Economics 21/09/2009: ECB's penalties?

Updated version (00:42am September 22)

On June 23, 2009, ECB opened bidding for its first 12-month refinancing operation.

Back in May 2009, the ECB announced that it would double the maximum length of time it lends money from six months to a year and in June it set the rate for 12-months financing at 1%.

Last time it applied a longer term horizon, ECB placed 348.6 billion euros in December 2007.

So in the nutshell, 1.5% coupon on our bonds bound for ECB and bearing 6 months maturity is a rotten deal.

How rotten? If we were to issue bonds at the ECB own long term financing facility rate with 12 months maturity. The expected cost of total borrowing over 15 years inclusive of the expected costs of roll-overs and reflective of the expected yield curve for ECB rates will be around €15.4bn. In contrast, current structure of 1.5% pa coupon plus 6-months maturity is expected to yield total interest cost of ca €17.5-18.9bn. Then again, what’s €2.1-3.5bn for the Government that burns through €400mln in borrowing on a weekly basis?

What is interesting is why didn't ECB make a similar deal with the Irish Government, allowing it to issue lower coupon bonds or extend maturity of these bonds or both? One can only speculate, for ECB will never tell one way or the other, but I suspect the answer to this lies within the ECB statement that Nama should not overpay for assets it purchases.

Hmmm... Leni took his plan to the ECB men, saying we will buy €77bn worth of stuff, that includes €9bn of rolled up interest, and we will pay €54bn for it. The ECB men pulled out a calculator and extracted: [€54bn/(€77bn-€9bn)-1]*100%=20.6%. The ECB men stared at Leni in disbelief... "Herr Brian, yor ekonomi iz in truble? Djast less fan 21% dropp in yor properti praicez?" 'Oh," replied Brian Lenihan, "but Frank Fahey School of Economics says you'll give us free money!" And here the ECB men smelled a rat...

Otherwise why would the ECB, amidst quantitative easing exercise, impose sanction-level conditions on our bonds? 6-months paper and 1.5% is worse than what ECB gives money to commercial banks at. Much worse, folks.

Now, ECB is no stranger to being taken for a ride. What is telling is that ECB's reaction to 'abuses' in the past is very similar to its reaction to Nama to date.

Most recently, back in July 2008, both the Australian bank, Macquarie Group and the British building society Nationwide have used their Irish subsidiaries to upload hundreds of millions of dodgy ABS packages (in the case of Macquarie, €455mln was borrowed against the most ridiculous collateral –Australian car loans) at the ECB discount window.

On September 4, 2008, ECB’s President, Jean- Claude Trichet stated that he will make it more expensive for banks to borrow from the ECB against most asset-based securities, starting from February 1, 2009. Amidst the crisis gripping European markets at the time, ECB raised `haircut' on the securities it allows to be used as a collateral for 12-months borrowing from 2% to 12%. Additional 4.4% were to apply to paper with no immediate market price.

Note, Irish haircut on bad debts is in effect just below 21% - not that far off the haircuts applied by the ECB (16.4%) on lending backed by much more robust collateral (average European mortgage-securing assets - i.e prperty markets - are down single digits across the entire crisis) than dodgy Irish development projects (down 60-80% and some down 90% in value and falling). When ECB haircut on unsecured banks bonds is added, the total asset discount that ECB could have applied was in excess of 21%. But what is even more significant, the value of the underlying assets accepted by the ECB is supposed to be calculated as the market price less the haircut.

Again, this stands in contrast to Nama which is taking not senior bonds, but ordinary loans, and which is using farcical long-term-economic-value 'pricing', not current market prices. Despite this, Nama haircuts are just 20.6% (once rolled up interest is accounted for) on lower grade assets than the ECB would consider at its window…

No wonder they won’t let Ireland issue bonds with a coupon of 1% or less with 12-months maturity - as would be consistent with a rating on par or better than that for commercial banks. In effect, contrary to the assertions of Brian Lenihan, it is now clear that the 1.5% for 6-months paper deal is far from being endorsed by the ECB. Instead it is a reflection of ECB’s unease with the details of Nama plans. All in, the ECB is now applying nearly as strict terms to the Irish Government Nama bonds as it does to private sector bonds issued by less than thriving European banks.

In July 2008, before changes were announced, the ECB run two-tier pricing system, whereby haircuts of 0.5-5.5% applied to Government paper against the key ECB rate of 4.25%. Mortgage-backed securities – especially Spanish and Irish ones – incurred 18% haircut. Now, do the maths – the spread of 0.5-5.5% haircut on 4.25% lending rate implies the cost of capital of 5-10% for government bonds collateral and up to 24% for MBS. Since July 2008, Irish property markets have fallen by over 12%, so the same collateral rules, that were described by analysts as being loose back in 2008 would require a haircut of ca 27% at the very least, for 1-year long holding period. Again, Nama is implying a haircut of 20.6% on a 15-year holding period.

27% cut held over 1 year was a ‘loose’ condition that had to be drastically revised by the ECB, but 20.6% shave on 15-year holding is deemed by the Irish Government to be reasonable? Who do they think they are foolin?

Another interesting note: following the expression of it dissatisfaction with ‘loose’ borrowing by Spanish and Irish banks, the ECB started quietly talking to the banks urging them to fall in-line. Exactly the same has happened when the ECB issued its thinly veiled directive to Leni – ‘do not overpay for Nama assets’…

Economics 18/09/2009: An Illustration to the Idiot's Guide to Economics

Per chart below, average monthly bond spreads for Irish Government 10-years paper for the last 8 months.We've read Brian Lenihan's lips and here is what he said:

August 2009 (here): "The proposal to establish a National Asset Management Agency has been widely supported internationally by bodies such as the IMF and the OECD and tellingly since
the announcement of the establishment of Nama in April, bond spreads above the German benchmark for Irish sovereign debt have halved, from almost 3 per cent over 10 year German Bonds to now just 1.5 per cent. Irish 10 year bond yields are now 4.8 per cent."

August 2009 (here): "Indeed, during May I had to undertake a tour of EU financial centres to correct misinformation that existed about Ireland. This tour had a positive impact and there has been a significant reduction in the spreads on the State’s borrowing."

Plenty more to be found in the same vein. So per chart above, we've read your lips, Minister and... they produce gibberish so far. As I have remarked on many occasions, Irish bond spreads decline was

• in line with other countries (and in particular - with APIIGS);
• had more to do with the global change in appetite for risk and little-to-nothing to do with Minister Lenihan's decisions or policies;
• lastly, per chart above, while Minister Lenihan was trying to sell his disastrous policies to the nation on the back of declining bond spreads, Ireland has moved from the already dubiously distinctive position of being the second most screwed up economy in the Eurozone after Greece prior to May 2009 to being the worst economy in the Eurozone in terms of its bonds spreads over German bund since Minister Lenihan (per above quote) undertook his courageous road show to Europe.
  

Per one observer comment on this: "we are now the largest pig in the APIIGS pen" - welcome to Lenihanomics?

And on a funny note (credit here)and courtesy of bocktherobber :

Economics 12/09/2009: ECB, repos and Nama

It has not became customary for the Government and public officials to provide 'expert commentary' on Nama that in effect attempts to deflect substantive criticism by making unarguable, non-falsifiable assertions on Nama that can neither be confirmed, nor rejected, yes sound plausibly informed.

The latest such 'argument' against Nama critics floated in political circles - opposition parties, FF backbenchers etc - is that, per DofF, ECB will not be willing to take repo bond off nationalized banks.

What does this mean? In the lingo of Nama-supporters, this means that if we nationalize banks (either via a direct nationalization or via equity purchases post-Nama), the nationalized banks will not be able to use Nama bonds (or any other repurchase agreements paper) to swap with ECB for cash. The threat then is that the nationalized banks will have no access to a liquidity window at ECB and will not be able to operate.

