For those of you who missed the latest article on NAMA from myself and Brian Lucey in the current issue of Business&Finance magazine, here is the unedited version.
To date, the prevailing discussion internationally on how to rescue failed banks focused on repairing their balance sheets. This ignores the underlying cause of the problem – the deterioration of their asset base. In fact, in the case of NAMA-type ‘bad’ banks arrangements, the cure compounds the asset base problems.
Two major questions arise in the context of NAMA.
First, we do not know how the assets can be priced in order to align the NAMA objective of repairing banks balance sheets (with an incentive to pay high price for transferred assets) and its duty to safeguard taxpayers interest (requiring the price to be set below the expected risk-adjusted value of the loans total).
Second, we do not know how the impaired assets will be treated under NAMA. One option is to keep them alive as zombie development projects awaiting realization decades from today. Another is to shut them down. Which option will be pursued will, in the end, seal the fate of large scale development land banks and half-baked development schemes across the country. It will also underpin political legitimacy of NAMA. And this is before we consider the fallout from a virtually inevitable future creep of NAMA remit to cover defaulting mortgages on principal residencies, credit cards debts and bad car loans.
Extent of the NAMA-bility
With respect to the first question, the US Treasury Department identifies the bad assets before they are actually fully impaired using financial models that estimate future loan values under different economic scenarios.
So let us consider the loans that are non-performing, stressed or rolled over with little chance of repayments any time soon. Banks provisions for future impairment charges are currently running at ca 4-5%. Independent and even in-house analysts are forecasting that some 12-15% of the entire asset pool of the Irish banks can be under stress by 2010.
In our view, this is a lower bound of the true state as:
- loans under threat to date will almost certainly remain under threat through 2010;
- the first quarter of 2008 saw a relatively benign trading environment, so 2009 is going to see even greater rates of impairment; and
- the economic troubles underlying the rapid asset quality deterioration are set to deepen in 2009.
We know nothing about the recovery rate on these risky assets. But globally, AAA rated CDOs carry the recovery rate of only 32% on face value, while for mezzanine vehicles the recovery rate is only 5%. The default rates on the
The above loss rate implies that NAMA will be purchasing the impaired assets at less than 28% discount to their face value, should the Government set the price to keep the 6-banks capital ratios at 8% minimum required levels. Such a discount will imply an issuance of €36bn in fresh bonds to the banks, underwriting only €25bn in risk-adjusted assets on NAMA-held €50bn book of loans. The implied expected loss to the taxpayers from such an operation is €11bn in capital cost, plus ca €11.5bn in interest costs for a 5-year bond to be covered out of tax revenue and higher cost of banking.
It is worth noting that these costs of over €22bn for NAMA operations assume that Irish banks keep capital ratios at the required legal minimum after deleveraging their balance sheets. In other words, these losses do not fully insure the banking system against future capital demands.
But 8% capital requirement is now considered to be insufficient for operating a private bank. Instead, markets are demanding a minimum 10% capital ratio, with 12-14% being a golden target. If NAMA were to keep Irish banks private, the recapitalization demand for the 6-banks system due to the NAMA assets transfers will add another €4-8bn in costs to the Exchequer bill.
Note: should NAMA buy into €80bn in loans, as discussed in recent reports, the associated required maximum discount rate will be 23% and the total losses to the taxpayers will be €43-51bn.
How can toxic assets be priced?
Generally, assets on bank balance sheets are valued either at hold-to-maturity value or at fair value. Both frameworks fail in the current environment.
An alternative solution is that the Government can set up a two-stage process of buying stressed assets into NAMA. The first stage will involve a quasi-voluntary scheme that would establish a functional resale market for the stressed loans to be used in the second stage of purchasing.
To do so, the Government should set a basic level of discount on the assets based on the publicly verifiable valuation model. The discount should be fixed on the date of the scheme announcement to prevent future manipulation of the fair value by the banks. It should apply to all systemically important banks regardless of who holds the specific loan or what project it is written against. This will avoid political interference in the pricing of stressed assets.
