy things such as cars or machinery. Finance companies are often part of commercial banks, but operate independently.” 

In other words, financial organisations and entities purchasing distressed and insolvent Irish mortgages cannot be classified as ‘financial houses’, and any other classification of them allows for the use of the term Vulture Fund.


2) Can VFs be regulated into compliance with the practices other lenders are forced to adhere to?

The answer is no. 

They simply cannot, because VFs always, by their own definition, pursue a strategy of recovery of asset value, not the recovery of debtor solvency. Regulating them as any other undertaking, e.g. banks, will remove their ability to exercise their specific strategies. It will de facto make them non-VFs.

Here is CFI on the subject: ““Vulture” is a metaphor that compares vulture funds to the behavior of vulture birds that prey on carcasses to extract whatever they can find in their defenseless victims.” Note the qualifier: defenceless victims: CFI is not a softy-lefty entity that promotes ‘victims rights’, but even corporate finance professionals recognise the functional aspects of the vulture funds. VFs cannot trade/exist on the same terms of traditional lenders, because: (1) they are not lenders (they do not pursue transformation of short term funding into long term assets, as banks do), (2) they have zero (repeat zero) social responsibility (no legislation can induce them to have any such a mandate in terms of social responsibility in funding assets as banks have, because such a mandate would invalidate the VFs investment model), and (3) unlike lenders, VFs deal with specific types of assets and specific areas of risk-pricing that cannot be covered by the lending markets precisely because of the implied conflict between the lenders’ longer-term market strategies, and the need to recover and capture asset values. In other words, you can’t make vultures be vegans. And I place zero political or social value in these arguments. It’s pure finance, Taoiseach.

“Vulture funds deal with distressed securities, which have a high level of default and are in or near bankruptcy. The funds purchase securities from struggling debtors with the aim of making substantial monetary gains by bringing recovery actions against the owners. In the past, vulture funds have had success in bringing recovery actions against sovereign governments and making profits from an already struggling economy.”

What this tells us is (a) VFs pursue legal seizures of assets from debtors as a norm (in the case of mortgage holders - this amounts to evictions of renters and forced sales of owner occupied properties); and (b) VFs are good enough at that job to force sovereign nations into repayments (which puts into question even the theory of efficacy of any consumer protections the Government can put forward to restrict their practices).


3) Are debtors better off or as well off under the vulture fund management of their debts as under other banks’ management?

The answer is: it depends. 

If a debtor genuinely cannot recover from insolvency, then forcing earlier insolvency onto them actually provides a benefit of offering an earlier restart to a ‘normal’ financial functioning of the debtor. This is the ‘clean slate’ argument for insolvency, not for VFs. In order to achieve this benefit, the insolvency must be done with a pass-through of losses write-downs to the debtor (avoiding perpetual debt jail for the defaulting debtor). The VFs simply do not do this on any appreciable scale, and are even less likely to do so in the tail end of the insolvency markets (later into insolvency cycle).

Why? Because they have no financial capacity to do so. Do a simple math: suppose a VF purchases an asset for EUR60 on EUR100 of debt face value (40% discount on par). Costs of managing the asset can be as high as 5%. Cost of capital (and/or expected market returns) for VFs is ca 15%-18% due to high risk involved. The asset is assumed to return nothing - it is severely impaired, like a mortgage that is not being re-paid. To foreclose the asset, the VF has to pay another cost of, say, 10% (legal costs, eviction-related and enforcement costs, etc including costs involved in disposing of underlying property against which the mortgage is written). And the process can take 1-2 years. Suppose we take the mid-point of this at 1.5 years. There is uncertainty about the legal costs and timings involved. Suppose it involves 10% of the total mortgages pool purchased by the fund. The cost or recovering funds for the VF, accounting for compounded interest on VF’s own funding, is now EUR22.99-25.91. Take the lower number of this range, at EUR22.99 per EUR60 asset purchased. Suppose the VF forecloses on the house and sells it. Suppose the house is an ‘average’ one, aka, consistent with the current residential property price index metrics, and the mortgage was written around 2005-2007 period. This means the house is roughly 20 percent under the valuation of the mortgage at the mortgage origination. So the VF will get EUR80 selling price on EUR100 loan. If the mortgage was 90% LTV, roughly EUR90. Take the latter, more favourable number to the VF. and allow for 1.5 years cumulative asset growth of 20% (property values inflation). VF’s cumulative returns over 1.5 years are 25.06% or 16.04% annualised. The VF has barely performed to its market returns expectations. There is zero room for the fund to commit any write downs to homeowners in this case. None in theory, none in practice.

In contrast, the banks do not face market expectation of returns in excess of 15% pa on their assets, nor do they face the cost of funding at 15-18%, which means they can afford passing discounts to the homeowners.

The situation is entirely different, when a debtor can recover from insolvency, e.g. via pass-through to the debtor of market value discounts on their debt (30-40% that VFs would get in the sale by the bank), or via restructuring of the loans, a VF will never - repeat, never - allow for such a restructuring, because it results in extending the holding period of the asset required for recovery. VFs are not in business of extending, and, yes, Taoiseach is correct on this, they are also not in business of pretending.

Now, the logic of selling non-recoverable (via normal routes of working out) assets to VFs can accelerate the speed of insolvency. But the logic of selling recoverable assets to VFs only forces insolvency onto borrowers where they do not require such for the recovery. Any restructured, but performing mortgages sold to VFs will be inevitably foreclosed (insolvency created), even though they are recoverable (insolvency is not optimal). And there is nothing the Government can do, short of forcing VFs to become non-VFs, to avoid this.