Is this a serious threat? If true, it is a serious concern, because in our 'confident' economy of Ireland Inc, a combination of severe recession and Brian Cowen's economic (taxation) policies have effectively assured that no deposit-based lending can take place, so our banks are now fully reliant for funding on ECB and interbank markets.

But is it true? This we do not know and we cannot know, for DofF will neither confirm of deny they are saying this. And furthermore, they will never actually show the ECB statement confirming or denying it.

So what can we conclude about this threat?

Two things, really:

1. The latest DofF threat is bogus in its nature, for there are plenty proposals out there for repairing Nama that do not involve nationalization. If ECB is willing to support privately held banks (as opposed to plcs) and since ECB's definition of a 'supported' bank does not have a limit on how large share of public ownership can be as long as the bank remain private to some extent, then my proposal for Nama 3.0 or Nama Trust will work just fine. The alleged DofF 'fear' is misplaced and it is being floated out there simply to deflect public attention away from viable alternatives to Nama.
   
2. The latest claim is also bogus in terms of its logic. Suppose the ECB refuses to swap repos coming through a nationalized bank from Ireland. Since nationalization covers the entire domestic banking sector in Ireland, the ECB then refuses to take any bonds from any of the Irish banks, making the entire system of Irish banking illiquid. Now, Ireland is a Eurozone country. This act by ECB will force at least one Eurozone country into a combined liquidity and solvency meltdown. What do you think will be the expected effect on the Euro? Oh, yes, it will overnight become a twin to the Zimbabwean currency. Will the ECB agree to destroy its own reputation, monetary system and currency only to avoid repurchase operations with a more stable and less risky (post-nationalization) banking system of its member state?

In short, the rumors that DofF is claiming that the ECB will not swap with nationalized banks are so out of line with reality, they either cannot be true, or someone in ECB is flying high as a kite. You judge which one of these two alternatives is a more plausible one.

Economics 11/09/2009: Nama gets some deserved bashing

Brilliant Nama analysis from DKM (available here). Please, do read the whole thing!

Few quotes and comments (emphases are my throughout):

On recovery sources:
“The best that Irish policy makers can do is cheer on the signs of recovery in the Euro area and in the US. Recovery in our main export markets – although far from certain – is likely to be the only source of real green shoots next year.”

And this is not because our banks can’t function without a bailout. It is because our economy has been demolished and demoralized by the public policy that wastes taxpayers cash in tens of billions and taxes Irish workers into consumption growth oblivion. Will Nama solve it or make it better? No. Nama will take tens of billions more out of taxpayers hands and put the money into banks. Banks can do the following with the cash that is surplus on their capital reserves:
1) Lend out to Irish – already heavily leveraged businesses, earning a rate of return on these loans of 3-4%pa at best (they currently earn around 2-3% on their past loans); or
2) Buy European corporate bonds yielding 5-7% pa (blue chips).

Anyone’s guess what they will do with cash? For DKM it is a no-brainer: “Certainly it is hard to see the reconstruction of the banking system through the creation of NAMA contributing much to short-term recovery in the economy. Indeed, it could be argued that there is a very real danger that the operation of NAMA, subject as it is bound to be to the political whims of the moment, could have a prolonged negative impact on construction capital spending in the economy for years to come.”


“It is a racing certainty that the 2010 Budget … will involve substantial cuts in government spending, especially capital spending, and increases in taxes and charges. This reduction in public spending will take place against a background of highly depressed private demand which shows few signs of picking up. ...justified by the need to curtail public borrowing for the sake of future generations (and for the sake of the interest rate margins Ireland has to pay over German borrowing costs). Yet at the same time the Government is proposing to borrow massive amounts – which could be more than all the existing government debt outstanding – in order to become the virtual monopoly developer of land and property in the State for the next decade. It is as if public policy is being determined by the mad offspring of Hugo Chavez and Margaret Thatcher.”

Well, Thatcher reference is overdone - Brian Cowen has shown no ability to deliver any serious cuts in public spending so far. Plus Thatcher actually lowered tax burden. Nonetheless, amazingly, this simple reality of an inherent unresolvable contradiction between two policies pursued by the Government did not occur to that brilliant legal (i.e logic-trained) mind of Brian Lenihan. How?


“Enduring economic hardship now so that the State can become the sole lender to the property sector is a difficult sell.” Yes, folks, ‘Nama will work’ slogan is equivalent to ‘Speculative development and investments will work’ slogan. And we learned a thing or two about the latter one, haven’t we?


“The concept of NAMA was born out of a report by Dr. Peter Bacon, an economist turned property developer.” A pearl!


On Nama effectiveness in terms of credit flow restoration:
“The most likely use of the funds supplied by the NAMA purchases will be to reduce reliance on overseas funding especially funding in the wholesale money markets. In effect the balance sheets of Irish banks will shrink as assets are transferred to NAMA and foreign liabilities repaid. This may lead to a more sustainable banking system but will not lead to an expansion in credit.”

But have they – Leni, Coweee, Ah!Earn & Co – listened to any suggestions for bettering Nama? “The official response to the criticisms of the original NAMA proposals has been ad hoc, indicating that policy is being made on the hoof.”

“The question of the bank valuation of a property related loan versus a “market” value becomes more acute when it is realised that NAMA proposes to acquire performing loans… …It will be difficult for NAMA to pay less than the value of the loan to the bank from which the loan is acquired without substantial risk of litigation. Even if the management of banks is cowed by the scale of the public shareholding in the bank there would be no such constraint on private shareholders especially bondholders who face losses due to the acquisition by NAMA of assets at too low a price.”

Now, Brian Lenihan has absolutely no understanding of either finance or economics. Fine. No one is holding it against him personally. But he is a lawyer! Can he not see this argument coming?

“Defenders of NAMA have pointed out that it is a requirement of the EC that the long run economic value be paid for the loans. … this requirement is designed to prevent national governments from over-paying for loans and so subsidizing domestic banks at the expense of competing banks located in other jurisdictions. In any event it now appears that NAMA will not be paying the long run economic value for loans acquired from the banks.”


“The most recent suggestion is that the banks will receive part of the consideration in the form of a bond whose value will depend on the recovery rate of NAMA. This risk sharing sounds attractive but it begs the question as to how the bonds will be accounted for on the banks’ balance sheets.” This is exactly what I’ve been warning about in my recent blog post (here).


“The more enthusiastic supporters of NAMA have begun to sound like stockbrokers promoting an IPO. [Well, it is an IPO for them, for absent Nama, real value of banks shares is near nil – they are insolvent!] NAMA, it is asserted, will be profitable. On analysis, some part of its profit will arise from arbitraging the yield curve. By borrowing short – through the issue of floating rate bonds to the banks – and by lending long through the acquisition of longer term property debt NAMA can make a profit. [Again, do you think this is a way forward after the current crisis lessons on maturity mismatch risks?]

"It is open to the NTMA to make a similar profit by issuing similar short dated securities and
investing the proceeds in long dated German government securities." [Brilliant! In effect, having Nama is like having a state-run hedge fund. We have truly arrived to Alice in Wonderland.]


“NAMA is also expected to make a profit because when the loans are repaid (or the security underlying the loans realised) the proceeds will exceed the original cost. If one assumes that what is ultimately realised is the long term economic value of the assets then NAMA can only make a profit by paying less than the long term economic value.” [And hence we have another contradiction: pay LTEV and you can’t get profit if your estimation of LTEV was correct. There is no free lunch, folks!]

In fact Nama has to realise the underlying properties or close the loans at

• (price paid today = LTEV) +
  
• (inflation cumulated over the holding period) +
  
• (the cost of borrowing over this horizon) +
  
• (the cost of administering the loans by the banks and Nama) --
  
• (cash flow during the holding period)

This, of course, implies that “most of the NAMA profits, if any, will be at the expense of the banks from which it acquired the asset.” How? You bought at LTEV, you sold at LTEV (remember - Nama will get the price right and it will pay the higher of two: current market price or LTEV). The only way you turn a profit is if your revenue stream during the period of managing the loan was greater than the costs of inflation, financing and administering/managing loans. But the latter are paid by the banks...