Loans with interest and principal non-payment of less than 3 months can be sold at a fixed discount of, say 15% (reflective of the current expected default rates), loans with non-payment of 3-6 months can be sold at a fixed discount of 25% (a rate that is more consistent with the US experience and the ECB discount lending criteria). Non-performing loans in excess of 6 months and repeated roll-up loans can be traded at a 50% discount equal to their estimated default risk. This first-stage transfer will remove the most toxic paper off the balance sheets of the banks.
After the first stage establishes quasi-market pricing of the assets transferred to NAMA, the Government can retain the face value discount on other stressed assets, while allowing for some recapitalization support to be given to the banks that need it. The second stage involves using the same discounts on loans as in the first stage with the Government using additional bonds to swap for banks shares to cover some fixed proportion of the discount. In other words, the banks will still sell most impaired assets at 50% discount, but they will have an option to receive a roll-back of say 10-15% of the discounted value in the form of the NAMA taking new shares in the banks. For example, a loan package of €10bn with average non-payment of more than 6 months will be sold to NAMA for €5bn, but the bank involved will have an option to sell €500-7500mln worth of new equity to NAMA at the same discount on the share price as on assets sold to NAMA.
The advantage of this scheme is that the clean up of banks balance sheets will be systematic and non-distortionary.
The disadvantage is that it still saddles the taxpayer with the task of recapitalizing the banks after they take a hit on their capital base under the NAMA. This, however, is inevitable under all possible scenarios for toxic assets removal. In our view, the only real option to avoid the need for endless rounds of recapitalizations is to nationalize systemically important banks outright. Nationalization option will allow the Government to keep capital base of the banks at 8% limit, outside the markets demand for higher capital reserves. In addition, under nationalization NAMA can choose and pick specific assets off banks balance sheets to create a blended portfolio of loans with lower expected default rates.
Avoiding zombie land banks
The second problem with the Government proposal is that we do not have any idea as to how the impaired assets will be treated under NAMA. Upon purchasing the loan, the Government will have an incentive to keep the underlying assets alive as a zombie development projects. This is so because as long as the development-zoned land remains ‘active’ as an investment project it will retain some notional value on NAMA balancesheet, creating an illusion of value to the taxpayer. Of course, much of the existent recent vintage land banks that NAMA will end up holding will cover speculatively purchased agricultural and industrial land with virtually no hopes of being developed in the next 15-20 years.
Another option is to shut these projects down, de-zone the land and either release it into the market as agricultural land or retain it as public-use land. This option implies NAMA writing down the asset value of such land.
In our view, the Government will be wise to opt for the second option, converting improperly zoned development land into a mixture of leasable publicly-owned land (useable for sustainable developments) and commons (for public amenities, such as parklands). Incidentally, our pricing scheme described above incentivises such conversion as most of speculative land banks will fall under the heaviest discounted price category, minimizing the value of the write down and maximizing land rents to be collected on leasable lands.
This process will only be further enhanced by imposing a direct land-value tax on development sites, mentioned in this column in the previous issue.
Box Out: 8 reasons to mistrust ba-NAMA-rama
- The potential for politicisation of the property and land valuations, combined with further politicisation of planning and development.
- The lack of adequate oversight capacity in the Oireachtas even with the enhanced committee structure.
- The lack of transparency in the pricing and valuation process.
- The monopoly which it is to be granted on development and land related activity which is backed by lending from Irish institutions. There is a prima facia case here for very careful consideration of domestic and EU competition issues.
- NAMA is to be granted portfolios of assets, regardless of whether these are performing or otherwise. Will performing borrowers whose loans are transferred to NAMA injunct such transfers on the grounds of reputational damage?
- The skillsets required to manage a fundamentally distressed asset portfolio (NAMA) are lacking not only at NAMA, but across the entire public sector and most of the private sector.
