26/12/2013: Strategy for Growth 2014-2020 - A Fruitcake of Policy?

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from December 22, 2013.


It is a well-known fact that virtually all New Year’s resolutions are based on the commitments adopted and promptly abandoned in the years past. Our Government’s reforms wish lists are no exception. Like an out-of-shape beer guzzler struggling to get out of the pub, our State longs to get fit year after year. Most of the time, nothing comes of it: bombastic reforms announced or committed to quietly slip into oblivion. Smaller parts of resolutions take hold; bigger items get buried in working groups and advisory panels. Thus, over the last decade, we have seen promises of reforms across the domestic sectors, protected professions, pensions and health systems, quangos, social welfare, government funding, tax systems, and so on. Virtually none have been delivered so far.

This week’s Strategy for Growth: 2014-2020 is the latest in the series of Governments’ ‘New Year, New Me’ resolutions. It is a lengthy list of things that have already been promised before. With a sprinkling of fresh thinking added. All of it is based on a strange mixture of pragmatism in fiscal targets, resting on economic forecasts infused with an unfunded but modest optimism. Giddy exuberance in confidence concludes the arrangement: confidence that the reforms which proved un-surmountable under the Troika gaze will be feasible in over the next seven years. The entire exercise promises a lot of reforms, but delivers little when it comes to realistic costings and risk assessments of the promises made.

In brief, the new Strategy is a disappointingly old fruitcake: pretty on the outside, inedible on the inside and full of stale trimmings, held together by the boisterous dose of potent optimism.


On Monday, the National Competitiveness Council unveiled its own version of a roadmap to the proverbial growth curve. The 32-page document on the New Economy contained no less than 65 references to the building and construction sector and 39 instances of references to property sector. No other sector of the economy was accorded such attention.

In the footsteps of NCC, on Tuesday, the Government launched its own multi-annual post-Troika policies roadmap.

The core point of the glossy tome is that Ireland needs a combination of policies to get its economy moving again. No one could have suspected such a radical thought. Majority of the policies listed are of ‘do more of the same’ variety. Some are novel, and a handful would have been even daring, were it not for the nagging suspicion that they represent political non-starters.


The plan has three pillars. Pillar one: fiscal discipline to keep Government debt under control. Pillar two: repairing the credit supply system and the banks. Pillar three: create an economy based on innovation, productivity and exports, and… building and construction. If you find any of this new, you are probably a visitor from Mars.

The document fails to provide any risk analysis in relation to all three pillars. Instead, it fires off pretty specific and hard-set targets and forecasts. Normally, the forecasts reflect the impact of policies being produced. In the Strategy 2014-2020 normality is an inverted concept, so forecasts enable targets that justify proposals.

There are two scenarios considered: the baseline scenario (better described as boisterously optimistic) and the high growth scenario (best described as wildly optimistic). None are backed by an analysis of sources of growth projections. No adverse scenario mentioned.

For the purpose of comparison, based on IMF model, Irish GDP, adjusting for inflation is forecast to expand by less than 12.3 percent between the end of 2013 and the end of 2018. In contrast, Government latest plan projects GDP to grow by over 16.1 percent in the case of high growth scenario. Nominal GDP differences between the high-growth and baseline scenarios amount to just 0.1 percentage points on average per annum. In other words, the distance between boisterous and wild optimism in Government’s outlook for the next seven years of economic growth is negligible.

By 2020 we will regain jobs lost during the crisis. But unemployment will be 8.1 percent under the baseline scenario and 5.9 percent under high-growth projections. Both targets are above the pre-crisis levels of around 4.7 percent. Which means that the Grand Strategy envisions jobs creation to lag behind labour force growth. The only way this can be achieved is by lowering employment to labour force ratio. This, in turn, would require increasing labour force more than increasing employment. In other words, the numbers stack up only if we simultaneously reduce emigration and push people off welfare benefits and into the jobs markets, and do so at the rates in excess of the new jobs creation. How this can be delivered is a mystery, although the Strategy promises more reforms to address these.

We will also transition to a fully balanced budget by 2018, eliminating the need to borrow new funds. Of course, we will still be issuing new debt to roll over old debt that will be maturing. Government debt itself will decline to below 100 percent of GDP by 2019. Per IMF latest estimates released this week, our General Government deficit in 2017-2018 will average around 1.5 percent of GDP and Government debt will end 2018 at around 112.2 percent of GDP. By Governments baseline scenario, we will be running a deficit of 0.25 percent of GDP on average over 2017-2018 and our debt will fall to 104 percent of GDP by the end of 2018. Optimism abounds.

To make these achievements feasible, let alone sustainable, will require drastic reforms far beyond what is detailed in the strategy documents. Instead of detailing these, Strategy for Growth: 2014-2020 leaves the major reforms open to future policy designs by various working groups.

For example, the Government Strategy talks high about the need to ensure sustainability of pensions provision. In an Orwelian language of the Strategy, having expropriated private pension funds before, the Government is now congratulating itself on achieving positive enhancements of the pensions system.

Yet, we all know that the key problems with current pensions system in Ireland are two-fold. One: we have massive under-supply of defined contribution pensions plans in the private sector. Two: we have massive deficits in defined benefit schemes that are predominantly concentrated in the public sectors. The Strategy documents published this week simply ignore the former problem. With respect to the latter one, the Government plan amounts to hoping that the problem will go away over time. Overall, going forward, the magic bullets in the State dealing with the vast pensions crisis are exactly the same as before: higher retirement age, gradual closing of defined benefit schemes and more studies into “setting out … long-term plans in this area”.

Another complex of Augean Stables of economic policies left untouched, potentially due to the influence of Labour is the tax system. Current income and social security taxes de facto penalise anyone considering an entrepreneurial venture. The Strategy puts forward no income tax reforms proposals. The document brags about the ‘progressivity’ of our income tax system and promises to retain this feature of the tax codes. Unions will be happy. Entrepreneurs, self-employed, higher-skilled workers, innovators, professionals, younger and highly educated employees, and exporting sectors workers will remain unhappy.

The Strategy admits that “Traditionally in Ireland starting and growing a business is considered less attractive by many than working in larger employers.” It goes on to stake a bold policy claim “to find innovative ways to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit.”

Stripped of fancy verbiage, the ‘innovative ways’ amount to a call to educate us all, toddlers and pensioners alike, about the goodness of entrepreneurship, and develop unspecified policies to make business failure more acceptable. Given the shambolic nature of the personal insolvency regime reforms designed by the current Government, there is little hope the latter objective can be met.

For intellectual gravitas, key marketing and PR words were deployed in the Strategy, promising more assistance, subsidies and supports to entrepreneurs, and more “clusters”. The same Strategy also promised to cut the number of business innovation assistance schemes and streamline business development programmes.

Taken together, these changes suggest that the Irish entrepreneurship environment will remain firmly gripped by State bureaucracy and will continue churning out state-favoured enterprises with clientilist business models. The fact that the said platform of enterprise supports, having been in existence for some 12 years, has failed to deliver rapid growth of innovation-focused high value-added indigenous entrepreneurship to-date seems not to bother our policymakers.

Other elephants in the room – some spotted by the very same Government years ago, while in opposition – are mentioned and, predictably, left unchallenged. One example: the Strategy promises yet another Action Plan to “identify ways to use Government procurement in a strategic way to stimulate … innovative solutions.” Back in 2011, this Government has already promised to do the same.