"In the case of the windfall tax the distant sounds of belatedly closing stable doors can be heard. And, of course, the best way to depress any recovery in future property values is to impose a high tax on appreciation". [So the Greens’ proposal is like shooting your leg off while running] "The requirement that NAMA responds to social and political demands highlights all too clearly the dangers of creating a state-owned virtual monopoly presence in development land and property.”


“The Government has rightly warned of the dangers – mainly in terms of price discovery – of a wholly nationalized banking sector. It does not appear to have the same concerns about a similar nationalization of property development.” Another brilliant point.


“Our best guess is that a recovery in investment in development related construction will be some distance off and some of the longer term economic growth projections which have not taken account of the radically changed institutional environment caused by NAMA are too optimistic.”

This is correct, and I will be revisiting my longer term forecasts for Irish economy to reflect Nama costs explicitly in days ahead, so stay tuned.


PS: Per earlier reader/follower request:

List of foreign ‘stars’ who criticised Nama:
Mr Bo Lundgren (a man with real experience handling major bank crisis)
ZEW President, Professor Wolfgang Franz
Robert Engel (Nobel Prize, Financial Econometrics)
Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize)
Professor Roberto Rigobon (MIT)
Professor Michael Goldstein (Babson College)

Domestically - at least 46 economists and finance specialists (many are finance specialists)

On pro-Nama academic side: one Alan Ahearne - an economist with no finance experience

Economics 31/08/2009: Myths of Nama's Parrots

The Sunday papers revealed to me the bizarre lack of independent and critical thinking amongst our senior journalists on the matters of policy.

The best example was the Sindo’s editorial on the subject of 46 economists’ signing the article in the Irish Times last week. In effect, Sindo is of the view that publicly employed academic economists and finance specialists cannot criticize Nama. What’s next? As PMD puts it: "Publicly employed physicists cannot assert existence of gravity?"

To his credit, Shane Ross stands tall.

In the mean time the Sunday Tribune article (here) exemplified some of the ‘new’ mythology of ‘official’ Nama position, while simultaneously revealing the lack of media’s ability to question the spin fed to it by the officials. These are worth dealing with in some more detail than Sindo’s article:

Myth 1: The ‘official’ version of Nama now claims that LTV ratios on Nama-bound loans were low, so the face value of the loans covers actually greater original value of the collateral. "But while the loans are for €90bn, the properties secured on those loans cost considerably more (we are not talking about 100% mortgages here).”

As far as I know, this 'arithmetic' was first floated at the official briefing for the journalists by the DofF. 

There is absolutely no evidence that the developers took 75% LTV ratios. Despite this, my earlier post (here) has dealt with this, showing that even at LTV ratios of 50-60% it is unlikely that Nama will be able to break even by 2021. Or for that matter, under majority scenarios until much later than that. Given that some people who’s incomes will be used to finance Nama will by then have lost their

• Savings;
• Pensions;
•  Homes

to Nama – due to the need to finance Nama costs out of our current income, implying much higher taxation – what measure of democratic accountability, equity, fairness etc can compel this Government and DofF to make such claims is simply unimaginable to me.

Contrary to DofF briefing claim on low LTVs, there is plenty of evidence from property consortia and from court cases (e.g Mr Carroll’s) that much higher LTV ratios were used in practice. In many cases the percentage that was not lent on the property directly was made up of additional cross-collateralised loans to the consortia itself, other members of this consortia or to the original borrower (developer) in a personal capacity. There were multiple cases of the same property being cross-collateralised for multiple loans.

Take a 'clean' (as in completely transparent, free of double-borrowing and cross-collateralisation) example. 

If a property was purchased for 100K in early 2005 at 50% LTV and rezoned, this ‘asset’ would have seen its market value rise 3 fold. In late 2006 this property would have the value of 330K and a loan of just 50K. The surplus value or equity of 280K could have been re-mortgaged at, say 50% LTV again. Total loans written against the property would total 190K. The surplus equity of 140K could have been borrowed against again in 2007 at, say 50% LTV ratio, resulting in a total loan volume of 260K. What is the overall LTV ratio on this property? At 2006 value of the property: we have LTV ratio of 79% in the end of these simple multiple loans trips each one of these loans was 50%.

Now, suppose Nama buys these at a 30% discount on the loan value, i.e. for 182K. Nama is instantaneously in the negative equity to the tune of 82K, or 45%.

The property market (depending on the type of property) is now around 2000-2004 (well below 2005 levels). How much below? Well, let us say 10% below. So the underlying property is now worth… 90K, and the negative equity is now 92K or 51%.

What is the rate of growth in the market we should expect to get back from this level of negative equity to a nominal break point on Nama? For 10 year horizon – an annualized rate of +7.2% per annum. For 15 year horizon +4.7%, for 20 year horizon +3.5%.

If inflation averages the ECB target rate of 2% pa over the next 20 years, we need a property prices growth of 5.5% per annum minimum for Nama to break even on this “50% LTV ratio loans package” in 20 years time!

Myth 1 is busted.

Myth 2: property crashes are benign… "Previous property crashes in London, Paris and Stockholm suggest that, within 10 years, prices recover to 30% below the top of the bubble".

I have shown in another post (here) that this is not consistent with the evidence from the past busts. So let me not repeat myself here. Furthermore, do any of us really believe we will get back to within 30% of the madness of the 2006-2007 markets ever again?

Instead, consider the statement itself.

First, this refers to nominal prices. Real prices (inflation adjusted) are much slower to recover.

Second, this refers to a simple price recovery. 

But Nama is about more costs than just the cost of loans bought. It is also about a cost of loans financing. So, suppose we take DofF and the journos for what they claim. 

Suppose our property prices will be back to 30% below the top of the bubble in 10 years from now. At 5% per annum the cost of bonds financing for Nama, 0.75% per annum cost of recapitalization financing (ca 8% shot – one off in 2010, taking into account the present value of this cash, recapitalization will actually cost closer to 1% pa over the 10 year horizon, but let us give the difference as a margin of error in favor of Nama). We have: the original (2007 value) 100K loan with LTV of 75% (DofF number) worth 75K on bank’s book today will be purchased by Nama at a 30% discount for 52.5K in 2010. Within 10 years time, property value is 70K. Nama can sell property for this amount and pay down 52.5K of the original loan purchase prices. Except, by then, Nama would have accumulated additional 33K in interest charges on bonds… 

Total loss to Nama on this transaction = 70K-52.5K-33K=15.5K, so Nama will still be posting a 30% loss on its operations.

Myth 2 is busted.

Myth 3: Bond markets do not like privatizations and they love Brian Lenihan’s policies. "Within five days of Anglo Irish being nationalised, the rate which Ireland is charged for borrowing money internationally had risen."

Firstly, while it is true that the bond spreads rose when the Government nationalised its not at all evident or even apparent that this happened

1. Because we nationalised Anglo or   
2. Because we had to nationalise Anglo.

In other words, did Irish Government bond spreads reflect the Government new exposure due to nationalization or did they reflect the fact that nationalization simply showed to the rest of the world just how sick our system really was.

Put differently, did the cardiogram go off charts because the patient went into a cardiac arrest, or did it go off charts because the patient was connected to the machine reading the cardiogram?

Recent research from the ECB (cited by me in the press and here on this blog before, you can find the original paper in the The Determinants of Long-Term Sovereign Bond Yield Spreads in the Euro Area.  Monthly Bulletin, pages  71–72, July 2009) showed no evidence that Ireland’s critically elevated levels of bond spreads at the time before, during and after the Anglo nationalization were somehow out of line with the general model. They were, per ECB model, reflective of the fundamentals in Ireland, not of the ‘nationalization’ one-off episode.