I append zero, repeat zero, social impact costs to this analysis. These are, however, material in the case of mortgages and foreclosures, especially due to the adverse impact of such actions on demand for social housing, and in light of ongoing housing crisis in Ireland.


4) Are VFs subject to “the the same regulations and the same consumer protections as the banks,” as the Taoiseach claimed?

Answer is no. 

VFs do not adhere to the same regulations and the same oversight as the banks. The proof of this is the fact that Government is currently supporting legislative attempts to bring VFs into the regulatory net, aka the Michael McGrath’s bill that FG support. If the Government is supporting a new legislation, the Government is admitting that current regime of regulation for the VFs is not sufficiently close to that of the banks. If the current regime is sufficient to cover consumer protection to the extent that the banks regulations are, then why would there be a need for a new legislation?


In a summary: the Taoiseach is simply out of his depth when it comes to dealing with the simple, well-established in mainstream finance, concept, such as the VFs. This is doubly-worrying, because the Taoiseach is leading the charge to provide a new regulatory regime, to cover the areas that he appears to have little understanding of.

Per Taoiseach: “We support that and we are going to make sure that anyone who has a mortgage, who is repaying their mortgage, making a reasonable effort to pay it, continues to have the exact same protections, the exact same consumer protections as they would if the loan was still owned by the banks.”

This is a wonderfully touchy statement of the objective. Alas, Mr. Taoiseach, you can’t have asset ownership by the VFs combined with the regulatory protection measures that invalidate VFs’ actual business model. And you can’t scold the banks for ‘extending and pretending’ on borrowers, while at the same time codifying these ‘extensions’ for all investment funds, including the VFs. The cake vanishes once you eat it. Finance is Newtonian, in the end.

Friday, February 2, 2018

2/2/18: Irish Media and the Property Crisis: A New Paper


A new paper covering the history of the financial crisis in Ireland, from the media complacency perspective, has been published by the New Political Economy journal. "The Irish Newspapers and the Residential Property Price Boom" by Ciarán Michael Casey (see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2018.1426562) references my warnings about the Irish property market in 2005 comment to the Irish Times.

For completeness of the record, here is my 2004 article for Business & Finance magazine stating my, then, view on the property market in Ireland: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/01/10116-my-2004-article-on-irish-property.html.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

14/6/15: Why Read Wallace's Speech on Nama & IBRC?


Mick Wallace, TD speech from earlier this week is worth a read: http://mickwallace.net/index.php/dail-work/dail-diary/760-ibrc-behind-bureaucracy-and-secrecy-our-government-takes-best-care-of-big-business

Let me quote some choice bits relating to the way Ireland operates at the level of IBRC, Nama et al. Italics and bold typeset are added by me.

"We are discussing the alleged preferential treatment of the private sector, in particular deals that may have cost Irish taxpayers startling sums of money. …The number of people who have complained to me in the past couple of years about trying to buy assets from financial institutions controlled by the State, including NAMA and banks, but have not been able to do so despite being prepared to pay more than others, is frightening."

So Deputy Wallace is saying here that, allegedly, Nama has been turning down higher bidders and accepting lower bids. This can take place perfectly legally, in cases where bidders are connected to the original borrowers (Nama does not allow such bids, although this practice is rather bizarre to begin with and is in contrast to normal practice in the U.S., past practice in Sweden and Finland, and even IBRC practice). If Deputy Wallace's allegation stands for cases excluding bids by parties connected to the original borrowers, then we have a problem.

"…I was also shocked at how NAMA, ...operated. I understood NAMA was going to hold assets until their value recovered and would not offload stressed assets for less than what they were worth. Some of the apartments I built have been sold for €100,000 each during the banking crisis, Apartments which I could not build now for €200,000, even if I got the land and the money for nothing."

Now, Deputy Wallace is an ex-developer with quite an experience under his belt. So he knows what he is talking about. Deputy Wallace goes on to cite several examples, where combined loss to the taxpayers due to Nama premature sales of assets amounts to ca EUR165.1 million. From just a handful of examples.

What he is arguing is that Nama has been engaged in a destruction of value - selling assets at depressed valuations compared to what could have been achieved if it properly managed these assets.

The deals cited by Deputy Wallace are all on the record, in the media. I have been made aware of at least one case of an asset originally pushed by Nama into the market, subsequently being withheld from the market due to legal actions, staying off the market for a year or less. The asset was subsequently sold by Nama for a hefty upside on the original asking price. An upside comparable with what vulture funds reap in their own operations. In other words, delays by developers in this case produced actually higher returns to Nama. These delays were actively resisted by Nama. I have been made aware of at least one asset sold by Nama seemingly in disregard for its upgrading and/or development potential and possible uplifts to asset value arising due to completion of major adjoining public infrastructure project. In another project, I was told of a situation whereby Nama presided over termination of a value-additive joint venture with another organisation that could have nearly doubled the value of the original asset.

In economics, there is a term of 'opportunity cost' - the cost arising from pursuing one course of action as opposed to opting for a different course. In Deputy Wallace-cited examples of public knowledge, that cost is non-negligible EUR165.1 million. Or, roughly, 2/3rds of the the 'savings' achieved in one year from imposing higher costs onto users of insurance-funded health services. That too is an 'opportunity cost'.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

8/9/2013: Priory Hall Is Enda Kenny's Problem to Solve

Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independent has a very passionate column on the relationship between the Government leadership and the case of the Priory Hall residents.