- The portfolio approach, where all loans in a portfolio regardless of quality are transferred, leaves NAMA open to mission creep with for example the potential for credit card, or auto loan portfolios being transferred in the future.
- Finally, and most important there is the issue of the price to be paid for the assets of the banks.
splendid understandable article for non-economists.
NAMA Gearing Up For Dockland's DDDA Scam?http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2009/04/nama-gearing-up-for-ddda-scheming.html
In September 2008 the patriotic Galway Tent Cartel ordered Mr BIFFO not to liquidate Anglo-Irish Bank nor any of the rest of the Cartel.
NAMA's sponsors like to confuse taxpayers by using big opaque numbers such as the ninety billion euro they plan to scam the taxpayers for 'to save the economy'. That's €60,000 of extra taxes per worker (2011 full time headcount equivalent). Such money would be better invested on high value intellectual property.
Its more useful to look at an example of just one site buried inside that €90 Billion zombie banking number. According to honest DDDA-Anglo-Irish-Bank the Glass Bottle hole-in-the-ground speculation has an alleged book value of €450 million. The site's real value is between zero and €45 million at most. However when the DDDA Autocracy hands out the planning permission for the future-slum to its co-conspirators, sorry co-investors, the Autocracy will declare the site's value is €299 million.
This means the honest NAMA gentlemen can diddle the taxpayers by paying 'a robust 66.6%' or 'only' €199 million for the site. The false book-keeping balance of €251 million is diddled from the taxpayers in the "systemic Anglo-Irish Bank" scam of September 2008.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qdRqFPGZw2o/SfjTHDsfO5I/AAAAAAAABh8/DYoyD2wUSKg/s1600-h/DDDA_AngloIrish.png
If increased capital ratio requirements (Tier 1, etc.) wouldn't apply to a nationalised bank, does that actually imply that the actually initial outlay by the state would actually be less in the immediate future under nationalisation? i.e. the shares are worth less than the extra capital otherwise required. In order for this to be beneficial, doesn't it assume that (in order to be reprivatised a few years down the line) this extra capital would eventually come from private investors?
Also, wouldn't any capital taken from the banks under a government-favourable NAMA deal be an entirely pyrrhic victory? The funding would still probably end up coming from the government in the form of recapitalisation. It doesn't seem to matter whether NAMA gets a good deal or not (within reason), because it costs the tax-payer in the long-run either way.
Looks like it, Jonathan. Undercapitalized bank will reduce taxpayer liability in the short run, but will also lower share values in the long run, assuming the Government does not recapitalize the banks over time through operational means - e.g debt buybacks etc.
Now, in terms of good deal for NAMA: under straight nationalization, the cost is the buy-out cost of the banks. Say, roughly at current share values - 2bn. Plus the cost of recapitaliziation - say another 5bn. So, say 7bn. Now, under NAMA, the cost is bond-financing of purchasing some 80bn worth of assets, plus recapitalization, minus the expected recovery on the loans purchased, plus smaller auxiliary stuff (legal battles etc). Cost of bonds alone will be more than double that 7bn above.
I actually can't understand how the government could possibly disagree with nationalisation, when the cost has been so explicitly demonstrated to be less than the NAMA-only alternative.
It seems to me like it can be summed up as: Under nationalisation, the government pours money through recapitalisation and remuneration (for troubled assets) into banks that it owns - thus increasing their value. Under NAMA-only, the government's actions increase the value of banks owned by private share-holders.
It's funny that the government is the party most fearful of politicised banking, but somehow less surprising that they're least capable of seeing the solution - i.e. keeping political interests away from the banks. The new head of NAMA does little to alleviate fears.
I was at your excellent talk for the GP at the weekend. As you know the legislation is being finalised today and its pretty certain that the Government is not going to back down now. We all agree that something like NAMA is needed - it is just a matter of how it is done So, what would be your top 5 amendments to the legislation be. I know you have not seen the legislation but based on what has been widely reported what are your priorities? Tks. Gavin
Post a Comment