Incidentally, similarly, Greek, Spanish, Portugal’s and other APIIGS’ countries spreads rose at the same time as Irish and in similar proportions. They didn’t nationalize their banks… So what is the DofF talking about here and why is our media parroting this claim as some unquestionable truth?

Now, one of my TCD students has just completed a research paper applying the ECB model to Irish bond spreads. The break point in our bond spreads occurs about the same time that it occurred for other APIIGS -  October 2007. Not that close to Anglo event…

What is also interesting is that the current period of ‘falling spreads’ for Ireland – lauded as a sign that the Irish Government is being trusted by the international markets in all its hard work to destroy our private sector economy… ooops, sorry, to ‘correct our fiscal deficit’ in Leniham-speak, is really fully in line with just one factor – the overall improved sentiment in the global markets. Our ‘leadership’ clowns are riding the coat tails of the US and EU ‘bottoming out’ euphoria, not some miraculous change in sentiment to Ireland they are going to leave behind to the next Government.

Myth 3 is also busted.

Myth 4: "There is a reason why no country has nationalised its entire banking system."

Now, our own journalists simply do not treat other banks operating in this country as a part of the ‘banking system’… Just think two events in the recent past when scaring kids with ‘foreigners’ was en vogue:

1)    Anglo’s “shortsellers from New York and London are out to get us”. Of course it turned out that the shortsellers from abroad were spot on right about their reading of the bank’s position, while all the damage done to the Anglo was done from inside the bank – from its own senior management;

2)    American ‘vulture funds are swooping onto the wounded Irish banking system’. Of course were they to take our sick banks over, we wouldn’t have a need to cull family budgets for generations to come to finance Nama… wouldn’t we?

Every time someone says ‘we need to protect our national [insert any business-related noun here]’, I know I am smelling a rat. ‘Protecting national banking’ means, as Nama clearly illustrates, vast transfer of income and wealth from ordinary people of Ireland to shareholders and bondholders of these banks. I have nothing against the latter two groups of fine people and institutions, but I certainly do not love them enough to sacrifice my son’s college tuition fund and my own and my wife’s pensions to bail them out.

In reality, of course, the idea that ‘nationalizing’ 6 banks in Ireland will leave Ireland with no privately-owned banks is bonkers. Ireland has significant international banking sector that would be even greater in size were we not shielding BofI and AIB from competition through supporting their legacy positions. Furthermore, under my Nama3.0 proposal (see here), we would not nationalize any of the banks at all. We would simply change their ownership from that of the few who took wrong risks to that of the many who are now expected to pay for the mistakes of the others.

Myth 4 is busted.

 

Myth 5: "But the nationalisation option throws up enormous difficulties. The state would have to pay in the region of €5bn to shareholders of AIB and Bank of Ireland,"

Under my Nama3.0 proposal, we would first force the banks to take writedowns, then use remaining share holders’ and bond holders’ equity and debt holdings to offset these losses, then use private investors and swap-participating bondholders to recapitalize the banks. Only after that will there be a cost of the taxpayers. At any rate, this cost will be much lower than the 60bn cost of Nama purchases, plus tens of billions in bonds financing costs associated with Nama.

Furthermore, let us not forget that after Nama we will have to recapitalize the banks no matter what and that this recapitalization is likely to cost us well in excess of 5bn itself.

After all, we paid nothing for Anglo in excess of direct recapitalization costs involved, which are much lower than the cost of Nama buying Anglo’s loans and ‘managing’ them. Furthermore, the same costs were paid to AIB and BofI as well, despite these banks remaining 'private'.

Myth 5 is busted too.

Myth 6: "There is a reluctance to lend money to banks that do not have the transparency that stock market membership brings, and that are viewed as being open to political interference."

This is false.

1. Irish banks and banking institutions - listed or mutually owned - are not transparent already, as the Anglo saga clearly illustrated, as AIB repeated blunders in public statements have clearly highlighted and as the reluctance of all of these banks to take realistic writedowns on the loans attests. Were the Tribune folks actually to give it a thought - we know that AIB, BofI and the rest of the pack are artificially depressing expected losses on their loans in anticipation of Nama, since, by the entire Nama existence we know that absent Nama they would sustain losses much greater than their current capital reserves allow. So what 'transparency' are we talking about?
2. Irish banks cannot borrow without the twin ECB and Irish Government Guarantee supports, despite them not being in national ownership;
3. Irish banks will not be nationalized in Nama3.0 set up and their shares will be fully liquid;
4. Many private (Rabo, a host of Swiss banks and Belgian banks) and nationalized (Northern Rock) banks are capable of borrowing well better and cheaper than the Irish banks underpinned by full state guarantee.

Myth busted.

It is not the ignorance or the lack of knowledge amongst some of our leading journalists that defies my belief, but the innate lack of intellectual curiosity to question the spin they are being spoon-fed by the ‘official’ Ireland.

Hence, Mary Robinson is being paraded around the press as some sort of a ‘wise’ financial guru full of wisdom to breath new air into the debate about Nama. Spare me this nonsense!

Economics 16/08/2009: Alan Ahearne on NAMA - not an ounce of sense

Alan Ahearne has decided to produce a definitive defense of NAMA in today's Sunday Business Post (here). And I would have to respond. As usual - Italics are mine.

The first half of Alan's article is saying absolutely nothing - nothing as in nada, zilch, nul, nil. He simply outlines in a tedious and lecturing fashion a litany of trivial observations as to why a banks crisis resolution is necessary. He does not show that NAMA is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for crisis resolution.

"Nama is also designed to ensure that the resolution to the problem of legacy loans is orderly. Nama can achieve this outcome because it will be patient in disposing of property assets which it has seized from delinquent borrowers." This is an unproven statement that can be argued to be untrue as NAMA can and is being shown to be likely to produce a prolonged period of highly uncertain property markets with buyers and investors holding back in anticipation of future NAMA disposals of property. The longer NAMA holds these properties, the longer it will delay new investment in property in this country. The longer it will keep banks uncertain about future NAMA losses (which - as we were told - will be clawed back from the banks), the longer the mortgage holders will remain in negative equity, withholding from consumption and investment and so on.

"Outside of Nama, a liquidator appointed to wind up a property company has a duty to sell off seized properties quickly. During an economic crisis, when markets are under severe stress and banks are not functioning properly, these properties may have to be sold at a discount to their underlying economic value." Again, Alan presents a dishonest 'extreme' alternative to NAMA as we know it. Outside of NAMA, there can be better mechanisms designed for systemic and orderly adjustment of the property bubble legacy. My own NAMA 3.0 is one. Karl Whelan proposed a similar scheme as well.

"Economists refer to the discount that the liquidator must pay for a quick sale as ‘the price of immediacy’. By design, Nama will not have to pay this discount because it will sell the properties at its own pace. It is important to note that the outcome for delinquent borrowers is identical, whether liquidation occurs inside or outside of Nama. Property companies are wound up and collateral is seized. The difference is in the speed at which the seized assets are re-sold to the market." Again, this is simply not true. NAMA will keep certain projects (and thus certain property developers) in business and will even aim to complete some of the projects. If this is not a rescue clause, I am not sure what is. And as far as NAMA not paying the discount due to long term nature of the undertaking to dispose of the properties, well, this does have a price -
the longer NAMA holds these properties on its books:

• the heavier will be taxpayers' losses on bond financing (interest);
• the longer will the property markets take to adjust;
• the longer will be the period of banks uncertainty as to their costs of NAMA;
• the longer will be the period of stock markets uncertainty about the banks profitability;
• the longer will be the period of subdued investment and consumption in Ireland.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, Alan. And NAMA is not getting close to one either.