Overall, the fruitcakes of economic policy planning by the Government and NCC both lack vision and details. The two documents do contain some good, realistic and tangible ideas, but, sadly, these are buried beneath an avalanche of unspecified promises and uncontested figures. Risks to implementation of these policies may outweigh incentives for reforms. Lack of realism in expectations may overshadow the potential impact of the proposals.

More fruitcake, anyone? There’s loads left…

Box-out: 

In the latest report published this week, the European Banking Authority (EBA) analysed data from 64 banks with respect to their capital positions and the underlying Risk-Weighted Assets (RWA) holdings. Overall, capital position of the EU banking sector “continued to show a positive trend,” according to EBA, with Core Tier 1 capital holdings rising by EUR 80 billion. This, “combined with a reduction of more the EUR 800 billion of RWAs” means that the EU banks are building up risk buffers at the same time as pursuing continued deleveraging. The latter is the price for the former: higher capital ratios are good for banks’ ability to withstand shocks, deleveraging of assets is bad for credit supply to the real economy. On the net, however, as capital ratios rise, the system is being repaired so the price is worth paying. The improvements, however, were absent in one economy. Per EBA, Irish banks (Bank of Ireland, AIB and Permanent TSB) are unique in the EU in so far as they are experiencing simultaneous reduction in capital ratios and a decrease in Risk-Weighted Assets, which only partially offset the drop in capital. Put simply, Irish banks deleveraging is not fast enough to sustain current capital ratios: we are paying the price, but are not getting the benefits.

EBA chart (click to enlarge):

11/11/2013: A Great Tech Future for Ireland… or a Bubble? Sunday Times, November 10

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from November 10, 2013.

Depending on which measure one uses Ireland slipped into the Great Recession as far back as in the mid-2007. Since then and through the first half of this year, our nominal Gross Domestic Product is down 15.3 percent or EUR14.55 billion. Despite the claims about the return of growth, played repeatedly from early 2010, our economy posted 19 quarters of negative growth and only 7 quarters of expansion.

These numbers reveal the unprecedented collapse of the domestic economy, ameliorated solely by continued growth in exports, primarily driven by the multinationals. At the end of last year, total exports of goods and services from Ireland were up 16 percent on 2007 levels. However, the latest global and domestic trends suggest that this growth is at risk from a number of factors. These include both the well-known headwinds that are currently already at play, as well as the newly emerging signs of distress. 

The former cover the adverse impact of the ongoing patent cliff in pharmaceutical sector and the continued migration of manufacturing to Eastern and Central Europe and Asia-Pacific. Added pressures are building up from our competitors for FDI, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Finland and, more recently, Austria.

The risks that are yet to fully materialise, however, pose a threat to the biggest post-2007 success story Ireland has had - the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) services. This sector, most often exemplified by the tech giants, such as Google and blue chip firms such as Microsoft. More trendy and smaller players include the games developers, cloud computing and data analytics enterprises, as well as on-line marketing and advertising companies.

While easy to discount as being only potential, these threats are worrying. 

Since 2007, goods exports from Ireland grew by a cumulative 2.1 percent, against 33 percent growth in exports of services. If in 1998-2004 goods exports averaged over 67 percent of our GDP, today this share has declined to 51 percent. Meanwhile, share of services exports rose from an average of 23.3 percent of GDP in 1998-2004 period to 58.4 percent projected for this year. More than half of this growth came from ICT services.

More importantly, as the Budgets 2012-2014 have clearly shown, the Government has no coherent plan for supporting the growth capacity of the domestic economy. This means that the entire economic strategy forward remains focused on the ICT services to deliver growth in 2014-2015. 

And herein lies a major problem. Increasingly, international markets and global developments are signaling the emergence of an asset bubble within the ICT services sector. These signs can be grouped into three broad categories.

Firstly, we are witnessing the development of a bubble in investors' valuations of the ICT companies. Controlling blue chips, tech valuations have grown over the last decade at a pace roughly double that found in other sectors. Many tech stocks are currently trading in the range of 25-50 times their sales, dangerously close to the levels last seen at the height of the dot.com bubble. Last 18 to 24 months have also seen a series of tech IPOs with post-listing annual returns in 50 percent-plus ranges - another sign that investors are rushing head-in into the sector. Meanwhile, blue chip technology companies are trading near or below their multi-annual averages, suggesting that hype, not real performance is the driver of the market for younger firms. MSCI ACW/Information Technology benchmark tech stocks index is up ca 90 percent over the last 5 years. Recent research from PWC shows that IT sector M&A deals in Q3 2013 were up 34 percent year on year.

Secondly, costs inflation is now driving profitability down across the sector. Take for example Ireland. In 4 years through June 2013, average weekly earnings in the economy fell 1 percent. In the ICT sector these rose 11 percent. Back in Q2 2009, ICT sector posted the third highest average weekly earnings of all sectors in the Irish economy. This year, it was the highest. Other costs are inflating as well. Specialist property funds with a focus on the tech sector, such as Digital Realty Trust, are awash with cash from their massive rent rolls.

CSO publishes a labour market indicator, known as PLS4. This combines all unemployed persons plus others who want a job but are not seeking one for reasons other than being in education or training and those who are underemployed. In Q2 2013 this indicator stood at nearly one quarter of our total potential workforce. Yet, the ICT services sector has some 4,500-5,500 unfilled vacancies. With tight labour supply, stripping out transfer pricing in the sector, value-added is stagnating in the sector, implying lagging productivity growth.

Thirdly, as in any financial bubble, we are nearing the stage where the smart money is about to head for the doors. In recent months, seasoned investors, ranging from Art Cashin, to Tim Draper to Andressen Horowitz announced that they cutting back their funds allocations to the sector. 

To see how close we are getting to forming a bubble, look no further than the recent fund raising by Supercell - a games company - which raised USD1.5 billion in funding in October. The firm has gone from zero value to USD3 billion in just three years on last year profit of just USD40 million. The investor who financed the Sueprcell deal, Japan's Masayoshi Son is now declaring that he is investing based on a 300-year vision for the future. Expectations and egos are rapidly spinning out of synch with reality. In tandem with this, Irish politicians are vying for any photo-ops with the ICT leaders and industry awards, summits and self-promotional gala events are musrooming. In short, the sector is becoming a new property boom for Ireland's elites.

Global ICT services sector hype is pushing up companies valuations across the sector and delivering more and more FDI into Ireland. This is the good news. The same hype, however, also brings with it an ever-increasing international exposure of Ireland's tax regime, the main driving reason for the MNCs locating into this country. This, alongside with rampant wages inflation and skills shortages, is one of the top domestic reasons for the tech-sector vulnerability. 

Overall, risks to the ICT services sector are material for Ireland. Our economy's reliance on the tech sector FDI has grown over time, and even a small contraction in the sector exports booked via Ireland can lead to us sliding dangerously close to once again posting negative current account balance. 

Our capacity to offset any possible downturn in the sector with other sources of growth has been diminished. Post-2001 dot.com bust we compensated for the collapse in ICT and dot.com companies activities by inflating property and Government spending bubbles. This time around all three safety valves are no longer feasible. Between Q1 2001 and Q2 2003, ECB benchmark repo rate declined from 4.75 percent to 2.0 percent. Today, the ECB rates are at 0.5 percent and cannot drop by much into the foreseeable future. 

Besides credit supply, there is a pesky problem of credit demand. The evidence of this was revealed to us last week, when we learned that the Government Seed and Venture Capital Scheme (SVCS) and the Micro-enterprise Loan Fund turned out to be a flop. Both schemes are having trouble finding suitable enterprises to invest in. May we wish better luck to yet another ‘state investment vehicle’ launched this week, the ‘equity gap’ fund for medium-sized companies.