The column is here.

On foot of my tweets earlier today, few of you asked to get my response on the issue. Here is the summary in the form of my earlier tweets:



Friday, August 23, 2013

23/8/2013: IMHO statement on Mortgages Arrears for Q2 2013

Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation (IMHO) issued opinion on today's mortgages arrears figures: https://www.mortgageholders.ie/another-false-start-in-resolving-mortgage-crisis/

My detailed analysis of the figures is here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/08/2382013-irish-mortgages-arrears-q2-2013.html

23/8/2013: Irish Mortgages Arrears: Q2 2013


Mortgages rears figures are out for Q2 2013 and guess what, things are (predictably) getting worse. I am sure the Government will say that 'getting worse today'='getting better in the future'. As such, we do live in the world where stabilisation = decline in the rate of decline, while a slight uplift on any time series is greeted as an indisputable 'gathering growth momentum'.

What do the numbers of mortgages arrears tell us, spin aside? I highlight main conclusions in bold.

In Q2 2013 there were 919,139 mortgages accounts outstanding (EUR139,883 million in total), of which 770,610 accounts were for primary residences (EUR109,147 million). Primary residences are referenced as PDH accounts in CBofI. The balance of 148,529 accounts  (EUR30,626 million) relate to Buy-to-lets, BTLs.

This means that over the year through the end of H1 2013, the number of mortgages accounts rose 0.4% and their outstanding volumes fell 2.41%. Deleveraging is very slow in the economy, given the crisis scope: number of primary mortgages accounts rose 0.7% and their volume shrunk 2.52%, while the number of BTLs fell 1.1% and their volume shrunk 2.01%. In fact, as the chart shows, deleveraging process so far is not helping the workout of arrears:


Total number of primary accounts in arrears of any duration is up 11.46% y/y, underlying volume of mortgages represented by these is up 9.1% to EUR25.69 billion from EUR23.55 billion a year ago, while amounts in arrears are up 36.46%, breaching EUR2 billion for the first time. This means that, penalties inclusive, the arrears are now attracting ca EUR202 million in roll up charges annually or about 40% of the annual savings that we need to deliver in Budget 2014 from the social welfare funds.

Total number of BTLs in arrears was up 15.06% y/y and the amounts of mortgages outstanding for the BTLs in arrears rose to EUR10.94 billion - up 11.45% y/y, while the actual cumulated levels of arrears hit EUR1.207 billion, up 43.63% y/y.

All in, there were 182,840 accounts in arrears, representing cumulative amount outstanding of EUR36,634 million and cumulated arrears of EUR3,231 million. These were up: +11.39% y/y for account numbers (+19,924 accounts), +EUR3.267 billion or 9.79% y/y for mortgages outstanding, and +EUR 907 million or +39.05% y/y for actual arrears.


Repossessions accelerated, but remained subdued overall, rising to 1,503 accounts (1,001 accounts for primary residences). This represents a y/y increase of 13.69% for all accounts, 6.04% rise for primary residences and 32.8% jump for BTLs.

Restructured mortgages numbers declined in Q2 2013, from 106,612 accounts to 100,920 accounts over the period of 12 months through June 2013. This breaks down as per decline of 6.57% for primary residences from 84,941 to 79,357 accounts, and a decline of just 0.5% for BTLs from 21,671 to 21,563 accounts.

Performance of restructured mortgages somewhat improved, although we do not know as to why this was the case. Restructured mortgages that were not in arrears as percentage of the total number of restructured mortgages has improved from 47.35% to 53.31% for primary mortgages, and from 51.17% to 61.13% for BTLs.






And some scarier figures for the end:
  • Total number of mortgages at risk of default or defaulted (mortgages in arrears, mortgages restructured and not in arrears, and repossessions) rose to 239,834 in H1 2013 (up 11.27% y/y)
  • Total number of primary mortgages at risk or defaulted rose to to 186,202 in H1 2013 (up 9.94% y/y)
  • Total number of BTL mortgages at risk or defaulted rose to to 53,632 in H1 2013 (up 16.12% y/y)
  • 20.26% of all primary residential mortgages were in arrears or at risk of default in Q1 2013, against 18.50% in Q2 2012.
  • 36.11%of all BTL mortgages were in arrears or at risk of default in Q1 2013, against 30.75% in Q2 2012.
  • 26.09% of all residential mortgages were in arrears or at risk of default in Q1 2013, against 23.55% in Q2 2012.
  • By volume of mortgages outstanding, 33.35% of the total mortgages pool or EUR46,618 million were mortgages either in arrears, or restructured at the end of Q2 2013, up on 29.51% (or EUR42,258 million) at the end of Q2 2012.


Friday, June 21, 2013

21/6/2013: Irish Mortgages Arrears Q1 2013


At last, with a delay of some 4 weeks we have the Mortgages Arrears data for Ireland for Q1 2013. The delay was caused by (my sources tell me) a reporting glitch from one of the institutions. 

At any rate, the CBofI release of the data does not seem to fit any of the conspiracies theories bandied about, so let's assume that it was a glitch. That raises a question - what sort of a glitch can disrupt reporting of something as simple as arrears without having any effect whatsoever on any lender's other operations? I shall leave this question for you to ponder.

