20/2/2012: Irish Banks - Zombies Running the Town - Sunday Times 19/02/2012

This is an unedited version of my article for Sunday Times 19/02/2011.

This week’s announcement by the Government that the Irish banks will be issuing loans to small and medium sized enterprises (the SMEs) under the cover of a sovereign guarantee has raised some eyebrows.

Throughout the persistent lobbying to underwrite credit supply to the struggling SMEs, it was generally resisted by the majority of economists and analysts, who argued that the Irish state is in no financial or fiscal position to provide such a measure. Having backed banks’ debts via the original 2008 State guarantee and emergency loans from the Central Bank of Ireland by the letter of comfort, the Irish state had also underwritten the risks associated with the commercial real estate development and investment assets through Nama. In addition, via rent supplements and mortgage interest supports, the government is propping up a small share of other banks assets and the rental markets.

Now, it’s the SMEs turn.

Per Central Bank’s own stress tests, estimated worst-case scenario defaults on all assets in the core Guaranteed banking institutions are expected to run at around 14.6%. SMEs loans had the worst-case scenario default rate estimate of 19%. We can argue as to the validity of the above estimates, but much of the international evidence on lending risks suggest that SMEs loans are some of the riskiest assets a bank can have. Add to this that we are in the depth of the gravest recession faced by any euro area country to-date, including Greece and you get the picture. Without state backing, there will be no lending to smaller firms. With the state guarantee, there will be none, still.

Subsidizing risker loans in the banks that are scrambling to deleverage their balancesheets, struggling with negative margins on their tracker mortgages and facing continued massive losses on loans might be a politically expedients short-term thing to do. Financially, it is hard to see how the Irish banking system crippled by the crisis and facing bleak ‘recovery’ prospects in years ahead can sustain any new lending to the SMEs.

Eleven months after the stress tests and seven months after the recapitalization by the taxpayers, Irish banking sector remains as dysfunctional in terms of its operations and strategies as ever.

Top level data on Government Guaranteed banks, provided by the Central Bank of Ireland, shows that in 2011, loans to Irish residents have fallen by €63.25 billion on 19% with €30.3 billion of this decline coming from the non-financial private sector – corporate, SME and household – loans. Loans to non-residents are down €40.9 billion or 29%.

Over the same period of time, deposits from Irish residents contracted €42.5 billion or 18%, with Irish private sector deposits down €11.2 billion or 10% on 2010. Non-resident deposits have shrunk 35% or €36.1 billion at the end of 2011 compared to the end of 2010.

The Government spokespeople are keen on pushing forward an argument that in recent months the numbers are starting to show stabilization. Alas, loans to Irish residents outstanding on the books of the guaranteed banks are down 7% for the last three months of 2011 compared to the third quarter of the same year. All of this deterioration is accounted for by losses in private sector loans which have fallen €21.7 billion or 12% in Q4 2011 compared to Q3 2011. Deposits from Irish residents are up €2.04 billion or 1% over the same period, due to inter-banks deposits rising €2.3 billion, while private sector deposits are down €384 million.

The ‘best capitalized banks in Europe’ – as our Government describes them – are not getting any healthier when it comes to core financial system performance parameters. Instead, they are simply getting worse at a slower pace.

The outlook is bleaker yet when one considers top-level risk metrics for the domestic banking sector. On the books of the Covered Banks, domestic private non-financial sector deposits are currently one and a half times greater than all foreign deposits combined. On the other side of the balancesheet, ratio of assets issued against domestic residents to assets issued against foreign residents now stands at 159% - the highest since December 2004. Again, this means that banks balancesheets are becoming more, not less, dependent on domestic deposits and assets, which in turn means more, not less risk concentration.

This absurdity passes for the State banking sector reforms strategy that force Irish banks to unload often better performing and more financially sound overseas investments in a misguided desire to pigeonhole our Pillar Banks into becoming sub-regional players in the internal domestic economy. In time, this will act to reduce banks ability to raise external funding and, thus, their future lending capacity.

Aptly, the latest trends clearly suggest increasing concentration and lower competition in the sector across Ireland. While ECB only reports a direct measure of market concentration (or monopolization) for the banking sector through 2010, the trends from 1997 reveal several disturbing facts about our domestic banking. Firstly, contrary to the popular perspective, competition in Irish banking did not increase during the bubble years. Herfindahl Index – the measure of the degree of market concentration – for banking sector in Ireland remained static at 0.05 in 1999-2001, rising to 0.06 in 2002-2006, and to 0.09 in 2009-2010. Secondly, back in 2010, our banking services had lower degree of competition than Austria, Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden. On average, during the crisis, market concentration across the EU banking sector rose by 8% according to the ECB data. In Ireland, this increase was 29% - the fastest in the euro area. Lastly, the data above does not reflect rapid unwinding of foreign banks operations in Ireland during 2011, or the emerging duopoly structure of the two Pillar banks.