Ireland's policymakers today have little to offer in terms of hope that we can weather the next storm as well as we did ten years ago. 

Based on numerous multi-annual initiatives by the Government and business lobbies, Ireland’s 'new school' of economic thinking post-crisis is solidly focused on tax incentives to rekindle a new property and construction boom and on advocating more Government involvement in the economy. The latter includes such initiatives as more state investment and lending schemes for SMEs, a state bank, state-run agencies to sell services to foreign state agencies, state-supported access to exports markets, and state-funded R&D and innovation. 

This reality is compounded by the fact that in recent years, much of our development agencies attention has focused on attracting smaller and less-established firms and entrepreneurs from abroad to locate into Ireland. Both IDA and Enterprise Ireland have active campaigns courting these types of ventures. Of course, such efforts are both good and necessary, as Ireland needs to continue diversifying the core base of MNCs trading from here. Alas, it is a strategy that not only brings new rewards, but also entails new and higher risks. Should the tech sector suffer significant market correction, in-line with dot.com bubble bursting or banking sector crisis, majority of the younger firms that came to Ireland to set up their first overseas operations here will be downsizing fast. Unlike traditional blue-chip firms, these companies have no tangible fixed assets. They own no buildings, employ few Irish workers and have no technology domiciled here. For them, leaving  these shores is only a matter of booking their flights.

In short, our policy and business elites seem to be flat out of fresh ideas and are ignorant of the potential threat that our over-concentration in ICT sector investment is posing to the economy. Let’s hope the new bubble has years to inflate still, and the new bear won’t be charging any time soon. 

Update: new article on the topic from the BusinessInsider: http://www.businessinsider.com/4-billion-is-the-new-1-billion-in-startups-2013-11

Box-out:

Just when you thought the Euro crisis is nearing its conclusion, here comes a new candidate state to join the fabled periphery.  Last week, the IMF concluded its Article IV consultation assessment of Slovenia. The Fund was more than straightforward on risks and problems faced by the country bordering other ‘peripheral’ state – Italy. Per IMF: “Slovenia is facing a deep recession resulting from a vicious circle of strained corporate and bank balance sheets, weak domestic demand, and needed fiscal consolidation. Cleaning up and recapitalizing banks is an immediate priority to break this cycle.“ Some 17.5 percent of all assets held by the Slovenian banks were non-performing back in June 2013. Worse, over one third of all non-performing loans were issued to 40 largest companies in the country, putting strain on the entire economy. Corporate debt is so high in Slovenia, interest payments account for 90 percent of all corporate earnings. If that is a ‘cycle’ one might wonder what constitutes a full-blow crisis? Spooked by the Cypriot crisis ‘resolution’, Slovenian Government has so far rejected the use of international assistance (re: Troika funding) in addressing the crisis. However, the country fiscal deficit is running at 4.25 percent of GDP, net of banks’ restructuring and recapitalisation costs. In other words, Slovenia today is Ireland back in 2010. Brace yourselves for another Euro domino falling.

9/11/2013: Stress testing zombie banks: Sunday Times, November 3

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from November 3, 2013.


In the marble and mahogany halls of European high finance HQs, the next few months will be filled with the suspense of the preparation for the banks audits.

Much of this excitement will be focused on matters distant to the real economy. Truth is, saddled with zombie banks, and public and private sectors’ debt overhangs, euro area is incapable of generating the growth momentum sufficient to wrestle itself free from the structural crisis it faced since 2008. The latest ECB forecasts for the Euro area economy, released this week, predicted real GDP contraction of 0.4 percent for 2013 and growth of 1 percent in 2014. With these numbers, the end game is the same today as it was two years ago, when previous stress tests were carried out. The system can only be repaired when banks absorb huge losses on unsustainable loans.

New stress tests are unlikely change this. However, the tests are important within the context of the weaker banking systems, such as the Irish one. The reason for this is that the ECB needs to contain the sector risks as it goes about building the European Banking Union, or EBU.

The good news is – there are low- and high-cost options for achieving this containment in Ireland’s case. The bad news is – neither involves any relief on the legacy banks debts necessary to aid our stalled economy. The worse news is – the Government appears to be pushing for exiting the bailout without securing the low cost option, leaving us exposed to the risk of being saddled with the costlier one.


The IMF data suggests that Euro area-wide banks’ losses can be as high as EUR350-400 billion - or just under one third of the total deleveraging that still has to take place in the banks. The ECB needs to have an accurate picture of how much of the above can arise in the countries where banks and Government finances are already strained beyond their ability to cover such losses. The ECB also needs to deliver such estimates without raising public alarms as to the levels of losses still forthcoming.

Taken together, the above two points strongly suggest that in the case of Ireland, the banks will come out of the stress tests with a relatively clean bill of health shaded somewhat by risk-related warnings. Pointing to the latter, the ECB will implicitly or explicitly ask the Irish Government to secure funding sources for dealing with any realization of such risks. Such precautionary funding can only come from either a stand-by credit line with the IMF and/or European stabilization funds, or a commitment to set aside some of the NTMA cash. An NTMA set-aside will cost us the price of issuing new Government debt. This is potentially more than ten times the price of IMF credit line.

In short, Ireland should be using ECB’s concerns over our banking system health to secure a cheaper precautionary line of credit. Judging by this week’s comments from the Government, we are not. One way or the other, it is hard to see how continued uncertainty build up within Irish banks can help our cause in obtaining both a precautionary line of credit and a relief on legacy banks debts.


The ECB concerns about Irish banks are not purely academic. Our banking crisis is far from over.

Consider the latest data on three Pillar Banks: AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent tsb, covering the period through H1 2013 courtesy of the IMF and the EU Commission reviews published over recent weeks. On the surface, the three banks are relatively well capitalised with Core Tier 1 capital ratio of 14.1 percent, down on 16.3 percent a year ago. Meanwhile, the deleveraging of the system is proceeding at a reasonable pace, with total average assets declining EUR30.5 billion year on year.

The problem is that little of this deleveraging is down to writedowns of bad loans. This means that high levels of capital on banks balance sheets are primarily due to the extend-and-pretend approach to dealing with nonperforming loans adopted by the banks to-date. All members of the Troika have repeatedly pointed out that Irish banks continue to avoid putting forward long-term sustainable solutions to mortgages arrears and that this approach can eventually lead to amplification of risks over time.

Loans loss provisions are up 11 percent to EUR28.2 billion and non-performing loans are up to EUR56.8 billion. Still, while in H1 2012 non-performing loans accounted for 22.2 percent of all loans held by the banks, at the end of June this year, the figure was 26.6 percent. Non-performing loans are now 35.5 percent in excess of banks’ equity, up from just 4.7 percent a year ago. As a reminder, Irish Exchequer holds 99.8 percent stake in AIB, 99.2 percent share in Ptsb and 15.1 percent stake in Bank of Ireland. This means that should capital buffers fall to regulatory-set limits, further writedowns of loans will mean nullifying the Exchequer stakes in the banks and crystalising full losses carried by the taxpayers.

Continued weaknesses in the solvency positions of the banks are driven primarily by three factors. Firstly, as banks sell or collateralise their better loans their future returns on assets are diminished. The second factor is poor operational performance of the banks. Net losses in the system fell between H1 2012 and H1 2013. However, this still leaves banks reliant on capital drawdowns to fund their non-performing assets. The third factor is the weak performance of banks’ non-core financial assets. Over the last 12 months, Irish banks holdings of securities grew in value at a rate that was about 12-15 times slower than the growth rate in valuations of assets in the international financial markets.