What do the figures tell us? As usual, my suggestion is - ignore the spin in the media, read CBofI own release, read https://www.mortgageholders.ie/ position (due tomorrow am) and let's focus on raw numbers here.


In Q1 2013, number of outstanding mortgages accounts relating to principal dwelling houses/residences (PDH) stood at 774,109, down on 792,096 in Q4 2012 - a decline of 2.27% q/q, but an increase of 1.3% y/y. With BTLs added, total number of residential mortgages in the country stood at 923,504 or 2.01% below Q4 2012 and 20.9% above Q2 2012 when reporting began. Much of changes in the total numbers of mortgages in recent quarters is accounted for by classification changes.

While the number of mortgages outstanding dropped by 2.27% for PDH, volumes of loans relating to mortgages decline by far smaller 0.79%.

So observation 1: exits remain based predominantly on pay downs of older vintage, smaller mortgages, leaving the remaining pool of mortgages more toxic.


Total number of accounts in arrears in relation to PDH stood at 142,118 in Q1 2013, down 1.2% from 143,851 accounts in Q4 2012, but up 15.6% y/y. Total outstanding amounts relating to PDH accounts in arrears was up 2.85% q/q at EUR25.485 billion (up 11.21% y/y) and underlying volumes of accumulated arrears rose to EUR1.932 billion (up 7.81% q/q and 39.87% y/y).



Observation 2: Marginal decrease in arrears-impacted mortgages accounts was associated with deeper deterioration in terms of the volumes of PDH mortgages impacted by arrears. The problem got slightly more concentrated and much more toxic.

Number of accounts in arrears in relation to BTL rose to 39,371 in Q1 2013, up 3.73% q/q and up 13.4% y/y. Total outstanding amounts relating to BTL accounts in arrears was up 2.84% q/q at EUR10.891 billion (up 10.94% y/y) and underlying volumes of accumulated arrears were at EUR1.178 billion (down 1.29% q/q and up 40.13% y/y). Note: y/y comparatives for BTLs are only referencing 9 months period since the end of Q2 2012 - the first period for which we have data available.

Observation 3: BTLs continued to tank across the board, although cumulated arrears amounts did decline q/q. Assuming there were no reclassifications, this suggests some write-offs by the banks of defaulted loans.

Total (PDH+BTL) number of accounts in arrears stood at 181.489 in Q1 2013, down 0.17% from 181,806 accounts in Q4 2012, but up 11.4% on Q2 2012 - the earliest for which we have data available for BTL. Total outstanding amounts relating to all mortgages accounts in arrears was up 2.85% q/q at EUR36.376 billion a rise of 9.02% on Q2 2012. However, the core number, relating to cumulated arrears has jumped significantly more than any other arrears-related parameter. This rose to EUR3.11 billion in Q1 2013 up 4.17% q/q and +33.83% on Q2 2012.


Observation 4: across all residential mortgages, the problem of arrears became slightly marginally more concentrated and significantly more toxic.


In Q1 2013, 185,263 PDH mortgages accounts were either at risk of default or defaulting (the category that includes, per my methodology, all mortgages in arrears, all repossessions and all mortgages that are restructured and currently are not in arrears), which is 0.81% down on Q4 2012 and +13.97% up on Q1 2012. At the same time, there were 52,991 BTL accounts at risk or defaulting, up 2.15% q/q and up 14.74% y/y. Which means that across all mortgages, the number of accounts at risk of default or defaulting declined marginally from 238,663 to 238, 254 between Q4 2012 and Q1 2013. The number was up 10.53% y/y.

At the end of Q1 2013, 20.1% of all PDH mortgages accounts were at risk of default or defaulting, up on 19.8% in Q4 2012. The percentage of BTL mortgages that were at risk of default or defaulting in Q1 2013 was 35.5%, up on 34.5% in Q4 2012. 


Among all residential mortgages in Ireland, in Q1 2013 25.8% were at risk of default or defaulting, up on 25.3% in Q4 2012. 9 months ago that percentage stood at 23.6%, implying a swing up of 2.2 percentage points in 9 months or an annualised rate of increase in the incidence of risk of default or defaulting of 2.94 percentage points.


Update:  Here is a link to IMHO statement on today's data: https://www.mortgageholders.ie/irelands-mortgage-crisis-is-blowing-out-of-control/

Thursday, March 7, 2013

7/3/2013: Irish Mortgages Arrears Q4 2012

Mortgages arrears data for private residences in Ireland for Q4 2012 was published today by the Central Bank of Ireland. Few surprises.

As expected, arrears rose. Unexpectedly, the rate of increase was much much slower than before in q/q terms and slower in y/y terms. As encouraging as this might sound, there are some points of concern outlined below. Here are some details of data dynamics first:


  1. In Q4 2012 there were a total of 792,096 accounts relating to private residential mortgages in Ireland - a massive y/y increase from 765,267 accounts in Q4 2011 due to 'reclassification' of some mortgages accounts.
  2. This 'reclassification' made historical comparatives in terms of, say, arrears as % of the total mortgages, utterly useless. This is how Irish official stats go: relabel, re-order, and if it makes things look better by coincidence - spin. 
  3. Total number of mortgages in arrears for private residences rose from 141,389 accounts in Q3 2012 to 143,851 accounts in Q4 2012 - an increase q/q of 1.74%, well below any q/q increase since the beginning of the series. Average increase since Q3 2009 when the data started stands at 6.51%.
  4. Y/y total number of mortgages in arrears increased 21.43% in Q4 2012, the slowest rate of annual increases since the beginning of the series and below the average of 27.77%.
  5. Overall, in Q4 2012, 18.16% of all mortgages still outstanding in the country were in arrears. Adjusting for the CBofI 'reclassification' of mortgages accounts to allow for more direct historical comparative, 18.85% of all mortgages were in arrears. 
  6. Number of mortgages at risk or defaulted (defined as mortgages currently in arrears, restructured and not in arrears, plus repossessions) has risen in Q4 2012 to 186,785 (or 24.48% of the total adjusting for 'reclassifications', 23.58% based on official data) from 185,933 in Q3 2012. This implies a rise of 0.46% q/q and 19.61% y/y. Both represent the slowest rates of increase in series (short) history.
Two charts to illustrate:



Good news: the rates of arrears build up have slowed down in Q 2012. 

