Two points:
- If Government is so aggressive in staking its control over AIB's selection of a CEO, why can't the same Government commit to firing the entire boards upon initiation of Nama? Governments change overnight, so why banks' boards are so different?
- I must confess, I like Minister Lenihan's belated (this blog and other analysts have said months ago that there will be second round demand for funding post-Nama due to RWA changes triggered by Nama, and then due to second wave of defaults within mortgage and corporate loans portfolia) recognition of a simple financial / accounting reality. Strangely enough, the brokers themselves never factored this eventuality in their projections of Nama effect on banks balance sheets.
News: IMF's Global Financial Stability Report Chapter 1 is out today. This is the main section of the report and it focuses on two themes:
- Continuation of the crisis in financial markets - the next wave of (shallower, but nonetheless present) risks to credit supply in globally over-stretched lending institutions; and
- Future exist strategies from the virtually self-sustaining cycle of new debt issuance by the sovereigns that goes on to mop up scarce liquidity in the private sector, thus triggering a new round of debt issuance by the sovereigns (irony has it, I wrote about the threat of this merry-go-round link between public finances and private credit supply back in my days at NCB - in August 2008).
Ireland-specific stuff:
Nice chart above - Ireland was pretty heavy into ECB cash window back in 2007, but by 2009 we became number one junkies of cheap funding. Like an addict hanging about the corner shop in hope of a fix, our banks are now borrowing a whooping 7% of their total loans volumes through ECB. This is a sign of balance sheet weakness, but it is also a sign that the banks are doing virtually nothing to aggressively repair their balance sheets themselves. Why? Because Nama looms as a large rescue exercise on the horizon.
But, denial of a problem is not a new trait. Per chart above, through 2006, Irish banks were third from the bottom in providing for bad loans despite a massive rate of expansion in lending and concentration of this lending in few high risk areas (buy-to-rent UK markets, speculative land markets in Ireland, UK and US and so on). Now, taking the path the Eurozone average has taken since then, adjusting for the decline in underlying property markets in Ireland relative to the Eurozone, and for the shortfall on provisions prior to 2007, just to match current risk-pricing in the Eurozone banks, Irish banks would have to hike their bad loans provisions to 3-3.75%. And this is before we factor in the extremely high degree of loans concentrations in property markets in Ireland. Again, why are we not seeing such dramatic increases? One word: Nama.
Lastly, table above shows the spreads on bonds in the US and Eurozone. Two note worthy features here:
- The rates of decline in all grades of bonds and across sovereign and corporate bonds shows that they are comparable to those experienced by Ireland. This debunks the myth that Irish bonds pricing improved on the back of something that Irish Government has done ('correcting' deficit or 'setting a right policy' for our economy). Instead, Irish bond prices moved in-line with global trends, being driven by improved appetite for risk in financial markets and not by our leaders' policies;
- Current spreads on Irish bonds over German bunds suggest market pricing of Irish sovereign bonds that is comparable to US and European corporates. In effect, Ireland Inc is not being afforded by the markets the same level of credibility as our major European counterparts. One wonders why...
Lenihan seemed to be "banking" on the notion that property values were not going to drop much more in a recent radio interview. Nama was going to slow down thw decline.Surely reduced property values are one very neccessary element towards improved competitiveness.
ReplyDeleteConstantin
ReplyDeleteGood stuff.
On the need for banks to source additional capital post NAMA - to be fair - Lenny has been saying for some time that they would. In fact when arguing against pre-emptive nationalisation he regularly highlighted that additional capital would be required post NAMA and if that came from the State then we would quite potentially end up majority shareholders in the banks and even possibly having to Nationalise them BUT that he didn't think it would come to full nationalisation.
On the Guarantee - I tend to agree with your analysis that the international purchasers of debt are working to an assumption that the guarantee will be extended next year - they are taking a risk though. If the 2 major banks have got their tier 1 ratios back up to "appropriate" levels and if the third force bank (PTSB/EBS and possibly BoSI and INBS) is set up and capitalised then (at least arguably) they should close the guarantee, wind down Anglo (they should do this anyway) and let some semblence of normality return.
On the lack of provision - did anyone highlight the low provision levels back (say) in 2004/5 ? I don't recall much noise at the time. What was the historic default rate at that time? In other words was there clear indications back then for taking the view that they were under-providing or is it largely with hindsight that we can now say "FFS what were they thinking!!".
Final one - yes the credit spreads have come back in significantly over the pasy year all across the Eurozone (and in the US) as the risk levels (and panic levels) have dropped back - however no-one (including your good self) would view our current position as being similar to or comparable with many of these other nations. We are a complete mess - I think we are the only ones with simultaneous explosion of our fiscal bubble, property bubble and credit bubble - and yet our credit spreads have also come back indicating to me that had the government not taken some of the actions and not demonstrated that it will "correct" the deficit and "set the right policy" then it is at least arguable that our spreads would be even wider than they are currently.
It seems the international community has assumed our government will do a better job at ruthlessly dealing with the locals than the IMF ever would.
ReplyDeleteDonal's is a false argument.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to add my name to your list of different objectors to NAMA:
Former Chief Economist with FTSE100multinational as well as high profile economic consultancy.