26/9/2014: 'Cartoon Economics'? You bet...

Priceless is the best way to describe financial instrumentation antics of Irish Government.

The IMF loan early 'repayment' is really a re-financing. It has its good sides and no one argues it shouldn't be done (see here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/09/992014-imf-loans-deal-can-be-win-win.html) but 'repayment' this is not.

Still more of the bizarre machinations were publicised today in an Irish Times piece: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/move-on-anglo-debt-set-to-boost-exchequer-earnings-1.1942119#.VCUUnz_O6bw.twitter. The idea is that those Anglo/INBS/IBRC 'shut down' bonds that are being held in the Central Bank (with interest on them payable to the CB and thus recycled back to the State, implying zero cost financing of the bonds) can be sold at a rate faster than that required by the original schedule. Which, of course, means two things:

1. Selling these bonds today is likely to generate a capital gains return to the Exchequer, as Irish bonds are currently trading at lower yields than when issued, which means that the Government can sell these bonds and pocket the price difference over par.
2. But,... the proverbial but, once sold, the bonds ill be paying declared coupon (interest payments) of Euribor + 263 bps to their new holders, and not to the Central Bank. Which means that new interest payments will be an addition to the already hefty interest bill of the Government. What used to be 'free funding' prior to sale will become 'Euribor+263bps' funding after. 

There is an added caveat to all of this. If the Government spends the capital gains on anything other than reduction of debt, interest costs under above pricing become net costs. In effect, we will be funding a quick-fix-drug addiction with a credit card.

Back in 2013, after the Promo Notes deal, myself and others have cautioned as to the risks associated with accelerated sales of bonds. And now this risk is upon us. And beyond all of this looms the largest question of them all: These bonds were issued to cover Irish Government liability to the ECB (Eurosystem) arising from the nationalisation of Anglo and INBS (not nationalisation, per se, but from our state assuming all liabilities of the two failed banks and refusing to burn their bondholders). So, as we all know, Ireland 'took one on the chin' for Europe. 

A symmetric response from the ECB would have been to allow us hold these bonds in perpetuity, so no repayments need to be made at all. Instead, we created these bonds with an intent of selling every year a bit of this debt into the markets to generate cash to close the liability to the ECB (in other words, to raise money to burn money to appease ECB balancesheet exercise). This 'burning' of money means two things:

1. ECB gets accounting 'cancelation' of liability which has zero material impact on the Eurosystem regardless of whether it remains open or is closed; and
2. Irish taxpayers have to fund the debt sold - which means more real pain and suffering for taxpayers and people of Ireland.

With the new move, we are going to accelerate (1) and (2) above and the Irish Times is cheerleading this?! 

The Irish Times misses all of the above points in its article. But one man doesn't: Diarmuid O'Flynn:

As he said, this is 'cartoon economics'...

7/2/2013: Trading Debt for Cash Flow Relief?

Muy thoughts (quick one between lecturing) on the deal:

As I understand it,

1. We have converted quasi-governmental debt into pure Government bond.
2. Maturity profile is very good - long dated, no restriction on NTMA raising funds at 20 year + 
3. We are gaining some cash flow improvements up front (where they matter most), but 
4. We are not getting a major write down on the debt overall. 
5. Deficit impact is one-off 500mln, that will be absorbed into improvement over 2014 Budget and that's it as it becomes 'repeated measure' equivalent in 2015 and after. 
6. So material saving to the economy is really 500mln and that is at the peak (2014-2015), after that the savings will decline, until finally, around ca 2020-2025 (needs more precise calculations here) the savings will become negative as we will be paying more in interest than we would have been paying before.
7. Additional second order effect is that improved bond markets profile is likely to result in slightly lower borrowing costs over time, but this impact is off-set by the reduced Central Bank revenues remittable back to the Exchequer. 

The deal is not putting any final closure to the Anglo or INBS 'odious' debt, but simply constitutes an extension of the debt. 

It can result in the lower real value of the debt over the period of time, assuming Ireland can issue bonds at negative real interest rates (bond coupons below inflation rate), which is unlikely. 

Neither is the deal reducing the debt overall, which means the deal has no effect on the adverse impact of debt drag on growth. The Government never asked for a debt writedown (reduction in the overall debt levels).

The deal is a net positive, but materially not significant enough.

Basic summary - as expected last night on VinB.

27/10/2012: UBS on Irish banking debt restructuring

UBS' European Weekly Economic Focus is dealing in detail with the prospects of Ireland getting a deal out of the EU Summits promises to break the links between the banks liabilities and sovereign liabilities. Comments are mine.