Bad news, getting worse slower is not the same as getting better. Especially given the deterioration tallied from 2009 through today. 

Worrying side: impacts of property taxes, banks guarantee lift-off, repossessions orders regime change, and personal insolvency 'reforms' are not visible in the current latest data. All represent a threat of accelerating arrears once again. 

Real news: just under 1/4 of Irish private residences-linked mortgages are now at risk of default, in arreas or defaulted and some 650,000-700,000 people are currently impacted by this crisis to the point of being unable to meet the original conditions of their mortgages.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

13/12/2012: Mortgages at Risk: Acceleration in the Trend


In the previous post (here) I detailed the trends in mortgages arrears in Ireland based on Q3 2012 data released today. Since then, I have seen some comments on the 'dynamics' of the mortgages arrears, suggesting that things are 'getting worse more slowly'.

This is simply incorrect. Here's a chart graphically showing acceleration of overall crisis since Q2 2012:


Note that data through Q3 2010 is imputed by estimating back trend from Q4 2010-Q2 2012 data reported by CBofI. Hence, the jump in orange line at Q3-Q4 2010.

13/12/2012: Irish Mortgages Arrears - Q3 2012


Q3 2012 data for Irish residential mortgages in arrears is out and here is the first summary of horrific details:

  • Total number of residential mortgages in arrears more than 90 days rose from 47,627 to 49,482 between Q3 2011 and Q3 2012 - a rise of 3.89% y/y. This marks acceleration in the rate of increase in arrears 90 days + from 1.13% in Q2 2012.
  • Total number of mortgages in arrears less than 90 days rose to 86,146 in Q3 2012 from 62,970 in Q3 2011 - an increase of 36.8% y/y, compared to a rise of 45.3% in Q2 2012.
  • Total number of accounts in arrears (90 days and over, and under 90 days) rose from 110,597 in Q3 2011 to 135,628 in Q3 2012 - an annual rate of growth of 22.63%. In Q2 2012 the rate of increase was 25.20%.
  • Total number of accounts at risk of default (currently in arrears, plus restructured and not in arrears, plus repossessed) rose to 180,314 in Q3 2012, up 6.5% q/q and up 21.95% y/y. In Q2 2012 the rate of annual increase was 20.92%.
  • Overal value of mortgages at risk now stands at €31,835,683,000 up 6.0% q/q and 19.8% y/y
Charts to illustrate:


Let's make it simple:
  1. Between Q3 2011 and Q3 2012, the % of loan accounts in arrears for more than 90 days rose from 8.1% or all accounts (10.8% of outstanding mortgages values) to 11.3% (15.1% of outstanding mortgages values).
  2. A a year to Q3 2012, the number of mortgages at risk of default or defaulted (including mortgages in arrears, restructured and current not in arreas and repossessions) rose from 147,857 to 180,314
  3. In Q3 2012, mortgages at risk accounted for 24% of all mortgages outstanding accounts and 29% of the total value of outstanding mortgages, up from 19% and 23%, respectively, in Q3 2011.
That's right - almost 1/4 of all mortgages accounts are now at risk or have defaulted, and almost 30% of the total value of outstanding mortgages is at risk.

Updated: here's the Irish Mortgage Holders Organization response to today's Arrears figures.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

26/9/2012: Nama valuations & August property prices


As promised - in the last post on today's data release for Irish Residential Property Price Index (RPPI) here's the summary of impact of latest price index movements on Nama valuations.

Note: the figures referenced are approximate and relate to averages of valuations, so these should be treated as a guide. Keep in mind that property prices reaching Nama valuations levels (adjusted for risk-sharing cushion and long-term economic value premium) still imply a loss on Nama books, in my view, due to costs associated with operations, plus the discounts on disposals of properties in volume and over time. Inflation adjustment further increases real loss.

Summary table:

In other words, we need 60%+ uplift on current price levels to achieve a break even on Nama average valuations.

26/9/2012: 2012 forecast for property prices in Ireland


In the previous post I covered main data for August Residential Property Price Index for Ireland. Now, annual forecasts based on data through August:


These imply a cumulated decline of ca3.2% on August 2012 through December 2012, a decline of 2.4-2.5% for Houses, a decline of 3.4-3.5% for Apartments, and a rise of 0-0.25% for Dublin. Obviously, these are not precise figures, so treat with caution.

I currently foresee decline of 51.5% for all properties in 2012 relative to the peak with range of forecasts of 55-61% decline through 2013 relative to peak for all properties index.

I have not updated these figures for some time now - over 6 months so there you go...