In short, the IMF review presented the picture of the banking sector here that retains all the signs of remaining comatose. This was further confirmed by the EU Commission report this week, and spells trouble for the Irish banks stress tests.

In 2011 recapitalisation of Irish banks, the Central Bank assumed that banks operating profits will total EUR3.9 billion over the 2011-2013. So far the banks are some EUR4.5 billion shy of matching the Central Bank’s rosy projection.

This shortfall comes despite dramatic hikes in interest margins on existent and new loans, decreases in deposit rates, and reductions in operating costs. Compared to H1 2011 when the PCARs were completed, lending rates margins over the ECB base rate have shot up by up to 138 basis points for households and 59 basis points for non-financial companies. Rates paid out on termed deposit have fallen some 103 basis points. As the result, banks net interest margins rose.

On top of that, the funding side of the banks remains problematic. The NTMA is now holding almost half of its cash in the Pillar Banks, superficially boosting their deposits. Private sector deposits continue to trend flat and are declining in some categories. This is before the adverse impacts of Budget 2014 measures, including the Banks levy and higher DIRT rates start to bite.

Behind these balance sheet considerations, the economy and the Government are continuing to put strains on households' ability to repay their loans. This week, AA published analysis of the cost of mortgages carry (the annual cost of financing average family home and associated expenses). According to the report, the direct cost of maintaining an average Irish home purchased prior to the crisis is now running at around EUR 21,940 per annum. Under Budget 2014 provisions, a married couple with two children and combined income of EUR 100,000 will spend one third of their after-tax earnings on funding an average house. In such a setting, any major financial shock, such as birth of another child, loss of employment, extended illness etc., can send the average Celtic Tiger household into arrears.


All of this, means that any honest capital adequacy assessment of the Irish banking system will be an exercise in measuring a litany of risks and uncertainties that define our banks’ operating conditions today and into the foreseeable future. Disclosing such weaknesses in the system will risk exposing Irish banks to renewed markets pressures, including possible failures to roll over maturing debts coming due. It can also impair their ability to continue deleveraging, and fund assets writedowns. On the other hand, leaving these stresses undisclosed risks delaying recognition of losses and exposing us to pressure from the ECB down the line.

Not surprisingly, as the ECB goes into stress tests exercise, it is exerting pressure on Ireland to arrange a stand-alone precautionary line of credit. While it is being presented as a prudential exercise in light of our exit from the bailout, in reality the credit will be there to cushion against any potential losses in the banking system over 2014-2018, before the actual EBU comes into force. Should such losses materialise, the Exchequer will be faced with an unpalatable choice: hit depositors with a bail-in or pony up some more cash for the banks. Having a stand by loans facility arranged prior to exiting the Bailout will help avoid the latter and possibly the former. The cost, however, will be an increase in overall interest charges paid by the State, plus continued strict oversight of our fiscal position by the Troika.

A rock of interest charges and Troika supervision, a hard place of zombiefied banking, and a rising tide of risks are still beckoning Ireland from the other side of the stress tests.

Box-out: 

The latest data from the retail sector released by the CSO this week painted a rather mixed picture of the domestic economy’s fortunes. Controlling for some volatility in the monthly series, Q3 2013 data shows that despite very favourable weather conditions over the July-September 2013, Irish core retail sales (excluding motors sales) fell in volume by some 0.3 percent compared to Q3 2012. On the other hand, there was a 0.6 percent increase in the value of sales over the same period. Currently, the volume of total core retail sales in Ireland sits 4.3 percent below 2005 levels. Non-food sales, excluding motor trades, fuel and bars sales, fell 2.1 percent on 2012 in volume and is up 1.2 percent in value. The inflation effects imply that when it comes to core non-food sales, the volumes of retail trade are now down 22 percent on 2005 levels, while the value of sales is up almost 2 percent. Consumers are still on strike, while retailers are getting only a slight prices relief in the unrelenting crisis.

10/10/2013: IMF's GFSR October 2013: More Focus on Banks

Now, back to GFSR and banks. I covered some of the IMF findings on banks here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/10102013-imfs-gfsr-october-2013-focus_10.html

This time, let's take a look at what IMF unearthed on funding side of the banking systems. Fasten your seat belts, euro area folks…

Euro area banks have shallower deposits base than US banks… but, wait… euro area banks are supposedly 'universal' model, so supposed to have MORE deposits, than the originate and distribute model of the US banks… Oops… Euro area banks like holding banks deposits - just so contagion gets a bit more contagious. Euro area banks hold tiny proportion of equity, lower than that of the US banks.

By all means, this is a picture of weaker euro area banks than US banks - something I noted here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/9102013-leveraged-and-sick-euro-area.html

Another chart, more bumpy road for euro area:

Per above, there is a massive problem on funding side for euro area banks in the form of huge reliance on debt (both secured and unsecured). The US banks are much less reliant on secured debt (they can issue real paper and raise securitised funding) and they rely less overall on borrowing.

Chart below shows the structure of secured bank debt. Euro area again stand out with huge reliance on covered bonds. US stands out in terms of its continued reliance on MBS. The crisis focal point of the latter did not go away… and the crisis focal source of contagion - banks debt funding - has not gone from euro area's 'reformed' banks.

Happy times... Mr Draghi today expressed his conviction that euro area banks have been cured from their ills... right... hopium-783 is the toast of Frankfurt.

10/10/2013: IMF's GFSR October 2013: Focus on Banks

As promised in the earlier post, focusing on Corporate Debt Overhang (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/10102013-imfs-gfsr-october-2013-focus.html), I am covering in a series of posts the latest IMF GFSR.

Let's take a look at the banking sector focus within the GFSR:

Note the relatively healthy position of the euro area banks on the basis of Tier 1 capital ratios. However, when it comes to leverage, the chart below shows a ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets (the so-called Tangible Leverage ratio). The higher the number in the first chart above, the lower is the capital ratio ('bad thing'), the higher the number is in the chart below, the higher is the ratio of equity to assets ('good thing'):

So euro area banks are doing fine by Tier 1 capital, but are not fine by leverage... As the rest of the IMF analysis highlights, much of this aberrational result arises from the nature of the euro area banking model (assets-heavy 'universal banking' model), plus, as IMF politely puts:

"The conflicting signals also highlight the  importance of restoring investor confidence in the accuracy and consistency of bank risk weights. This also suggests that risk-weighted capital ratios should be supplemented by leverage ratios, as proposed in the Basel III framework."

No comment on the above...

GFSR is deadly on profitability of banks and equity valuations. Here's the key chart:

Notice the concentration of euro area banks at the bottom of the distribution. Still think Irish banks shares held by the Exchequer are worth EUR11 billion?.. really?.. By the chart above, they should be valued at around 2-3% of their tangible assets... which would be what? Close to EUR6 billion, maybe EUR9 billion. Which refers to all Irish banks. Listed, unlisted, foreign, domestic... And to all their equity... not just the equity held by the Exchequer.

Never mind. Like Irish banks, euro area banks are going to continue dumping assets... err... deleverage...

"European banks have been deleveraging in response to market and regulatory concerns about capital levels, and may continue to do so. ...a combination of market and regulatory
concerns about bank capitalization has already led to an increase in capital levels at EU banks. …Over the period 2011:Q3–2013:Q2, large EU banks reduced their assets by a total of $2.5 trillion on a gross basis — which includes only those banks that cut back assets — and by $2.1 trillion on a net basis."