"It would be impossible to dispose of ten of billions of euro worth of distressed properties in a short time under current conditions -and extremely destructive to even try." Again - no one I know of - neither Karl Whelan, nor Brian Lucey, nor myself have said there should be a fire sale of assets. Why is Alan Ahearne allowed to deflect public attention from the real issues that are being raised against NAMA? Has he morphed into a spin doctor for DofF?

"No wonder, then, that the IMF, in its recent report on Ireland, describes Nama as ‘‘pivotal to the orderly restructuring of the financial sector and limiting long-term damage to the economy’’." Well, IMF has not endorsed NAMA and was actually critical of its provisions. Alan knowingly distorts IMF analysis by selectively quoting its report.

"A key question relates to the value at which the loans will be transferred from the banks to Nama. Some commentators have mistakenly talked about the price which Nama will pay for land and development properties. Nama is not buying properties, but rather buying loans that are secured on properties and other assets -there is a fundamental distinction." Again, Alan uses this article to deflect the real criticism - not a single serious commentator said that NAMA will be buying actual properties. But in buying the loans, NAMA will acquire titles to underlying collateral. So - a play of words for Alan is a fertile opportunity to reduce public focus on the real issues.

"The transfer value will be in accordance with EU Commission guidelines on the treatment of impaired assets. The commission is very clear on this issue: the loans are to be transferred at values based on their so-called ‘real’ -or long-term - economic value. These are the terms used by the commission. Paragraph 41 of the commission’s communication published in February states that “ . . .the transfer value for asset purchase or asset insurance measures should be based on their real economic value’’. Annex IV of the communication states that ‘‘the objective of the pricing must be based on a transfer value as close to the identified real economic value as possible’’. Well, actually, a 'real economic value' is not the same as the 'long-term economic value'. Plus, as several of us have pointed out before (Karl Whelan, Brian Lucey, many others and myself) - 'long-term' economic value can mean anything. Absolutely anything. So what Alan is saying above, just as his masters did earlier is that 'the EU Commission allows us to buy these assets at whatever price we want to pay for them'. This might be good for the Commission. But it is not good enough for us, as taxpayers who will ultimately pay this price.

"Some commentators have claimed that Nama should instead transfer the loans at what they refer to as ‘current market clearing prices’. It is hard to see how this makes sense. The reality is that there is no price at which the market for land and development can clear under current conditions. This is not to say that land has no value, but rather that the market for these assets is not functioning." In the current markets we do have real valuations of land and development assets. There are sales, there are some investments, there are transactions. Furthermore, today's price can be taken as a short-term valuation based on standard hedonic valuations. The only problem - for the banks, developers and their guardians in the Leinster House - is that these valuations are too low. So they use an academic economist to argue nonsense about 'markets are not there, man, me doesn't know much about what value things might have'.

"There seems to be a misapprehension among some commentators that, for Nama to break even, property prices need to revert to the peak levels seen in 2006-07. This is not the case."
Well, do the maths, apply discount of a% on a property loan of X bought, assuming the loan yields y% annually. Hold it for T years. Assume that the underlying collateral appreciates at k percent per annum. The present value of this loan T years from today if the prevailing rate of interest is R is
(1-a)X{Sum([1+y+k]/[1+R]^i} where i=1,...,T
The cost of financing this loan is at R+g where g is the risk premium, taken over T years and discounted back to today:
(1-a)X{Sum([1+R+g]/[1+R]^i}
The break even on this deal requires that the first identity is equal to the second one. This in turn implies that to break even, NAMA will have to either

• enjoy property yields + appreciation on the capital in excess of the cost of bonds financing and the cost of running NAMA itself - which really means a property boom (in yields terms) will be required well in excess of the 2004-2007 one, or
• enjoy property price appreciation that will cover the cost of bond financing, plus the cost of running NAMA, plus inflation, less the discount a.

This is soo excessively optimistic, that actually it makes me believe that in making his statement, Alan reveals not having done even a basic estimation of NAMA likely costs and losses.

Now, it is also telling that Alan fails to even mention the problems of protecting taxpayers' interests, ensuring transparency of NAMA operations, or any other major issues for which NAMA has been criticised by many commentators, including myself.

I also find it extremely arrogant and outright rude that this public servant has managed to escape any scrutiny as to:

• why as the economic adviser to the Minister for Finance has he not produced any economic assessments of NAMA?
• why has he failed to consider the economic costs of NAMA (he does attempt something of an analysis - albeit extremely simplistic - of what would happen if NAMA was not enacted)?
• why is he allowed to simply claim - with no evidence or arguments to support such a assertion - that NAMA will restore functional banking system in Ireland?
• why is he allowed, unchallenged, to claim that all external analysts are supporting NAMA, while we know of several Nobel Prize winning economists, numerous other respected international academics, not to mention all internal independent analysts working in Ireland who unequivocally identified NAMA as being a bad idea?

In short, Alan's article is a waste of space - pure and simple, providing not a single fact, not a single logical argument, not a single ounce of economic reasoning to support his thesis.

Read my alternative to NAMA here.

Economics 31/07/09: NAMA Part III

The NAMA Legislation provides some stunningly simplistic and outright primitive economic analysis. This is contained in Part 5 of the Bill (once again, italics are mine):

PART5: VALUATION METHODOLOGY

Determination of acquisition values—valuation methodology.

58.—(1) In this section—
(a) a reference to the current market value of the property comprised in the security for a credit facility that is a bank asset is a reference to the estimated amount that would be paid between a willing buyer and a willing seller...
(b) a reference to the current market value of a bank asset is a reference to the estimated amount that would be paid between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction...

[In other words, the difference between the two values is that the property value is a valuation of the collateral, while the asset value is the valuation of the loan drawn against this collateral as an asset. This difference should capture: counterparty risk, liquidity risk, expected return risk, lien risk and term structure risks. None are specified or explicitly required for pricing in the NAMA legislation.]

(c) a reference to the long-term economic value of the property [bank asset, per point (d) below] comprised in the security for a credit facility that is a bank asset is a reference to the value that the property can reasonably be expected to attain in a stable financial system when current crisis conditions are ameliorated and in which a future price or
yield of the asset is consistent with reasonable expectations having regard to the
long-term historical average...

[So, implicitly, this statement assumes an imposition of some assumptions on:

• What constitutes a stable financial system and how does this system impact the pricing in operative markets - something that is virtually impossible to ascertain as the only functional markets we have a history of relate to the property bubble period? Was our financial system stable when we were lending x10 times income to home buyers? Or was it stable when the likes of AIB were embroiled in a series of massive scandals?
  
• What constitutes an amelioration of the current crisis - with further issues arising as to what crisis is being meant in this context: the crisis in property markets? in banking? in credit supply? in money supply? in financial assets? in the economy at large? in the Exchequer revenue? in the labour markets? in the markets for land sites? or in demographics? or in all the above?
  
• What is the relationship that determines the future (expected?) price of an asset or a yield on the asset and what is the assumed relationship between the yield and the price? What determines the relevant expectations mechanism?
  
• What is the long-term historical average? A 10-year historical average taken from today back 10 years is one thing. A 5 year one is another. Yet a third number can be obtained if the historic average is taken back from some date in the past (say 2007 to 1998) and so on. In reality, there is an infinite number of long-term historic averages that can be taken. Which one will be selected and on what basis is never attempted to be answered in the document.]
  

(2) Subject to subsection (4), the acquisition value of a bank asset is its long-term economic value as determined by NAMA.

[Well, see above on long-term economic valuation, but in effect this is the statement that says it all - there is no price, there is no pricing model, there is not even a hint at the pricing model fundamentals. This is a botched economic analysis that would not warrant a permission to buy a typewriter for the DofF, let alone to 'invest' Euro 90bn into any undertaking. And this problem is compunded by the fact that this Bill seals the hatches on risk and credit committees operating NAMA by requiring that their members be NAMA employees or directors and not establishing any independent presence on these committees. This is like having a reactor heading into a meltdown and shutting down your monitoring systems because they are flashing red.]