26/9/2012: Residential Property Price Index for Ireland, August 2012


Residential Property Price Index for Ireland (RPPI) for August 2012 is out today, triggering a torrent of usual commentary - some optimistic, some more bleak, depending on the focus of the analysis reported. Here are the facts:

Overall RPPI:

  • Index for all properties nationwide has risen marginally to 65.2 in August against July reading of 64.9 and this represents second consecutive monthly rise. M/m index rose 0.46% in August after posting a 0.15% rise in July. 
  • However, index reading remains below May when it stood at 65.5 and marks the third lowest reading in history of the series. 
  • 3mo MA for the overall index is now 64.97 in August and that is below 3mo MA ever recorded in the history of the series.
  • Y/y index fell 11.77% in August, which is an improvement on the fall of 13.58% in July and the shallowest annual rate of decline in any month since February 2011.
  • Overall residential properties prices are now 50.04% below their peak which is an improvement on the absolute bottom level of -50.34% on the peak, albeit statistically-speaking there is no discernable difference.
  • YTD average monthly change in the index is -0.68% and 12mo MA change is -1.03%. In other words, however you spin annual or monthly date, from September 2011 through August 2012 prices have fallen on average at a monthly rate of 1.03%.
Chart to illustrate:

Note, not a factual, but 'interpretative observation, we are seeing some attempts in the market to 'bottom out'. This does not mean that the market will bottom out here, but it does represent a first such instance of an attempt in the market.

Houses prices:

  • Safe as houses stuff prices rose to 68 in August from 67.8 in July marking second consecutive month of increases (in July prices rose 0.296% m/m and in August the rise was 0.295% - both statistically indistinguishable from zero).
  • However, as with overall residential prices, house prices through August failed to regain levels registered in May (68.2).
  • Y/y house prices are down 11.69% in August - slowest rate of annual drop since March 2011.
  • Relative to peak house prices are now down 48.48%
  • YTD average monthly drop is at 0.66% and 12mo MA monthly drop is at 1.03% so the same analysis for dynamics stands as for the overall RPPI above.
Chart on this below (after Apartments analysis).

Apartments prices:
  • Apartments prices firmed up to 46.9 in August from 45.8 in July and are still below the levels attained in June (47.6), implying the index is at the second lowest point in its history.
  • M/m prices rose 2.40% posting the first rise since April 2012. Y/y apartments prices are down 14.57% - the slowest rate of annual decline since February 2011.
  • Relative to peak, shoe boxes (err.. apartments) are now trading at a discount of 62.15%.
  • 12moMA of monthly deflation is at -1.53% and YTD average monthly price drop is -1.59%. Good luck if you are taking any solace from the one month blip.



Dublin prices:

  • Unlike the rest of the country (where I suspect prices changes are driven primarily by thin and selection-biased markets), Dublin property prices have continued steady decline dropping 0.52% m/m in August after 0.35% drop in July. 
  • August thus marks the second consecutive month since prices posted shallow increases in March-May 2012.
  • August also marks the month in which Dublin property prices have hit another record low at 57.3, with the previous record low attained in July (57.6) and in February 2012.
  • Dublin prices are now 57.40% below their peak.



I will be blogging later tonight on my forecasts for 2012 prices and on impact of these prices changes on Nama balancesheet, so stay tuned.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

16/9/2012: Who pays for the Banks Guarantee? Irish Mortgage Holders


Another interesting snippet from the IMF report on Ireland's performance:

"The already low net interest margin fell by 40 basis points in Q1, to 0.8 percent of average assets. Though funding costs fell by 35 percent from Q4 2011 reflecting the actions of a leading bank to lower deposit rates, this was not enough to compensate for weakening interest income due to higher loan impairments and the drag from low yielding tracker mortgages. The ELG fee remained high, at 110 basis points in Q1, absorbing some 40 percent of the net interest margin (up from 28 percent in Q4 2011)."

What does this mean?
1) Banks are suffering from lower margins due to declines in ECB rate having an adverse impact on their tracker mortgages book. They compensate by soaking savers (deposit rates down) and ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages are up).
2) Instead of allowing banks more funds to cover mortgages losses, the (1) above - soaking of savers and ARMs - goes primarily to fund Mr Noonan and the State (via ELG fees paid by the banks for the Guarantee cover to the Exchequer).

Great. As a holder of an adjustable rate mortgage, I get taxed by Mr Noonan once on household charge (soon to be replaced by a property tax) and  via ELG. Well done, 'low tax Government'. Of course, I am also being used to subsidize tracker mortgages, including buy-to-lets.

16/9/2012: IMF on PCARs and banks recaps


In the latest IMF Article IV Consultation paper on Ireland, the fund made some interesting observations on the ongoing Irish property bust. Here are some of these:

Firstly a chart showing where we are at in terms of current declines in property prices relative to other crises and in duration:


Next, there's a very revealing statement on the banks recapitalizations process (PCAR 2011) in relation to mortgages arrears (the statement that predates Professor Honohan's expression of doubt that PCARs were robust enough to all dealing with the mortgages arrears):


"Residential mortgage arrears continue to rise, but remain within the assumptions for bank recapitalization. As of end March 2012, almost 14 percent of the total principal balance of owner occupied residential mortgages outstanding was affected by arrears of 90 days or more, broadly doubling since end 2010. [Note: IMF seemingly had no desire to update their analysis for more up-to-date H1 2012 data released by CBofI and CSO (see here and here) before they published the Article IV paper].