So you thought it was surprising/unusual/unexpected that the banks are not lending? Every policymaker harping on about banks credit 'growth' should have known this deleveraging is ongoing and with it, no new credit growth will occur… I mean USD2.5 trillion!

"…About 40 percent of the reduction by the banks in the EU as a whole was through a cutback in loans, with the remainder through scaling back noncore exposures and sales of some parts of their businesses… As discussed in the April 2013 GFSR, banks have been concentrating on derisking their balance sheets by reducing capital-intensive businesses, holding greater proportions of assets with lower risk weights (such as government bonds), and optimizing risk-weight models."

Put differently, to beef up capital ratios, the banks shed primarily riskier loans. Now what these might be? Oh, yes, SMEs and non-financial corporate loans in general… So that 'credit growth' to SMEs?..

"The capital ratio projection exercise previously discussed suggests that some banks will need to continue raising equity or cutting back balance sheets as they endeavor to repair and strengthen their balance sheets."

Read my lips: no new credit growth… QED…

You can read the entire GFSR here: http://www.imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/GFSR/2013/02/pdf/text.pdf

Note: my recent article on European banks is here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/9102013-leveraged-and-sick-euro-area.html

9/10/2013: Leveraged and Sick: Euro Area Banks - Sunday Times October 6

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from October 6, 2013.


Newton’s Third Law of Motion postulates that to every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Alas, as recent economic history suggests, physics laws do not apply to economics.

The events of September are case in point. In recent weeks, economic data from the euro area and Ireland have been signaling some improvement in growth conditions. Physics would suggest that the reaction should be to use this time to put forward new systems that can help us averting or mitigating the next crises and deal with the current one. Political economy, in contrast, tells us that any improvement is just a signal to policymakers to slip back into the comfort of status quo.

Meanwhile, the core problems of the Financial Crisis and the Great Recession remain unaddressed, and risks in the global financial markets, are rising, not falling.

More ominously, the Euro area, and by corollary Ireland, are now once again in the line of fire. The reason for this is that for all the talk about drastic changes in the way the financial services operate and are regulated, Europe has done virtually nothing to effectively address the lessons learned since September 2008.


Last month we marked the fifth anniversaries of the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy and the introduction of the Irish banking guarantee. These events define the breaking points of the global financial crisis. In the same month we also saw the restart of the Greek debt negotiations ahead of the Third Bailout, the Portuguese Government announcement that its debt will reach 128 percent of the country GDP by the end of this year, a renewed political crisis in Italy, and continued catastrophic decline in the Cypriot economy. Public debt levels across the entire euro periphery are still rising; economies continue to shrink or stagnate. Financial system remains dysfunctional and loaded with risks. Voters are growing weary of this mess. In Spain, political divisions and separatist movements gained strength, while German and Austrian elections have signaled a prospect of the governments’ paralysis.

In Ireland, the poster boy for EU policies, pressures continued to build up in the banking system. The Central Bank is barely containing its dissatisfaction with the lack of progress achieved by the banks in dealing with arrears and is forcefully pushing through new, ever more ambitious, mortgages resolutions targets. Yet it is not empowered to enforce these targets and has no capacity to steer the banks in the direction of safeguarding consumer interests. Business loans continue to meltdown hidden in the accounts.

Meanwhile, the latest set of data from the banking sector is highlighting the fact that little has changed on the ground in five years of the crisis. Domestic deposits are flat or declining – depending on which part of the system one looks at. Foreign deposits are falling. Credit supply continues to shrink.


Perhaps the greatest problem faced by the euro area and Ireland is that since the late 2008, tens of thousands of pages of new regulations have been drawn up in attempting to cover up the collapse of the banking system. Well in excess of EUR 700 billion was spent on ‘repairing’ the banks. And yet, few tangible changes on the ground have taken place. The lessons of the crisis have not been learned and its legacy continues to persist.

There are three basic problems with euro area financial systems as they stand today - the very same problems that plagued the system since the start of the crisis. These are: high leverage and systemic risks, excessive concentration of the banks by size, and wrong-headed regulatory responses to the crisis.

European banks are still leveraged far above safety levels. Lehman Brothers borrowed 31 times its own capital in mid-2008. Today, euro area banks borrow even more. No new European rules on leverage have been written, let alone implemented.

New York University’s Volatility Lab maintains a current database on systemic risks present in the global banking sector. Top 50, ranked by the degree of leverage carried on their balance sheet, euro area banks had combined exposure to USD 1.376 trillion in systemic risks at the end of last week. The banks market value was half of that at USD668 billion. Average leverage in the euro area top 50 banks is 58.5 or almost double Lehman's, when measured as a function of own equity. Two flagship Irish banks, still rated internationally, Bank of Ireland and Ptsb, are ranked 37th and 46th in terms of overall leverage risks and carry combined systemic risk of USD11.4 billion. Accounting for the banks provisions for bad loans, the two would rank in top 20 most risky banks in the advanced world.

Compare this to the US banking system. The highest level of leverage recorded for any American bank is 20.4 times (to equity). Total systemic risk of the top 50 leveraged financial institutions in the entire Americas (North and South) is around USD489 billion, set against the market value of these institutions of USD1.4 trillion.

Since September 2008, systemic risk in the US banking system has more than halved. In the case of euro area, the decline is only one-fifth.

Euro area banks positions as too-big-to-fail are becoming even stronger as the result of the crisis. In the peripheral euro states, and especially in Ireland, this effect is magnified by the deliberate policies attempting to shore up their banking systems by further concentrating market power of ‘Pillar’ banks.


Another area in which change has been scarce is the regulations concerning the funding of the banks. The crisis was driven, in part, by the short-term nature of banks funding – the main cause for the issuance of the September 2008 banking guarantee in Ireland.

In the wake of the crisis, one would naturally expect the new regulatory changes to focus on increasing the deposits share in funding and on reducing banks’ reliance on and costly (in the case of restructuring) senior bonds. None of this has happened to-date and following Cypriot haircuts on depositors one can argue that the ability of euro area banks to raise funding via deposits has now been reduced, not increased.

In addition to driving consolidation of the sector, Europe’s political leaders promised to raise the capital requirements on the banks. Actions did not match their rhetoric. Higher capital holdings are not being put in place fast enough. The EU is actively attempting to delay global efforts at introduction of new minimum standards for capital. As the result, current levels of capital buffers held by the top 50 euro area banks are below those held by Lehman Brothers at the end of 2008. Irish banks capital levels, even after massive injections of 2011, are also lower than that of Lehman’s once the expected losses are accounted for.


Even more ominously, the ideology of harmonisation as a solution to every problem still dominates the EU thinking. This ideology directly contradicts core principles of risk management. By reducing diversity of the regulatory and supervisory systems, the EU is making a bet that its approach to regulation is the best that can ever be developed. History of the entire European Monetary Union existence tells us that this is unlikely to be the case.

Moving from diverse regulatory systems and competitive banking toward harmonised regulation and more concentrated financial sector dominated by the too-big-to-fail ‘Pillar’ institutions implies the need for ever-rising levels of rescue funds and capital buffers.

Currently, there are only two proposals as to how this demand for rescue funds can be addressed. You guessed it – both are utterly unrealistic when it comes to political economy’s reality.