(3) NAMA shall determine the long-term economic value of a bank asset by reference to the following:
(a) the current market value of the property comprised in the security for the credit facility that is the bank asset at a date specified by NAMA;
(b) the current market value of the bank asset, at a date specified by NAMA, by reference to market rates and accepted market methodology;
(c) the long-term economic value of the property referred to in paragraph (a) at the date referred to in that paragraph...

[This is incomprehensible gibberish, folks. It has neither any meaning nor economic or financial justification whatsoever. There are no accepted market rates, for there is no market for these securities and/or assets other than at extremely deep discounts that Minister Lenihan has already ruled out. The legislation provides nothing for testing the market - as I suggested in one of the required bullet points below.]

(4) NAMA may, if it considers it appropriate after consultation with the Minister, and subject to any regulations made by the Minister under subsection (5)... determine that the acquisition value to be assigned to particular bank assets or class of bank assets shall be—
(i) their current market value, or
(ii) a greater value (not exceeding their long-term economic value) that NAMA
considers appropriate in the circumstances.
[But not a lesser value, note. And once again, since there is no market value or a mechanism to attempt establishing some market value testing, this means NAMA will pay above market value for all assets. Furthermore, this section explicitly commits NAMA to use taxpayer funds to pay the real price or more for the given loan! Sickened yet? Ok, let me explain in a bit more detail. There is an auction with only one bidder. The bidder has stated up front that he will pay any price at or above the market price. But there is no market price. Where do you think the seller will set the opening bid at? If the implicit market value, known to the seller, but not the bidder is X, the seller will set an opening bid at X+y, where y is a positive premium on the 'stupidity' of the buyer or on the fact that the buyer has committed to buying the asset and is willing to pay above the market value for it. What will be the reservation price set by the seller? X+y+z, where z is a positive premium on 'desperation' of the buyer to acquire the asset. What will be the price paid by the buyer? X+y+z+v, where v is the premium on seller's skills in convincing the buyer to purchase the asset. v is also non-negative. Done. Basic auction theory, folks. Incidentally, adopting the approach advocated by me in the bullet points below removes: y through forcing the banks to take realistic writedowns first prior to NAMA; and removes z by requiring a simulative establishment of the market which can test the actual price of at least of the assets. One can't really remove v, for the smarter bankers will always be able to sell to the careless or incompetent, or both, authorities that can author this document in the first place.]

(6) In determining the acquisition value of a bank asset under subsection (2) or (4), NAMA shall have regard to the following:
(a) any value that the participating institution concerned submits as being, in its opinion, the current market value of the property comprised in the security for the credit facility that is the bank asset [that's X above];
(b) the acquisition value already determined in accordance with the valuation methodology of another similar bank asset [thats y derived from previous sales];
(c) the credit worthiness of the debtor or obligor concerned [that's v above];
(d) the performance history of the debtor or obligor in respect of that asset [that's v above];
(e) any reports furnished to NAMA in relation to the matters specified in subsection (7) whether prepared before or after the commencement of this Act [that's z above].

[So to recap: NAMA paid price for an Asset = X+y+z+v, where X is 'true' value of the asset; and (y+z+v) is a strictly positive premium accruing to the bank from the economic illiteracy written into this legislation!]

I have covered section 59 of the Act already in the previous post.


I will repeat the list of provisions that must be required before NAMA can be allowed to proceed in every post on NAMA from ehre on:

• Provisions for taxpayer protection and provision for a taxpayers' oversight board filled with only independent observers, who are not in the employment of NAMA, NTMA, the State or any other party to NAMA undertaking;
• Complete and comprehensive balance sheet and cost/benefit analysis of the undertaking;
  
• Exact upper and lower limits for banks equity the taxpayers will receive in return for NAMA funds and post-NAMA recapitalization funding;
• The exact procedures for divesting out of the banks shares in 3-5-7 years time with exact legal commitment by the state to disburse any and all surplus funds (over and above the costs) directly to the taxpayers in a form of either banks shares or cash;
  
• The formula for imposing a serious haircut (60%+) on banks bond holders, possibly with some sort of a debt for equity swap and a restriction that NAMA cannot purchase any rolled up interest acrued since the latest 'restructuring' of a loan;
• A recourse to all developers' own assets - applied retroactively to July 2008 when the first noises of a rescue plan started;
• The list of qualifications for any bank to participate in NAMA, including, but not limited to, the caps on executive compensation at the banks and the requirement to set up a truly independent, veto-wielding risk assessment committee at each bank with a mandatory requirement for a position of a taxpayers' representative on the board that cannot be occupied by a civil servant or anyone who has worked in the industry in the last 10 years;
• A requirement that risk and credit committees of NAMA include at least 51% majority of independent experts who cannot be employees of the state, NAMA or any toher parties to this undertaking;
  
• A condition that the banks must undergo loan book evaluation prior to transfer of any loans to NAMA, the results of which will be made public - on the web - instantaneously - and will impose a requirement on the banks to write down their assets, again before NAMA purchases any of them, by the requisite amounts to balance their own books in line with valuations;
• A condition that any loan purchased by NAMA be placed on the open market for the period of 2 weeks and that NAMA will not pay any amount in excess of the bids received (if any), with a prohibition for the participating banks to bid on these loans;
• A condition that every NAMA loan should be publicly disclosed, including its valuations and bids it receives in the auction stage of the process;
  
• A stipulation that all and any regulatory authorities (and their senior level employees) that were involved in regulating the banking and housing sector in this country take a mandatory pension cut of 50% and return any and all lump sum funds they collected upon their retirement;
• A provision for dealing with the speculatively zoned land to be acquired by NAMA, i.e orderly de-zoning of this land and transfer of this land to either public (if no bidders arise) or private use consistent with sustainable agricultural development, environmental improvements, public use or forestry;
  
• The measures to prevent banks from beefing up their profit margins through squeezing their preforming customers;
• The measures to force the banks to reduce their cost bases by laying off surplus workers;
• The measures for accounting (in a transparent and fully publicly accessible fashion) on a quarterly basis for NAMA operations and the performance of the state-supported banks.

If I forget something, please, let me know...

Economics 31/07/2009: NAMA Part II

And now slightly more on theat NAMAster:

Remember the levy that the Government dangled in front of the taxpayers as a sign of loss protection or minimization to be built into NAMA. Well, word 'lvey' does not appear in the entire legislation. Not even in a tocken fashion. Not even as a lip service.

And yet, bad and all as this idea might have been, the levy on the banks was announced by Minister Lenihan, repeatedly, as the only means for recouping losses on NAMA. As a friend and colleague remarked, "even that figleaf of taxpayer saving is gone'.


The document reads:
"In making regulations under subsection (1), the Minister may [my emphasis] have regard—
(a) to the rules in relation to State aid and any relevant guidance issued by the Commission of the European Communities [as if he can avoid this under the EU rules], and

(b) in relation to the determination of the long-term economic value of the property comprised in the credit facility that is a bank asset, to—

(i) the extent to which the price or yield of the asset has deviated from the long-term historical average [the half-wits who wrote this don't even understand that our historical averages are so severely skewed by a lengthy bubble in the property markets, that a return to these averages will take well over a decade],

(ii) supply and demand projections by reference to the type of asset and its location,
(iii) macroeconomic projections for growth in the gross domestic product and for inflation,
(iv) demographic projections,
[Who is going to supply these projections? Our forecasters - the DofF, the CB, let alone completely inadequate Forfas and Fas - are so grossly inaccurate in their usual predictions that you might as well use a crystal ball. One good example is the CB - this institution has been frantically issuing new forecasts on a monthly basis in order to catch up with the published forecasts by the private sector.]