Nonetheless, the overall arrears balance, together with developments in house prices and
unemployment, remain within the adverse scenario of the Prudential Capital Assessment Review (PCAR) that guided bank recapitalization in 2011.

[Italics are mine. The reason why I find this important is that the banks were not recaped to the adverse scenario requirements, but to the baseline scenario requirements plus cushion. The difference is significant: Overall, Blackrock estimated that BlackRock lifetime loan losses post-deleveraging would amount to €27,522 million in baseline case rising to €40,119 million in adverse case. Of these, the Central Bank assumed that only €20,014 million will take place pre-2014 in the baseline case and only €27,722 million in adverse case. That's a difference of €7 billion right there. The CBofI then made some additional assumptions and determined that €18.7 worth of capital will be needed by the banks overall. Clearly, given that this was less than what the banks estimated themselves to be the case (banks own forecast provisions totalled €17.04-22.23bn for baseline to adverse scenario cases), the CBofI 'imposed' additional 'cushion requirements' to raise overall capital requirement under PCARs to €24bn. But, wait, that is not consistent with the adverse scenario that IMF is referencing above, which is €27.7bn! So the banks were not recapitalized to the adverse scenario levels and IMF is using this term 'adverse' here to rather politely point out to the Irish authorities that the proverbial sh*t might be hitting or about to hit the fan.]

More so: "It is notable that about half of total arrears arise from loans that have already been
restructured, although part of these arrears could have arisen prior to each loan restructuring, so the effectiveness of rescheduling of distressed loans is unclear." [Now, we know this much ourselves - in H1 2012, more than 52.65% of already restructured mortgages were in arrears (see here)].

"Repossessions and voluntary surrenders of property are also very low, cumulating to 0.2 percent of the stock of mortgages on owner-occupied dwellings in the 11 quarters to March 2012. This is consistent with the one-year moratorium on repossessions of primary residences  under the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, but may also reflect a need to buttress the repossession framework."

Some charts:


Two things to note here: table above includes voluntary surrenders of properties, something that CBofI does not ordinarily publish in their mortgages arrears data, and the chart below shows just how thin the margins are on PCAR 'stress scenario'.

So things, according to the IMF, are for now within the parameters of the adverse scenario and, per chart above, within the stress scenario. Which seems to be just about ok, when it comes to PCAR injections to-date. But crucially, there is stress building up here. Only 1 year into the programme of recapitalizations, the banks are close to hitting the wall again.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

23/8/2012: Mortgages Arrears in Ireland - Q2 2012


At last we have the data for Q2 2012 mortgages arrears in Ireland, and these are ugly. That's right, folks - ugly.

Let's keep in mind: Irish average household size is at 2.73 persons per household as per Census 2011.

Top numbers:

  • Total number of outstanding mortgages in the state stood at 761,533 in Q2 2012, down 0.34% q/q and down 2.03% y/y. In the previous quarter (Q1 2012) the rate of mortgages decline was 0.63% q/q and 2.34% y/y. This suggests a slowdown in mortgages repayments (deleveraging) in the economy, despite the Government claims to the economic stabilization (something that would be consistent with accelerating deleveraging).
  • Outstanding balances of mortgages are at €111.99 billion in Q2 2012, a decline of 0.62% q/q and 2.69% y/y. Again, compared with Q1 2012, there is a slowdown in deleveraging (-0.70% q/q and -2.82% y/y in Q1 2012).
  • Of all mortgages outstanding, 45,165 mortgages or 5.93% (totaling €7.53 billion or 6.73% of all balances) were in arrears less than 90 days. In Q1 2012 the number was 46,284. This is a mew category of reporting and Central Bank deserves credit for continuing to improve data disclosure to the public.
  • Of all mortgages outstanding, 17,533 (2.3%) of mortgages were in arrears between 91 and 180 days, with mortgage balance of €3.13 billion (2.79%). Good news, there has been a deecrease q/q in these mortgages - down 3.52% (in Q1 2012 there was a rise of 2.06% in this category) in number of accounts and a drop of 5.73% (against a rise of 1.32% in Q1) in mortgages volumes. Year on year, this category of mortgages arrears is up 11.64 in Q2 2012 which marks a slowdown from 27.5% rise y/y in Q1.
  • However, the decline in the 91-180 days category of mortgages in arrears (-640 mortgages q/q) is almost ten-fold smaller than the rise in the arreas 180-days and over category (up 6,261 q/q in Q2). In other words, the decline in mortgages in arrears 91-180 days is explained fully by the rise of mortgages in arrears over 180 days.
  • Number of mortgages in arrears in excess of 180 days now stands at a massive 65,698, up 10.53% q/q in Q2 2012 (in Q1 2012 the same rate of increase was 11.89%) and up 64.1% y/y. These mortgages amount to €13.35 billion - which represents a 10.64% q/q increase and a 67.22% increase y/y.
  • Using old methodology, total arrears over 90 days now amount to 83,251 mortgages (up 7.24% q/q and 49.3% y/y), with a balance of €16.48 billion (up 7.11% q/q and 52.1% y/y). 
  • Thus, currently, 10.93% of all mortgages in Ireland are in arrears 90 days and more, and these amount to 14.72% of total mortgages balances. For comparison, in Q2 2011 these percentages were 7.17% and 9.42% respectively.
  • Using newly available data on mortgages in arrears less than 90 days, total number of mortgages in arrears in Ireland is 128,416 (16.86% of all mortgages outstanding) and these amount to €24.01 billion (21.44% of all outstanding balances).
  • Now, put the above number in perspective - that is around 350,576 people (actually more, since mortgages arrears are likely to impact younger and larger households over retired and smaller households) in this country who are missing payments on their mortgages.
  • In Q2 2012 there were 84,941 restructured mortgages (up 6.56% q/q and 21.63% y/y). The rate of restructuring has declined from Q1 2011 when q/q there was a rise of 7.17% and y/y there was a rise of 26.66%.
  • Of restructured mortgages, 47.35% were not in arrears. Percentage of restructured mortgages in arrears has fallen from 56.41% in Q2 2011 and from 48.50% in Q1 2012. Which, of course, means that more an more restructured mortgages are falling back into arrears, implying that the restructuring solutions do not work for at least 53% of mortgages to which they were applied.
  • As of the end of Q2 2012, there were total of 169,598 mortgages (22.27% of all mortgages outstanding) that were at risk (in arrears, restructured and not in arrears, and subject to repossessions). This represents (using average household size) 463,003 persons.