The first one is promising to deliver a small rescue fund for future banks rescues capitalized out of a special banks levy. The fund is not going to be operative for at least ten years from its formation and will not be able to deal with the current crisis legacy debts.

The second plan was summarized this week in the IMF policy paper. Per IMF, full fiscal harmonisation is a necessary condition for existence of the common currency. A full fiscal union, and by corollary a political union as well, is required to absorb potential shocks from the future crises. The union should cover better oversight by the EU authorities over national budgets and fiscal policies, a centralised budget, borrowing and taxing authority, and a credible and independent fund for backstopping shocks to the banking sector. In more simple terms, the IMF is outlining a federal government for Europe, minus democratic controls and elections.

Under all of these plans, there is no promise of relief for Ireland on crisis-related banking debts. In fact, the IMF proposals clearly and explicitly state that the stand-alone fund will only be available to deal with future crises. Addressing legacy costs will require separate mutualisation of the Government liabilities relating to the banking sector rescues. The IMF proposal, in the case of Ireland, means accepting tax harmonisation and surrendering some of the Irish tax revenues to the federal authorities.


At this stage, it is painfully clear to any objective observer that fundamental drivers of the Financial Crisis triggered by the events of September 2008 remain unaddressed in the case of European banking. Thus, core risks contained in the financial system in Europe and in Ireland in particular are now rising once again. Politics have been trumping logic over the last five years just as they did in the years building up to the crisis. This is not a good prescription for the future.

Box-Out: 

A study by the Bank for International Settlements researchers, Stephen Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi, published this week, attempted to uncover the reasons for the negative relationship between the rate of growth in financial services and the rate of growth in innovation-related productivity. In other words, the study looked at what is known in economics as total factor productivity growth – growth in productivity attributable to skills, technology, as well as other 'softer' sources, such as, for example, entrepreneurship or changes in corporate strategies, etc. The authors found that an increase in financial sector activity leads to outflow of skilled workers away from entrepreneurial ventures and toward financial sector. This, in turn, results in the financial sector growth crowding out growth in R&D-intensive firms and industries. The study used data for 15 OECD countries, including some countries with open economies and significant shares of financial sector in GDP, similar to Ireland. The findings are striking: R&D intensive sectors located in a country whose financial system is growing rapidly grow between 1.9 and 2.9% a year slower low R&D intensity sectors located in a country whose financial system is growing slowly. This huge effect implies that for the economies like Ireland, shifting economic development to R&D-intensive activity will require significant efforts to mitigate the effects of the IFSC on draining the indigenous skills pool. It also implies that Ireland should consider running an entirely separate system for attracting skilled immigrants for specific sectors.

8/7/2013: IMF on Euro Area: Repetition in the Endless Unlearning of Reality

IMF released its statement on 2013 Article IV Consultation with the Euro Area

The Statement reads (emphasis mine):
"Policy actions over the past year have addressed important tail risks and stabilized financial markets. But growth remains weak and unemployment is at a record high."

So what needs to be done, you might ask? Oh, nothing new, really. Euro area needs:
-- To take "concerted policy actions to restore financial sector health and complete the banking union". Wait… err… this was not planned to-date? Really?
-- "continued demand support in the near term and deeper structural reforms throughout the euro area remain instrumental to raise growth and create jobs". In other words: find some dish to spend on stuff and hope this will do the trick on short-term growth. Reform thereafter.

Not exactly encouraging? How about this: "…the centrifugal forces across the euro area remain serious and are pulling down growth everywhere. Financial markets are still fragmented along national borders and the cost of borrowing for the private sector is high in the periphery, particularly for smaller enterprises. Ailing banks continue to hold back the flow of credit." So the solution is - more credit? Now, what did we call credit in old days? Right… debt, so: "In the face of high private debt and continued uncertainty, households and firms are postponing spending—previously, this was mainly a problem of the periphery but uncertainty over the adequacy and timing of the policy response is now making itself felt in falling demand in the core as well." Wait a second, now: more credit… err… debt will solve the problem, but the problem is too much debt… err… credit from the past…

Ok, from IMF own publication earlier this year, what happens when credit - debt - is let loose:

Source: http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2013/03/05/a-missing-piece-in-europes-growth-puzzle/


Just in case you need more of this absurdity: "…reviving growth and employment is imperative. This requires actions on multiple fronts—repairing banks’ balance sheets, making further progress on banking union, supporting demand, and advancing structural reforms. These actions would be mutually reinforcing: measures to improve credit conditions in the periphery would boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors, which in turn would help restore competitiveness and raise growth in these economies. A piecemeal approach, on the other hand, could further undermine confidence and leave the euro area vulnerable to renewed stress." Oh, well, 5 years ago we needed

1. 'actions on repairing banks balance sheets' - five years later, we still need them;
2. actions on 'supporting demand' - aka, no tax increases and some investment stimulus - five years on, we still need them;
3. actions on 'advancing structural reforms' and five years on, we still need them too;
4. "measures to improve credit conditions in the periphery would boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors" - wait a second ten years ago we had easy credit conditions in the periphery and they failed comprehensively to 'boost investment and job creation in new productive sectors', having gone instead to fuel property and public spending bubbles… five years since the start of the crisis, we now should expect a sudden change in the economies response to easier credit supply?

IMF is more sound on banks: "bank losses need to be fully recognized, frail but viable banks recapitalized, and non-viable banks closed or restructured". But, five years, bank losses needed to be fully recognised too and we are still waiting. And when it comes to closing or restructuring non-viable banks, pardon me, but where was the IMF in the case of Ireland when the country was forced by the ECB to underwrite non-viable banks with taxpayers funds?

"A credible assessment of bank balance sheets is necessary to lift confidence in the euro area financial system." Ok, we had three assessments of euro area banks - none credible and all highly questionable in outcomes. Five years in, we are still waiting for an honest, open, transparent assessment.

Cutting past the complete waffle on the banking union and ESM, "The ECB could build on existing instruments—such as a new LTRO of longer tenor coupled with a review of current collateral policies, particularly on loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)—or undertake a targeted LTRO specifically linked to new SME lending." Ooops, I have been saying for years now that the ECB should create a long-term funding pool for most distressed banks, stretching 10-15 years. Five years into the crisis - still waiting.


On structural reforms, IMF is going now broader and further than before and I like their migration:

"For the euro area, …a targeted implementation of the Services Directive would remove barriers to protected professions, promote cross-border competition, and, ultimately, raise productivity and incomes. A new round of free trade agreements could provide a much-needed push to improve services productivity. In addition, further support for credit and investment could be achieved through EIB facilities. The securitization schemes proposed by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank could also underpin SME lending and capital market development." Do note that the last two proposals are still about debt generation (see above).

"At the national level, labor market rigidities [same-old] should be tackled to raise participation, address duality—which disproportionally hurts younger workers—and, where necessary, promote more flexible bargaining arrangements. At the same time, lowering regulatory barriers to entry and exit of firms and tackling vested interests in the product markets throughout the euro area would support competitiveness, as it would deliver a shift of resources to export sectors [ok, awkwardly put, but pretty much on the money. Except, greatest protectionism in the EU is accorded to banks and famers, and these require first and foremost restructuring]."

In short - little new imagination, loads of old statements replays and little irony in recognising that much of this has been said before… five years before, four years before, three years before, two years before, a year before… you get my point.

20/6/2013: Stalled Irish Banks Reforms: Sunday Times, June 16, 2013

This is an unedited version of the Sunday Times article from June 16, 2013


The latest data from the Central Bank shows that in two years since the current government took office, Irish banking sector is not much closer to a return to health than in the first months of 2011.