"Taking the June 29th statement at face value, there is a strong case for supporting Ireland by breaking the link between the government and the financial system." 

[I wholeheartedly agree - the case can be made across a number of points: (1) Ireland de facto underwritten the euro system in the early stage of the crisis; (2) the cost of (1) to Irish taxpayers is unprecedented in modern history; (3) Irish banking fallout is partially based on absolutely mis-shaped monetary policy pursued by the ECB; (4) Ireland is the only country in the euro periphery, in my view, that has potential to organically grow out of the current Great Recession, assuming the country gets a significant (€40-45 billion) writedown on the banks debts; and more]

"There are two potential routes for euro zone support to the Irish state. The direct route involves the ESM acquiring all or a part of the government’s stake in the banks, thereby assuming responsibility of the Irish lenders and absolving that liability of the Irish state. The alternative, less generous, approach is a relief on the promissory note/ELA commitments by the ECB."

[I disagree - the impact from both of these measures taken individually will be minor. What is needed is a combination of the two measures, with ELA commitments writedown of at least €30 billion. The reason for this is simple: the ESM will not be able to take on IBRC liabilities even in theory as IBRC is not a functional bank. Hence, route 1 outlined by UBS can amount to ca €5-6 billion in maximum potential recovery to the Irish state. Route 2 take by itself alone will simply see marginal relief on the net present value of promo notes liabilities, something close to €3 billion yield. Hence, even combined, such measures are unlikely to generate more than €10 billion, or roughly 1/8th of the assumed current and future liabilities.]

"In our view, there is very little chance that the ESM will acquire a stake in Irish lenders any time soon, for the simple reason that a direct ESM intervention requires the establishment of a euro area bank regulator and that would take a long time, in our view." [I agree. And worse, not only ESM has to be fully established, it also has to be fully operational and, potentially, have a track record of sorts before it can be used to underwrite banking sector directly.]

"What’s more, Ireland will need to remain a programme country for longer. Depending on the potential scale of the intervention, the first argument is likely more important that the second, but either way this route is not likely to be available for a long time." [I fully agree and this is the reason why I argued earlier this week that the Irish Government push to 'exit' the programme is rushed and unwise.]

"How about a recapitalisation via the sovereign? To start with, this approach does not help sever the link between the sovereign and the banks, one key driver for euro area intervention. More importantly though, it is not clear to us that Ireland will qualify for that sort of intervention even if it tried, for the simple reason that ESM funds can only be provided to limit ‘the contagion of financial stress’. The financial sector in Ireland is no longer a threat to the rest of the euro area and, as such, it would not qualify for ESM intervention. 

[I spoke about this factor for a number of years now. As long as Ireland continued replacing private liabilities to bondholders and inter-bank funding sources with sovereign obligations, it continued to dilute its own power in the bargaining game. I warned years ago that once we complete this process, we will be left alone. No tramp cards in our hands. Fully exposed to carrying the weight of banking debts on taxpayers shoulders. This Government and the previous one have failed to listen. Now, its a payback time.]

"The only way around this is if the ESM facility is made available retrospectively, but that is unlikely if the statement from the Dutch, Finnish and the German finance ministers where they rejected ESM assistance for ‘legacy assets’ is true." 

[At the time of June 29th summit I wrote about the cumulative potential exposures that such retrospectively can yield. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that ESM will not be able to absorb all potential calls on such a measure. Hence, Fin Mins statement breaking retrospectively clause is fully rational and expected.]

The rest of the note is based on a superb and must-read analysis by Karl Whelan of the promo notes.

In summary - and this is my view - Irish policymakers have carelessly forced the country into a corner: we worked hard to assure some stabilization in fiscal space, which in turn undermined our ability to get meaningful relief. Congratulations to our policy makers who seemingly traded the interests of the longer term debt crisis resolution for friendly pats on the back from Europe.

21/3/2012: Anglo's Promo Notes - perfect target for debt restructuring

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from March 18, 2012.

At last, courtesy of the years of economic and financial mess, Ireland is waking up to the problem of our debt overhang. For those of us who have consistently argued about the unsustainability of our fiscal and real economic debts predicament, this moment has been long coming. The restructuring of some of the debts carried by the Government directly or indirectly, on- or off-balancesheet is a matter of when, not if. Enter the debate concerning the Promissory Notes.

Per international research, State debt in excess of 90-95% of the real economic output is unsustainable. In real economics, as opposed to fiscal projections, debt becomes unsustainable when it exerts a long-term drag on future growth.