Meanwhile, the banks continue to nurse yet-to-be recognized losses on household, SMEs and corporate loans as recent revision of the personal bankruptcy code induced massive uncertainty on risk pricing for mortgages at risk of default. In addition, Nama constantly changing plans to offer delayed repayment loans and mortgages protection, destabilizing banks risk assessments relating to existent and new mortgages, property-related and secured loans. The promissory notes structure itself pushes the IBRC to postpone as much as possible the winding up process.

To summarize, evidence suggests that seven months after the Exchequer completed a €62.9 billion recapitalization of the Irish banks, our banking system is yet to see the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Far from being ready to lend into the real economy, Irish banks continue to shrink their balancesheets and struggle to raise deposits. Their funding profile remains coupled with the ECB and Central Bank of Ireland repo operations – a situation that has improved slightly in the last couple of months, but is likely to deteriorate once again as ECB launches second round of the long term refinancing operations at the end of this month. In short, our banking is still overshadowed by the zombie AIB, IL&P, and IBRC.

Let’s hope Bank of Ireland, reporting next week, provides a ray of hope. Otherwise, the latest Government guarantees scheme can become a risky pipe dream – good for some short-term PR, irrelevant to the long-term health of the private sector and damaging to the Exchequer risk profile.

CHART

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

Box-out:

This week, Minister Richard Bruton, T.D. has made a rather strange claim. Speaking to RTÉ's News, Mr Bruton said that last year's jobs budget had created 6,000 jobs in the hotel and restaurant sector. Alas, per CSO’s Quarterly National Household Survey, the official source of data on sectoral employment levels in Ireland, seasonally adjusted employment in the Accommodation and food service activities sector stood at 119,100 in Q3 2009, falling to 118,200 in Q3 2010 and to 109,700 in Q3 2011. While jobs losses in 12 months through Q3 2011 – the latest for which data is available – were incurred prior to June 2011 when the VAT cuts and PRSI reductions Minister Bruton was referring to were enacted. But even if we were to look at seasonally adjusted quarterly changes in hotel and restaurant sector employment levels, the gains in Q3 2011 were a modest 1,400 not 6,000 claimed by the Minister. In reality, any assessment of the Jobs Programme announced back in May 2010 will require much more data than just one quarter so far reported by the CSO. That, plus a more careful reading of the data by those briefing the Minister.

31/10/2011: IRL5 banks - no signs of real improvements in September

Few posts back I looked at the latest data for Irish banking system stability from the CBofI. Here, I complete my analysis by focusing on 5 covered institutions or IRL 5 (previously known as IRL 6 before the merger of Anglo & INBS into IBRC).

Here's the data:

• Borrowing from the euro system by IRL5 has risen from €68,430mln in August to €70,340mln in September. Year on year, this is still down 4.73% or €3,489mln, but at that rate of unwinding IRL6 liabilities to euro system will take, oh, some 20 years (!)... Mom, the increase in borrowing from the euro system was €1,910mln or more than 50% of the reductions achieved yoy.
• Deposits from Irish residents in IRL6 were up from €192,431mln in August to €193,929mln in September, prompting cheers from the Irish Times and Department of Finance, among others. Mom rise of 0.78% or €1,498mln contrasts a 22.22% decline yoy in very same deposits or €55,393mln loss. In other words, to get us back to September 2010 levels (not exactly healthy ones) at current rate of mom increase would take 37 months. In the last three months, on average, deposits were down €26,337mln compared to 3 months through June 2011 (-12.05%).
• The mystery of rising deposits is explained easily by looking at their composition: Monetary and financial institutions (aka other banks) have seen their deposits in IRL5 rising €1,298mln in September (+1.47%) mom, although these deposits are down €32,308mln or -26.53% yoy. This explains 87% of the entire increase in the overall deposits.
• In addition, General government deposits also rose €333mln in September (+16.28%) mom, explaining the remainder of the rise in overall deposits, heralded by our Green Jerseys as 'signs of improvement/stabilization' in Irish banks.
• In contrast to the above two sub-categories, private sector deposits in Irish banks (IRL 5) have shrunk in September by €133mln (-0.13%) mom and are down 18.12% (-€22,589mln) yoy. September marked 5th consecutive month of declines in private sector deposits, which have shrunk by €6,135mln since April 2011.

As mentioned above, borrowings from the euro system have gone up in September. In contrast, as shown in the chart below, total borrowing from the ECB & CBofI have declined slightly in September to €123,596mln from €124,379mln in August (a mom drop of 0.63%). Year on year, the borrowings are still up massive €28,572mln or 30.7%. Over the last 3 months (July-September), average borrowings from the euro system and CBofI declined 1.39% or €1,748mln compared to 3 months from April through June.

Loans to irish residents have contracted once again in September, reaching €294,224mln against August levels of €294,503. The declines were accounted by drops in loans to MFIs and increases in loans to the General Government (+€58mln) and Private Sector (+€95mln). hardly anything spectacular.