Charts to illustrate above trends:





At this stage, there is no point of denying that all restructuring and other 'solutions' deployed by the banks and designed by the Government are not working. The mortgages crisis is raging on. When you look at the third chart above, even using old definition of mortgages at risk (>90 days arrears), the trend up is linear, implying a constant rise in mortgages risk. Even abstracting away from the possible effects of the new insolvencies legislation on mortgages defaults, the trend above suggests that by Q1 2013 we will be close to 150,000 mortgages at risk (using in arrears more than 90 days metric). This would push overall mortgages at risk to beyond 200,000. More than half a million Irish people will be living in households at risk of falling behind on their mortgages repayments. The question I would like to ask of our 'leaders' is "Then, what?"

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

24/7/2012: Residential Property Price Index for Ireland, June 2012

So that 'stabilization' in Irish property markets on foot of 0.2% rise in May in the Residential Property Price Index (RPPI) turned out to be just the statistical noise? Looks increasingly so to me. The latest data from CSO is bleak:


"In the year to June, residential property prices at a national level, fell by 14.4%. This compares with an annual rate of decline of 15.3% in May and a decline of 12.9% recorded in the twelve months to June 2011."

Overall residential property prices "fell by 1.1% in the month of June. This compares with
an increase of 0.2% recorded in May and a decline of 2.1% recorded in June of last
year."

Dublin - the 'bright spot of the previous months for the 'green jerseys' hopes on recovery in the property markets has recorded a fall of 1% m/m in June and a 16.4% decline y/y.


"House prices in Dublin are 56% lower than at their highest level in early 2007. Apartments in Dublin are 62% lower than they were in February 2007. Residential property prices in Dublin are 57% lower than at their highest level in February 2007. The fall in the price of residential properties in the Rest of Ireland is somewhat lower at 47%. Overall, the national index is 50% lower than its highest level in 2007."


Charts updates and forecasts later today, so stay tuned.


Monday, June 25, 2012

25/6/2012: RPPI May 2012: Residential property prices in Ireland

CSO's residential property price index (RPPI) is out for May. Headlines are:

  • Overall Index moved from 65.4 in April to 65.5 in May, marking the first (+0.15%) m/m rise since September 2007 (previous best performance months saw zero falls in the index).
  • However, statistically (based on data from January 2008), we need to see a raise of 0.32% (1/2 stdev) at least to make a reasonable judgement on upward gain.
  • Overall RPPI is now at 3moMA of 65.67, down on 3mo MA of 65.87 in April and 67.5 in previous 3mos period through February.
  • Year on year, RPPI slipped -15.27% compared to May 2011 and 3mo MA through May 2012 of 65.67 was significantly below 3mo MA through May 2011 (78.17).
  • Relative to peak, RPPI is now down 49.81% in May 2012 - an improvement on -49.89% for April 2012, but, again, not statistically significant improvement.

Improvements in RPPI were driven by houses and Dublin houses in particular, with Dublin Apartments prices continuing to tank.

Looking at Houses and Apartments:

  • Houses index rose from 68.1 in April to 68.2 in May, marking the first monthly rise (+0.15%) since August 2010 and the largest m/m rise since November 2007. Monthly rise also failed to be statistically significant (stdev=0.643) for the crisis period (since January 2008)
  • 3moMA for houses index is now at 68.4, down on 68.67 in April 2012 and 81.3 in May 2011.
  • House prices index is down 15.17% y/y compared to -16.24% in April 2012 and house prices nationwide are now down 48.3% relative to their peak.
  • Apartments price index is now at 48.6 in May 2012 down 2.02% on 49.6 reading in April 2012 and down 19% year on year.
  • Apartments prices m/m decline in May broke 2 previous months consecutive increases.
  • Apartments prices are now down 60.77% to peak.
  • Monthly decline in apartments prices was statistically significant (stdev=1.56).



Dublin prices drove the overall index this month:

  • RPPI for Dublin stood at 58.4 in May, up on 58.3 in April 2012 (+0.17% m/m) marking the third consecutive m/m increase in the series. However, current rise was not statistically significant (stdev=1.18) and cumulative increases during the last 3 months (total of 1.39%) also fail to be statistically significant.
  • Annually, prices are down 17.51% in May, which is worse than 17.3% y/y decline in April.
  • Relative to peak, Dublin property prices are now down 56.58%.


So nothing new, folks - the market is looking for a catalyst - which is a fancy way of saying that it might go down or up, or stay flat.