At the end of 2011, official Government debt in Ireland has reached 107% of our GDP or 130% of GNP, according to NTMA. The Irish economy is now operating in an environment of records-busting exports, current account surpluses, and healthy FDI inflows, and yet there is no real growth and unemployment remains sky-high. By comparatives, Irish economy is a well-tuned, functional car stuck in the quicksand – engine revving, power train working, wheels engaging, with no movement forward. This is a classic scenario of a debt overhang crisis – the very same crisis that Belgium has been struggling with since 1982, Italy – sicne 1988, Hungary – since 1991, and Japan – since 1995.

Something has to be done to deal with this problem in Ireland no matter what our Government and the EU say in public.

Uniquely for a euro area country, Ireland’s debt overhang did not arise solely from fiscal or structural economic shocks, but was strongly driven by the country response to the financial crisis rooted in a number of forces, including policy and regulatory errors by the EU and ECB. Also, Ireland has undergone the most severe adjustments in its fiscal position to-date compared to all other ‘peripheral’ economies, proving both our capability and commitment to reforms.

Lastly, in contrast with all other countries, Ireland’s economy is capable of getting back to sustainable levels of economic activity. Irish economy needs a supporting push out of the quicksand of banks-linked debt overhang to deliver on its sovereign debt commitments, and become once again a net contributor to the sustainable fiscal system within the euro area.

The IBRC Promissory Notes are a perfect focal point for such a push for a number of reasons.

First, the magnitude of the Promissory Notes allows for significant room to reduce Irish Government’s future liabilities, combining €28.1 billion of debt, plus 17 billion in interest repayments. These represent 29% of our GDP. Eliminating this liability will restore Ireland back onto sustainable fiscal and growth paths. Restructuring the Notes will not constitute a sovereign default. Although their value is counted in Irish Government debt, they are not traded in the markets. The Notes are, de facto, Irish Government IOUs to the Central Bank of Ireland with IBRC acting as an agent.

Second, Promissory Notes underwrite €28 billion of €42 billion IBRC debts to the ELA programme run by the Central Bank of Ireland. ELA funds are not borrowed by the Central Bank from the Eurosystem or the ECB, but are created by the Central Bank under its mandate. There is no offsetting physical liability the Central Bank needs to cancel by receipt of payments from the Government. The Notes also do not constitute Central Bank funding for the Government as they finance stabilization of the Irish (and thus European) banking system. Lastly, the ELA funding extended to the IBRC is already in the financial system. Removing requirement on the Irish state to monetize the Promissory Notes will not constitute an inflationary quantitative easing.

The Government is correct in focusing much of its firepower on the IBRC’s Promissory Notes. Alas, efforts to-date suggest that it is not setting its sights on the real solutions needed. This week, Minister Noonan has identified the direction in which the talks are progressing: restructuring the Promissory Notes repayment time schedule, plus possibly reducing the interest rate attached to the notes via converting the notes into ESM debt.

The problem with this approach is that a transfer of liabilities to ESM will convert Promissory Notes into a super-senior Government debt. This is likely to have a negative effect on Ireland’s ability to borrow funds from the markets in the future and make such borrowing more expensive.

In addition, lowering interest rate on the Promissory Notes carries two associated problems with it. The move can only have an appreciable effect on Exchequer finances after 2014, when interest on the notes ramps up to €1.8 billion from zero in 2012 and €500 million in 2013.

Delaying repayment of notes instead of reducing the principal amount owed on them will not provide significant relief to the Exchequer in the future and will make the period over which the debt overhang occurs even longer than 20 years envisioned under the current Notes structure. This will pose serious risks. History of business cycles suggests that between now and 2025 when Notes repayments will fall significantly, we are likely to face at least two ‘normal’ or cyclical recessions. During these recessions, Notes repayments will coincide with rising deficit pressures and national income contractions that will exacerbate the Promissory Notes already adverse impact on Irish economy. Extending the period of notes repayments risks compounding more recessionary cycles in the future.

Furthermore, delaying notes repayments can risk increasing the overall future demand for debt issuance by the state. Currently, Ireland is facing two debt-refinancing cliffs during the life of the Promissory Notes: €45.6 billion refinancing over 2013-2016 and €62.4 billion over 2017-2020. If Notes repayments are delayed, their financing will stretch further into post-2020 period, just when the subsequent roll-overs of Government bonds will be coming due.

In more simple terms, current proposals for Promissory Notes restructuring are equivalent to making quicksand pit shallower, but much wider.