Objectively, no one can claim that the task of reforming Irish banking sector is an easy one. However, credit and deposits dynamics in the sector point to the dysfunctional stasis still holding the banks hostage. Despite ever-shrinking competition and vast subsidies extended to them, Irish banks are not investing in new technologies, systems and models. Banks’ customers, including businesses and households, are thus being denied access to services and cost efficiencies available elsewhere. In short, the Government-supported model of Irish banking is failing both the sector and the economy at large.


In April this year, total inflation-adjusted credit advanced to the real domestic economy, as measured by loans to Irish households and non-financial corporations, stood at EUR175,419 million. Since Q1 2011, when the current Government came to power, real credit is down EUR32,302 million. This figure is equivalent to roughly twice the annual rate of gross investment in the economy in 2012. Total credit to non-financial corporations has now been in a continuous decline for 48 months.

Half of this contraction came from loans over 5 years in duration. These loans are more closely linked to newer vintage capital investment in the economy, generation of new jobs, R&D and innovation activities, as well as new exports, than loans with shorter duration. Let’s take this in a perspective. The fall in total longer duration lending since mid-2009 is equivalent to losing 70,000-90,000 direct jobs. Factoring in interest income plus employment-related taxes, the foregone credit activity has cost us close to the equivalent of the tax increases generated in Budgets 2012-2013.

It would be fallacious to attribute credit supply declines solely to the property related lending. Based on the new data reported this Thursday by the Central Bank, loans levels advanced to private enterprises have fallen, between Q1 2011 and Q1 2013 in all sub-sectors of the economy, with largest loans supply declines recorded in domestic, as opposed to exports-oriented, sub-sectors.  All loans are down 6%, while loans to companies excluding financial intermediation and property related sectors are down 5.8%.

However, on the SMEs lending side, some of the steepest loans declines came from the exports-focused enterprises, such as ICT sector, where credit has fallen 9.7% on Q1 2011, or in computer, electronic and optical products manufacturing where loans are down 6.5%. Even booming agriculture saw credit to SMEs falling 5.7% over the last two years, while credit for scientific research and development is down 13.3%.

The picture is, in general, more complex for the levels of credit outstanding in the SMEs sector. On the demand side, in Ireland and across the euro area, there has been a noticeable worsening in the quality of loans applications filed with the banks during the crisis. In a research paper based on the ECB SAFE enterprise level survey data for euro area SMEs, myself and several co-authors have identified the problem of selection biases in companies’ willingness to apply for credit. In simple terms, SMEs more desperate for funding due to deteriorating balancesheets are more likely to apply for credit today. In contrast, healthier firms are more likely to avoid applying for bank credit.

ECB data also shows that Ireland’s problem of discouraged borrowers is much worse, than the euro area average. For example, in Ireland, 21% of all SMEs that did not apply for credit stated that they did so for fear of rejection, almost 3 times the rate of the euro area average and nearly double the second worst performing economy – Greece.


On the funding side, Irish banks have been and remain the beneficiaries of an unprecedented level of funding support compared to their euro area counterparts.

A recent research paper from the Dutch think tank CPB, titled "The private value of too-big-to-fail guarantees" showed that through mid-2012, the pillar banks in Ireland have availed of the largest subsidy transfers from the sovereign and Eurosystem of all banking systems in Europe. Funding advantages, accorded to the largest Irish banks, alone amounted, back in June 2012, to more than double the share of the country GDP compared to Portugal, and more than seven times those in Spain and Italy.

Removal of the explicit Guarantees was supposed to serve as a major step in the right direction. Alas, Irish pillar banks continue to depend for some EUR39.5 billion worth of funding on Eurosystem.  The latest Fitch report on the pillar banks shows that this reliance is likely to persist as loan/deposit ratios remain relatively high. Latest figures put Bank of Ireland, AIB and PTSB loan/deposit ratios at around 120%, 130%, and over 200%, respectively.

And there are further issues with funding in the system. By mid-2014, AIB is required to raise EUR3.5 billion to redeem the preference shares held by the National Pension Reserve Fund. Bank of Ireland will have to find EUR1.8 billion for the same purposes. In both cases there are questions as to how these funds can be secured in the current markets without either further reducing money available for lending or tapping into taxpayers’ funds.


Subsidies to the ‘reformed’ Irish pillar banks go hand-in-had with the regulatory protectionism, which completes the picture of massive transfers of income from the productive economy to the zombified banking sector.

Since 2008, Irish financial services continue to experience ongoing process of consolidation and, underlying this, the reduction in overall competition. Data from the ECB shows that the number of financial institutions operating in the country has fallen in 2012 to the levels below those recorded in 2000-2008. Dramatic declines in the fortunes of the third and the first largest lenders – Anglo and AIB - should have led to a drop in the combined market share held by the top 5 banks. Instead, the market share of top 5 credit institutions rose over the years of the crisis.

To a large extent, this reflects exits of a number of foreign lenders from the market. However, unlike in the case of the US and the UK, there are no new challengers to the incumbent players in the Irish asset management, investment, corporate and merchant banking, and credit unions sector. Neither the regulators, nor the banks have any incentives to encourage new players' entry.

And this has direct adverse impact on the overall health of the economy. When we studied the effects of banking sector concentration on firms’ willingness to engage with lenders, we have found that higher concentration of big banks’ power in a market is associated with lower applications for credit and higher discouragement.

As the result of the reforms undertaken in the Irish banking sector, our banking services are left to stagnate in the technological and strategic no-man's land.

Mobile and on-line banking systems remain nothing more than appendages to the existent services, with only innovation happening in the banks attempting to force more customers to on-line banking to cut internal costs.

Currently, worldwide, banking services are migrating to systems that can facilitate lower cost customer-to-customer transactions, such as direct payments, e-payments, peer-to-peer lending, and mixed types of investment based on combinations of equity and debt. All of this aims to reduce cost of capital to companies willing to invest. Irish financial services still operate on the basis of high-cost traditional intermediation and the Government policy is to keep hiking these costs up. Instead of moving up to reflect the true levels of risks inherent in Irish banks, deposit rates for non-financial corporations and households are falling. Interest on new business loans for non-financial corporations is up 105 to 197 basis points in April 2013, depending on loan size, compared to the average rates charged in Q1 2011. Over the same time, ECB policy rates have fallen by 75 basis points. This widening interest margin is funding banks deleveraging at the expense of investment and jobs.


Combination of the lack of trust in the banking system, alongside the lack of access to direct payments platforms means that many businesses in Ireland are switching into cash-only transactions to reduce risk of non-payments and invoicing delays. Currency in circulation in Ireland is up 10.3% on Q1 2011 average, while termed deposits are down 6.3%.

With big Pillar Banks unable to lend and incapable of incentivizing deposits growth, we should be witnessing and supporting the emergence of cooperative and local lending institutions. None have materialized so far. If anything, the latest noises from the Central Bank suggest that the credit unions can potentially expect to take a greater beating on the loans than the banks will take on mortgages and credit cards.

All-in, Irish banking system is far from being on a road to recovery so often spotted in the speeches of our overly-optimistic politicians and bankers. The credit squeeze on small businesses and sole traders is likely to continue unabated, and with it, the rates of business loans arrears are bound to rise.