(v) land and planning considerations (including national, regional or local authority development or spatial plans) that may exert an influence on the future value of the asset concerned,
(vi) analyses presented by the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the extent to which existing land zoning and planning permissions granted and in force meet or exceed projected growth requirements, and
(vii) analyses presented by the Dublin Transport Office and the National Transport Authority of existing and future transport planning and the associated supply and demand projections for land use.
[As I told the meeting of the Green Party recently, all of this means only one thing - the fig leaf of decorum awarded to the Green Ministers for their singing on the dotted line will see NAMA as a continuation of the development patterns that were based on utterly mad and unsustainable vision of spatial development in Ireland. In effect, the Green Party has lost all and any moral ground to stand on when it signed up to the development model (under NAMA) that cuts across the entire philosophy of the Greens.]

(c) in relation to the determination of the long term economic value of bank assets, to—
(i) the long-term economic value of the property comprised in the security for a credit facility that is a bank asset,
(ii) the net present value of the anticipated income stream associated with the loan asset,
(iii) in the case of rental property, current and projected vacancy rates,
(iv) loan margins,
(v) an appropriate discount rate to reflect NAMA’s cost of funds plus a margin that represents an adequate remuneration to the State that takes account of the risk in relation to the bank assets acquired by NAMA,
(vi) the mark-to-market value of any derivative contracts associated with the bank asset,
(vii) any ancillary security such as personal guarantees and corporate assets,and
(viii) fees reflecting the costs of loan operation, maintenance and enforcement, and

[This lengthy passage tells me right away that NAMA will operate as a banking sector's out of town office. The primacy of taxpayer protection absent in the legislation and the length afforded to the protection of the banks' bottom line is the destruction of the private sector economy on the vast scale. Incidentally, it is also a sealing of banks into servitude to the Exchequer, implying that from the day of NAMA instituion, Bank of Ireland, AIB, IL&P and other participating banks will be Japanese-styled zombies. A short-term pain relief turns a long term cancer!]


I will repeat the list of provisions that must be required before NAMA can be allowed to proceed in every post on NAMA from ehre on:

• Provisions for taxpayer protection and provision for a taxpayers' oversight board filled with only independent observers, who are not in the employment of NAMA, NTMA, the State or any other party to NAMA undertaking;
• Complete and comprehensive balance sheet and cost/benefit analysis of the undertaking;
  
• Exact upper and lower limits for banks equity the taxpayers will receive in return for NAMA funds and post-NAMA recapitalization funding;
• The exact procedures for divesting out of the banks shares in 3-5-7 years time with exact legal commitment by the state to disburse any and all surplus funds (over and above the costs) directly to the taxpayers in a form of either banks shares or cash;
  
• The formula for imposing a serious haircut (60%+) on banks bond holders, possibly with some sort of a debt for equity swap and a restriction that NAMA cannot purchase any rolled up interest acrued since the latest 'restructuring' of a loan;
• A recourse to all developers' own assets - applied retroactively to July 2008 when the first noises of a rescue plan started;
• The list of qualifications for any bank to participate in NAMA, including, but not limited to, the caps on executive compensation at the banks and the requirement to set up a truly independent, veto-wielding risk assessment committee at each bank with a mandatory requirement for a position of a taxpayers' representative on the board that cannot be occupied by a civil servant or anyone who has worked in the industry in the last 10 years;
• A requirement that risk and credit committees of NAMA include at least 51% majority of independent experts who cannot be employees of the state, NAMA or any toher parties to this undertaking;
  
• A condition that the banks must undergo loan book evaluation prior to transfer of any loans to NAMA, the results of which will be made public - on the web - instantaneously - and will impose a requirement on the banks to write down their assets, again before NAMA purchases any of them, by the requisite amounts to balance their own books in line with valuations;
• A condition that any loan purchased by NAMA be placed on the open market for the period of 2 weeks and that NAMA will not pay any amount in excess of the bids received (if any), with a prohibition for the participating banks to bid on these loans;
• A condition that every NAMA loan should be publicly disclosed, including its valuations and bids it receives in the auction stage of the process;
  
• A stipulation that all and any regulatory authorities (and their senior level employees) that were involved in regulating the banking and housing sector in this country take a mandatory pension cut of 50% and return any and all lump sum funds they collected upon their retirement;
• A provision for dealing with the speculatively zoned land to be acquired by NAMA, i.e orderly de-zoning of this land and transfer of this land to either public (if no bidders arise) or private use consistent with sustainable agricultural development, environmental improvements, public use or forestry;
  
• The measures to prevent banks from beefing up their profit margins through squeezing their preforming customers;
• The measures to force the banks to reduce their cost bases by laying off surplus workers;
• The measures for accounting (in a transparent and fully publicly accessible fashion) on a quarterly basis for NAMA operations and the performance of the state-supported banks.

If I forget something, please, let me know...

Economics 27/07/2009: NAMA, ILandP rate hike, US home sales and redemptions

So NAMA failed the first day of Cabinet debate. We know this much - even RTE managed to issue a post, although the Montrose boys lacking anything real to report managed to produce a cheerful note on the debacle. Oh, how much they want the State to succeed in soaking the private sector...

But what really hides behind the Cabinet in-decision? Well, it is rumored that not the (allegedly) ethical Greens, but Mr Cowen's own troops are unhappy about NAMA. Some senior ministers, as I hear, are saying 'Hold on, we'll have to face constituency out there one day and you are about to load an average person (25 yo+) in this country with some €20K in fresh debt from the bankers and developers alone'. Good for them. And I certainly hope the Greens also stand up and tell Mr Cowen where to pack that NAMA idea.

Oh, and apparently, the DofF men are saying that the 'long term economic' value under the NAMA formula will be based on, well, more than 5 and less than 9 years. Hmmm... What does this mean? It means that NAMA should be expected to break even (at the very least) were we to price the property assets to be purchased into NAMA on this 'long term' valuation basis. Ok... but...

First there is one majour issue here - in real world of economics, long-term market value usually means a long-term past average or trend. What it means for NAMAphiles is thatwe will be forecasting the values forward over some long-term horizon. Anyone familiar with forecasting knows that this, in reality, means that we will be in a completely arbitrary forecasting territory. In other words, for DofF to say we want to take current discounts based on future values projected 5, 7, or 9 years ahead is like saying 'we'll name the price and then justify it afterward'.

But wait, there is also a problem with the way the DofF is allegedly timing the cycle.

Calculated Risk blog (see below) - the top forecaster for US housing market shows expected time to the bottom in price in the US residential market of 5-7 years. Do you think we gonna get there in this time here in Ireland? No. We have had worse correction in the market to date than Japan, who are 20 years into the downturn in their property markets and still not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

And NBER research paper 8966 (BOOM-BUSTS IN ASSET PRICES, ECONOMIC INSTABILITY, AND MONETARY POLICY by Michael D. Bordo and Olivier Jeanne) has a handy set of charts at the end, showing the most recent busts in property markets in the OECD economies. Ratios of boom length to bust duration are (defining as boom - trough to peak prices, bust - peak to trough):

• Australia 1980s: 3 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio of 3:7;
• Denmark 1980s: 4 years of boom 7 years of bust: ratio of 4:7;
  
• Finland 1990s: 4 years of boom, 6 years of bust ratio of 2:3;
• Germany 1980s: 4 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio of 4:7;
• Ireland 1970s-1980s: 3 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio of 3:7;
• Italy 1970s-1980s: 3 years of boom, 6 years of bust: ratio of 1:2;
• Italy 1990s: 4 years of boom, 6 years of bust: ratio of 2:3;
• Japan 1970s: 2 years of boom, 4 years of bust: ratio of 3:4;
• Japan 1985-today: 6 years of boom and 19 years of bust: ratio of 6:19;
  
• Netherlands, 1970s-1980s: 4 years of boom, 8 years of bust: ratio 1:2;
• Norway 1980s-1990s: 4 years of boom, 6 years of bust: ratio 2:3;
• Spain 1970s-1980s: 2 years of boom, 5 years of bust: ratio 2:5;
• Sweden 1970s-1980s: 4 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio 4:7;
• Sweden 1980s-1990s: 3 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio 3:7;
• UK 1970s: 2 years of boom, 4 years of bust: ratio 1:2;
• UK 1990s: 4 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio 4:7

So average ratio is 1.874 years of bust per year of boom... and that means that, given we had 5 years of a boom that the historical data suggests a bust of 9.4 years duration at an average. That is 9.4 years to a trough in Irish property prices! Not to a realization of some miraculous 'long term economic value', but to a trough.