Ireland needs and deserves a direct restructuring of the ELA. The most optimal outcome of such a restructuring would be de facto cancellation of ELA requirement for repayment of IBRC-borrowed €42 billion. Once again, such a move would have zero inflationary impact on the economy as on the net no new money will be created in the euro system over and above the amounts already present.

There remains, however, one sticky point. Allowing Ireland to restructure its ELA can, in theory, lead to other Central Banks following the suit. This problem of moral hazard can be easily mitigated by ECB by ring-fencing Irish ELA restructuring solely for the purpose of winding down IBRC. Making ELA writedown conditional on shutting down Anglo and INBS, plus potentially Permanent tsb will disincentives other countries from using their own ELAs to rescue solvent banks. Irish restructuring can be further isolated by tying ELA writedown to progress already achieved by Ireland in tackling fiscal deficits and restructuring its banking sector. Put simply, with such a proviso in place, no other Euro area country would want to dip into its National Central Bank vaults if the associated cost of doing this will amount to over 50% of its GDP.

Ireland’s crisis is unique in its nature and its resolution provided a buffer to cushion the credit crisis blow to the entire euro area banking sector. Ireland both deserves and needs a breakthrough on the debts assumed by taxpayers in relation to the insolvent IBRC. Even more importantly from Europe’s point of view, the ECB needs a positive example of a country emerging from the deep crisis within the euro system. Ireland is the only candidate for success it has.

Source: NTMA and author own calculations.

Note: In computing second round of rollovers, only Government bonds are included and taken at 95% of the principal amount. All other debts are excluded.

Box-out:

In the wake of last week’s Quarterly National Household Survey release, the Government was quick to point to the improvement in the number of employed on a seasonally adjusted basis as the evidence the employment policies success. Overall numbers in employment rose in Q4 2011 by 10,000 or 0.56% compared to Q3 2011, once seasonal adjustments were made. Furthermore, per seasonally adjusted data, full-time employment was up 8,700 – accounting for 87% of this jobs creation. Alas, this is not the entire picture of the job market health. Year on year, seasonally adjusted employment was down 17,800 or 0.97%. More ominously, unadjusted employment was up just 2,300 in Q4 2011 compared to Q3 2011 – an addition of statistically insignificant 0.1%. Interestingly, full-time unadjusted employment figure fell by 700 jobs (-0.1%), while part-time employment rose 3,000 (+0.7%). At the same time, number of part-time workers who are underemployed has jumped 5,800 in a quarter and 28,100 year on year. Two reasons can help explain the above disparities. First, Government training programmes have been aggressively taking people out of unemployment counts, increasing employment numbers. In the case of Job Bridge, for example, these are unpaid ‘internships’ with questionable rate of post-internship transition to work so far. Second, since Q1 2011, CSO has used a new model for seasonal adjustments, which may or may not have an effect on seasonally adjusted headline numbers. Lastly, seasonal adjustments can increase, not reduce quarterly data volatility at the times when trends change. Particularly, with flattening out of the employment figures after years of steep declines, seasonal adjustments can introduce a temporary bias into subsequent data. In short, making conclusions about the actual changes requires more careful reading of the numbers than a simplistic headline figure referencing. With all annual indicators pointing to a shallow decrease in employment, the Government would be best served to have some patience and see how subsequent quarters numbers play out before jumping to conclusions on the success of its policies.

28/02/2012: The truth behind the ELA

We are made actors in the theater of absurd, folks.

Anglo & INBS are now fake banks with their banking licenses retained solely to prop up their ability to borrow from the euro system and for no other reason.

These 'banks' are made up to look like some quasi real entities by a fake lending scheme (ELA) which was conceived by the complacent Government and Central Bank with a nod of the conveniently 'see no evil' ECB.

The sole objective of this scheme is to continue faking the system stability of the Euro area banks many of which are now barely alive themselves. The scheme operates like some Madoffian Dream with banks pretending to use collateral (which in effect is rather dodgy in many cases and assumes that Spanish Government bonds are as risk free as German Government bonds) to borrow money they can't really be expected to repay (does anyone really think LTROs 1 & 2 can be unwound by calling in the loans or liquidating the 'assets' repoed?) so they can buy more Government bonds and put borrowed money on deposits, thereby creating fake demand for Government bonds (lower yields lead to a pack of idiots claiming that Government debt is now sustainable as its cost 'came down') and increasing headline 'deposits' figure for ECB (pretending there is no liquidity shortage in the system).