Box-out:
In this month’s survey of economists by the Blackrock Institute some 64% of the respondents stated they expected euro area economy to get e little stronger over the next 12 months and none expected the recovery to be strong. In contrast, 74% of respondents thought German economy will get better and 81% forecast the same for the UK. In the case of Ireland, however, only 57% of respondents expected Irish economy to become a little stronger in a year through June 2014 (down on 75% in May 2013 survey). None expected this recovery to be strong. Interestingly, 69% of respondents describe Irish economy's current conditions as being consistent with an early or mid-cycle expansion - both normally consistent with above-trend rapid growth as economy recovers from a traditional recession. Thus, the survey indicates that majority of economists potentially see longer-term prospects for the Irish economy in the light of slower trend growth rates. Back in 2004-2005, I suggested that the Irish economy will, eventually, slowdown to an average rate of growth comparable to that of a mature small euro area economy. This would imply an annual real GDP growth reduction from the 1990-2012 average of 4.9% recorded by Ireland, to, say, 1.8% clocked by Belgium. Not exactly a boom-town prospect and certainly not the velocity that is required to get us to the sustainable Government debt dynamics.

18/6/2013: The Size of the Eurotanic's Bad Assets Iceberg?

Europe's Non-Performing and Doddgy Banking Assets are a Mount Everest-sized iceberg that no analyst in the Commission or the IMF or the BIS or the ECB or any National Central Bank or... ok, keep inserting official sources, is capable of recognising or estimating.

Thankfully, here's a handy range:

1) Courtesy of the ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/europes-eur-500-billion-ticking-npltime-bomb the Eurotanic is heading straight into a EUR500bn chunk of ice.
2) Courtesy of Les Echos, it's EUR1,000bn: http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/finance-marches/actu/0202834793278-une-bombe-de-1-000-milliards-d-euros-pour-les-contribuables-europeens-576506.php and that's just for 'bad banks'.
3) My own view - the number is well ahead of both. This is a consistent view expressed as early back as, for example, http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2010/05/economics-16052010-eu-on-brink.html and even earlier. Euro area will require some EUR3 trillion in monetary 'assistance' of permanent (or very long-term) nature. The drivers for this are: (a) legacy bad and poor quality assets, (b) stagnation-induced corrections yet to come, and (c) interest rates and ECB exit-induced household and corporate insolvencies crunch looming on the horizon.

23/4/2013: Updating the cost of banking crisis data

Nice update from the ECB on the cumulated cost of the banking crisis in Europe, now available through 2012. The net effect, summing up all assumed sovereign liabilities relating to the crisis, including contingent liabilities, and subtracting asset values associated with these liabilities are shown (by country) in the chart below:

Note the special place of Ireland in the above.

For the euro area as a whole, net liabilities relating to the crisis back in 2007 stood at EUR 0.00 (EUR36.72 billion for EU27). By the end of 2012 these have risen to EUR 740.15 billion (EUR 734.23 billion for EU27).

Net revenue losses for Government arising from the banking sector rescues, per ECB are:

23/4/2013: Ignore Europe's Debt Crisis at Your Own Peril

In recent days it became quite 'normal' to bash 'austerity' and talk about debt overhang as the contrived issue with no grounding in reality. Aside from the arguments of those worked up about Reinhrat & Rogoff (2010) paper (ignoring all other research showing qualitatively, and even quantitatively similar results to theirs), there is a pesky little problem:

• Debt has physical manifestation (albeit an imperfect one) in the form of banks (lenders) balancesheets. 

As the result of this pesky problem, we can indeed gauge (again, an imperfect translation, but better than none) the effect of repairing these balancesheets on the supply of credit, thus on investment, and thus on real economic activity.

Here are 2012 IMF estimates of the effects of the euro area banks deleveraging on the real economy:

'Weak policies' in the above are what we currently pursuing - with monetary and fiscal policies mismatch. And the negative effect of the declines runs past 2017 in the case of the heavily-indebted peripheral states. Cumulated decline estimated, relative to baseline GDP forecasts, is almost 12% over 5 years. Which over 20 years (average duration of the debt crises episodes) runs closer to 0.7% of GDP loss per annum due to banks deleveraging, aka due to banks managing debt levels on their own balancesheets.

The above chart is based on banking sector lending alone, excluding effects from deleveraging by other investors and financial intermediaries, and excluding effects of non-EU banks deleveraging or effects of the non-EU banks exits from the euro area. With these in place, the adverse effects can probably reach beyond 1% mark.

22/4/2013: Who funds growth in Europe?..

There are charts and then there are Charts. One example of the latter is via IMF CR1371

The above shows a number of really interesting differences between the euro area and the US, as well as within euro area:

• Look at the share of overall funding accruing to the traditional (deposits) banks in the US (tiny) and the euro area (massive) - debt is the preferred form of funding for Europe
• Look at the share of equity in the US funding and in euro area, ex-Luxembourg - equity is not a preferred way for funding growth in Europe.
• Why the above matter? Simply put, debt - especially banks debt - is not challenging existent ownership of the firm raising funding. Which means that patriarchal structures of family-owned firms, with their inefficient and paternalistic hiring and promotions and management systems can be sustained more easily in the case of debt-funded firms than in the case of equity funded ones.
• Look at the role played in the US by the credit supplied by 'other financial institutions' - non-banks. Again, these would be more 'activist'-styled funding streams exerting more pressure on management and ownership structures.

What about Ireland? Look at the composition of funding sources in the country:

1. Strong reliance on corporate bonds markets is probably reflective of three factors: (a) concentrated loans issued during the building boom and related to construction, development & investment in land remain the legacy of the boom and rely on collateralized bonds issuance, (b) banks funding via collateralization, (c) concentrated nature of Irish listed plcs, (d) massive M&A spree undertaken by Irish plcs and larger private companies on foot of cheap leverage available in the 2000-2007 period, etc. The volume of bonds might be large, but their quality is most likely lower due to the above points.
2. Strong - actually second strongest in the sample after Cyprus - reliance on bank lending to fund economy.
3. Weak, extremely thin equity cushion. 

Now, keep in mind: equity is the best, most stable and most suitable for absorbing crisis impact form of funding.

17/4/2013: Global Banking Sector Roadkill Alley (aka euro area)

Lets play the game of 'Spot the odd one out...' 

Fact 1: Globally, growth is concentrating in Latin America, Asia Pacific and Africa (see earlier post here) and the lowest growth centre is the Euro area.

Fact 2 (via IMF GFSR Chapter 1):

Question: Which banking system has spent almost three years now 'deleveraging' itself out of global growth centres so it can focus its immensely healthy balancesheets on pursuing growth where there is no growth in sight?

Answer on a post-card addressed to:

Mr Mario Draghi 

Kaiserstrasse 29
60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Bonus round: in the Sick Banks Club (aka euro area) which are the sickest and second sickest national banking systems?

For hint, see this post.

30/3/2013: Euro area sovereign risk rises in March 2013

Here's an interesting bit of data (pertaining to analysts' survey): per Euromoney Country Risk survey:

"As of late March 2013, the survey indicates that 13 of the 17 single currency nations have succumbed to increased transfer risk [risk of government non-payment or non-repatriation of funds] since... two-and-a-half years ago." And the worst offenders are?.. Take a look at two charts (lower scores, higher risk):

Per definition of the transfer risk: "The risk of government non-payment/non-repatriation – a measure of the risk government policies and actions pose to financial transfers – is one of 15 indicators economists and other country risk experts are asked to evaluate each quarter. It is used to compile the country’s overall sovereign risk score, in combination with data concerning access to capital, credit ratings and debt indicators."