Well, let's take a look at the same data from the point of view of time to full return to pre-crisis property prices, or peak to trough (nominal prices):

• Australia 1980s: 18 years from 1981 through 1998;
• Denmark 1980s-1990s: 8 years (1979-1986) and 13 years (1986-1998);
  
• Finland 1990s: 1989-2004 or 16 years;
• Germany 1970s: 1973- today... oh yeah, right - some 36 years;
• Ireland 1979 to 1995 or 17 years;
• Italy 1981- through today... right, so that's about 29 years;
• Japan: 1973 through 1986: 14 years;
• Japan 1990- today: 20 years;
• Netherlands, 1978 through 1998: 21 years;
• Norway 1987 through 2003: 17 years;
• Spain 1978-1987: 10 years;
• Spain 1991-1998: 8 years;
  
• Sweden 1979-today or 31 years;
• UK 1973-1987: 15 years;
• UK 1989-2000: 12 years.
  

So average peak to trough for 'long term nominal economic value' is 17.8 years. Again, given our peak at 2007 we have to look forward to NAMA recovering peak valuations at around, hmmm... 2026... But wait - not all corrections were steep enough to match ours... so let's isolate those that were:

• Australia 1980s: 18 years;
• Finland 1990s: 16 years;
• Germany 1970s: 36 years;
• Italy 1981: 29 years;
• Japan 1990: 20 years;
• Netherlands, 1978: 21 years;
• Norway 1987: 17 years;
• Sweden 1979: 31 years;
• UK 1973: 15 years

Which yields an average of 22.6 years, pushing our recovery to beyond 2030. By this standard, a break even value for NAMA should be based on something closer to 15-16 years, if we are to take a 20-25% haircut on current book values of the loans.

So DofF is talking about under 9 years then... I see... ah, the poverty of expectations...

The Government has time to get it right - they have the entire month of August to sort the new piece of legislation on NAMA, outlining in details:

• Provisions for taxpayer protection;
• Complete and comprehensive balance sheet and cost/benefit analysis of the undertaking;
  
• Exact amount of equity the taxpayers will receive in return for NAMA funds (hmmm, 100% would be a good starting point);
• The exact procedures for divesting out of the banks shares in 3-5 years time with exact legal obligation to disburse any and all surplus funds (over and above the costs) directly to the taxpayers in a form of either banks shares or cash;
  
• The formula for imposing a serious haircut (60%+) on banks bond holders, possibly with some sort of a debt for equity swap;
• A recourse to all developers' own assets - applied retroactively to July 2008 when the first noises of a rescue plan started;
• The list of qualifications for any bank to participate in NAMA, including, but not limited to, the caps on executive compensation at the banks and the requirement to set up a truly independent, veto-wielding risk assessment committee at each bank with a mandatory requirement for a position of a taxpayers' representative on the board that cannot be occupied by a civil servant or anyone who has worked in the industry in the last 10 years;
• Provision for a taxpayers' board, electable directly by people, to oversee the functioning of NAMA;
• A condition that the banks must undergo loan book evaluation prior to transfer of any loans to NAMA, the results of which will be made public - on the web - instantaneously - and will impose a requirement on the banks to write down their assets, again before NAMA purchases any of them, by the requisite amounts to balance their own books in line with valuations;
• A condition that any loan purchased by NAMA be placed on the open market for the period of 2 weeks and that NAMA will not pay any amount in excess of the bids received (if any), with a prohibition for the participating banks to bid on these loans;
• A condition that every NAMA loan should be publicly disclosed, including its valuations and bids it receives in the auction stage of the process;
  
• A stipulation that all and any regulatory authorities (and their senior level employees) that were involved in regulating the banking and housing sector in this country take a mandatory pension cut of 50% and return any and all lump sum funds they collected upon their retirement;
• A provision for dealing with the speculatively zoned land to be acquired by NAMA, i.e orderly de-zoning of this land and transfer of this land to either public (if no bidders arise) or private use consistent with sustainable agricultural development, environmental improvements, public use or forestry;
  
• The measures to prevent banks from beefing up their profit margins through squeezing their preforming customers;
• The measures to force the banks to reduce their cost bases by laying off surplus workers;
• The measures for accounting (in a transparent and fully publicly accessible fashion) on a quarterly basis for NAMA operations and the performance of the state-supported banks.

If I forget something, please, let me know...


Oh and on the topic of IL&P predatory rate hike for adjustable rate mortgages, here is a brilliant argument as to why Minister Lenihan must intervene to stop the practice of soaking the ordinary consumers to pay for past banks follies. Read it and think - can any government, acting in the interest of the broader economy and taxpayers and voters be so reckless in its attempts to hide behind 'protecting the markets' arguments as to willingly sacrifice its own people on the altar of cronyism. And do remember - I am a free marketeer, and a proud one, yet I see no moral strength in Lenihan's arguments.


US data is now showing more serious signs of an uplift... or does it? Sales of new homes rose 11% in June is a sign that some decided to interpret as a return to growth. I wouldn't be so trigger happy myself - this is the largest rise in new homes sales since... oh you'd think like somewhere in 2006? no - since November 2008. This is volatile series and the seasonally adjusted rate of 384,000 new homes sales in a month is, while impressive, way off the old highs. Thus sales are still down 21.3% on already abysmal levels of 2008 so far this year.

Here is what my favourite US housing guys - http://www.calculatedriskblog.com - had to say about the latest rise: a W-shaped bottoming out is coming. And a superb chart from the source:
Or, in the words of the blog author:"There will probably be two bottoms for Residential Real Estate. The first will be for new home sales, housing starts and residential investment. The second bottom will be for prices. Sometimes these bottoms can happen years apart. I think it is likely that we've seen the bottom for new home sales and single family starts, but not for prices. It is way too early to try to call the bottom in prices. House prices will probably fall for another year or more. My original prediction (a few years ago) was that real house prices would fall for 5 to 7 years (after 2005), and we could start looking for a bottom in the 2010 to 2012 time frame for the bubble areas. That still seems reasonable to me."

And to me too. But what I would caution against is the optimism for the overall property markets. Here are two tidy little reasons:

One: US equitable redemptions are the lags between the property being reported as a non-performing on the loan book of a bank and the time it hits the foreclosure market. Now, these vary by state, with some states having no er provision at all, while others having 9 months plus. The US average is about 4 months. This is what is yet to be reflected in the 'distressed' sales gap - the gap between new home sales and existing homes sales. Chart below illustrates:
Again, the distressed gap is not closing, but both series are pointing up. Now, notice that around November 2008-February 2009, the days of the most fierce destruction of income and wealth worldwide, the number of existent properties on the markets did not rise. Why? The ER lags are kicking in. So take the average of 4 months and get June 2009 to start showing an increase in existent homesales rising - foreclosures are feeding in. This process is likely to continue through months to come.

Two: I would watch the maturity of securitized commercial loans... these are still looming on the horizon for the roll-over (and they are also a problem in Ireland, where most of commercial property lending was securitized)... Comes autumn, expect things to get tough once again... Oh, and then NAMA will coincide with the already tightening credit markets and will take a large chunk of liquidity our of the market... Gotta love that Lenihan/Cowen timing - like two elephants trying to dance polka at a Jewish wedding - loads of broken glass, but not to the delight of the newlyweds...