Of course, the very reason for this ever-growing pyramid of deception is the very same as the underlying cause of this mess - a currency union conceived solely to promote political objectives of the ever-expanding EU. Nothing else.

The only real thing about this mess is the money Irish Government takes out of the pockets of its residents to dump into this pyramid. Nothing else.

To use a literary analogy, it's not that we are about to hear a child scream 'The King Has No Clothes' that is the most apparent feature of this circus. It's that we have NCB, ECB, National Government, EU Commission and Parliament and courts all acting up in collusion to deport all children from the town, lest they might see that the king is, indeed, naked.

20/1/2012: Non-News from a Road to the Second Bailout

This story in the Irish Times yesterday clearly requires a comment. So here it goes.

Here's the best time-line and explanation as to Minister Noonan's 'efforts' to secure 'savings' on the Promissory Notes.

Now, consider the following from the Irish Times today:

"We think there’s a less expensive way of doing [restructuring of the Promissory Notes] by financial engineering, and we’re not talking about private-sector involvement or restructuring,” said Mr Noonan in Berlin "...it is about pointing out to the troika that there are difficulties and that it could be less expensive – and everyone still gets their money.”


"A senior German official said Berlin could envisage extra programme funding being used for the Irish banking sector not currently earmarked for this purpose."

The above might mean many things:

1. Ireland still has some funds due under the original 'bailout' that were earmarked for banking measures, but were not yet used in the last recapitalizations round in July 2011. This will not in itself constitute any new measures materially impacting Ireland's Government debt projections. It will not constitute a second bailout (as the funds are already earmarked under the first bailout), but by reducing funding available for fiscal and other banking requirements it will increase the probability of such a bailout in the future.
2. Ireland can be allowed to borrow more from the EFSF/ESM, swapping the Notes for marginally cheaper funding. This too will not constitute any material impact on Ireland's Government debt projections. But it will constitue a second bailout.

Neither option involves any possibility for 'private sector involvement' and at any rate, Minister Noonan's reference to PSI is a red herring - there can be no PSI in relation to the Promissory Notes as these do not involve private investors or lenders at all.

However, both (1) and (2) have material impact in terms of Ireland requiring a second bailout - both increase materially the probability of such an eventuality.

Lastly, there is a catch. The problem of capital adequacy, highlighted by Minister Noonan, means that 'financial engineering' can only involve temporary relief in terms of payments timing, not material relief in terms of NPV of the debt assumed by the state under the Promissory Notes. We will be allowed to borrow more time. At a cost of longer loans, and more repayments in the end. Which, of course, does nothing to achieve sustainability of the 'solution' from the point of view of us, taxpayers, who Minister Noonan expects to pay for all of this. But it probably does give him a chance of holding a 'triumphant' pressie announcing some sort of a 'deal'.

So in the nutshell, the Irish Times story is... errr... a non-story. A sort of traditional Spin that comes out of the Government every time they are caught... errr... fantacising the reality. As NamaWineLake put is so excellently:
"...it has been four months since Minister Noonan’s meeting with the ECB and others in Wroclaw where he, to use his own words “had a ball to kick around” and has proposals. It is two months since Enda Kenny discussed the matter with Angela Merkel. It is more than two months since Minister Noonan said that “technical discussions” were ongoing. And yet the Troika yesterday downplayed any progress in the matter saying that Minister Noonan had merely “requested discussions”."


Or maybe, just speculating here, Minister Noonan is bringing up the Promissory Notes once again this week because next week we are about to repay another tranche of Anglo bonds? Last month, around the time of the repayment, there was much-a-do-about-nothing going on in referencing the very same Promissory Notes?

However, there is, in the end, something openly honest about Minister Noonan's windy trip down the 'Imagine the Superhero, ya Villain' lane.

"[Minister Noonan] said he hoped that the ECB would extend its programme of low-interest loans beyond next month to improve euro zone bank liquidity in the hope it would stimulate the market in longer-term sovereign debt papers."

Point 1: LTRO-2 was already announced, so Minister Noonan is either uninformed, or pretends to be uninformed to posit himself as a a heroic 'rescuer' proposing a real 'solution'.

Point 2: Minister Noonan clearly shows that his sole concern is how to raise more debt for Ireland. Not how to balance the books (in which case he shouldn't need banks to pawn their assets as ECB to buy Government bonds with this fake cash), or reform the economy (in which case growth would resume and the State shall not require the said scheme, again) and not with restoring functional banking system to health (since functional healthy banking system lends to the real economy, not to Minister Noonan).

At last, truth revealed?