Now to the last bit - recall that the comprehensive reforms of the Irish banking sector envision deleveraging Irish banks to loans-deposits ratio of 125.5%. These targets were set in PCARs at the end of March 2011. back in march 2011, LTD ratios stood at 143.25% for all of the IRL6/IRL5 and 173.71% for private sector LTD ratio only. Since then, if anything was going up to the CBofI / Government plans, we should have seen at least some reductions in LTDs.

As chart above illustrates:

• Overall LTD ratio for IRL5 at the end of September 2011 stood at 151.72% - below August reading of 153.04%, but well ahead of March 2011 reading of 143.25% and certainly much ahead of the target of 125.5%.
• For private sector loans and deposits, LTD ratio was 174.61% in September - ahead of 174.29% in August and still above 173.71% back in March.

And the summary is: there's no real stabilization or improvement I can spot in the above for IRL5.

24/09/2011: Anglo Bonds and National Accounts

Note: corrected figures below (hat tip to @ReynoldsJulia via twitter).

Per Nama Wine Lake blog - an unparalleled true public service site on Irish debacle called Nama and many matters economic and financial, Irish Government (err... aka ex-Anglo Irish Bank, aka Irish Bank Resolution Corporation*) is on track to repay USD $1bn (€725m) unsecured unguaranteed senior Anglo bond on 2nd November 2011.

The gutless, completely irrational absurdity of this action being apparent to pretty much anyone around the world obviously needs no backing by numbers, but in the spirit of our times, let's provide some illustrations.

According to the latest QNA, in current market prices terms, Irish GNP grew in H1 2011 by a whooping grand total 0f €307 mln from €64,337 mln in H1 2010 to €65,012 mln in H1 2011, when measured in real terms. This means that Anglo bondholders payout forthcoming in November will be equivalent of erasing 28 months and 10 days worth of our economic growth.

According to the CSO data on national earnings, released on September 8, 2011, Ireland's current average earnings across the economy stand at €687.24 per week, implying annualized average earnings of €35,736.48. Irish tax calculator from Delloite provides net after-tax (& USC) income on such earnings of €28,287.39 per annum. This means that Anglo bond payout in November is equivalent to employment cost of 25,630 individuals.

According to CSO's latest QNHS data, in April-June 2011 there were 304,500 unemployed individuals in Ireland. This means the jobs that Anglo bond payout could cover are equivalent to 8.42% of the current unemployment pool.


I am not suggesting for a minute that we should simply use the money to 'create' government jobs - anyone who reads this blog or my articles in the press etc would know I have no time for Government-sponsored jobs 'creation'. But, folks, the above numbers are startling. We are about to p***ss into the proverbial wind the amount of money that is enough to cover our entire economy's growth over 2 years, 4 months and 10 days! For what? To underwrite 'credibility' of the institution that is a so completely and comprehensively insolvent?

* Note 1 that Anglo still calls itself Anglo (until October 14th) and still insists it is a bank as the web page http://www.angloirishbank.ie/ states clearly [emphasis mine] that: "As a Nationalised Bank since January 2009, the key objective of Anglo Irish Bank’s Board and new senior management team is to run the Bank in the public interest... The Bank continues to provide business lending, treasury and private banking services to our range of customers across all our locations."

Note 2:
The above, of course, assumes that €725mln exposure is hedged against currency fluctuations. If not, as Nama Wine Lake points out, the exposure rises to ca €740mln. The above figures therefore change to:

• GNP growth equivalent of 2 years, 4 months and 28 days
• Number of average earnings jobs of 26,160, plus one part-time job
• 8.59% of currently unemployed
  

10/08/2011: Bank of Ireland Interim Results H1 2011

Bank of Ireland interim results are out today, confirming, broadly speaking several assertions I've made before. You can skip to the end of the note to read my conclusions, unless you want to see specifics.

The numbers and some comments:

• Operating profit before impairments down from €479mln to €163mln. Profits before tax rose to €556mln compared to €116mln a year ago. Please remember that PCAR tests assumed strong operating profit performance for the bank through 2013. BofI net loss was €507mln reduced by the one-off gains of €143mln. While it is impossible to say from these short-run results if PCAR numbers are impacted, if deterioration in underlying profit takes place, ceteris paribus, recapitalization numbers will change.
• Impairment charges fell from €1,082mln to €842mln - which is good news. The decline is 22.2% - significant, but on a smaller base of assets and contrasted with 72% drop off in operating profit.
• Residential mortgages impairments shot straight up from €142mln to €159mln against a relatively healthier mortgages book that BofI holds. This 11% rise overall conceals a massive 30% increase in Irish residential mortgages impairments in 12 months. Again - predicted by some analysts before, but not factored fully into either PCAR tests or banking policies at large. Despite claims by Richie Boucher that these are in line with bank expectations, the bank expects mortgages arrears to peak in mid-2012. This is unlikely in my view, as even PCAR tests do not expect the peak to happen until 2016-2017. In addition, the bank view ignores the risk of amplified defaults should the Government bring in robust personal bankruptcy reform. The PCAR indirectly accounted for this, but in a very ad hoc way.
  
• So mortgages arrears in Ireland are now running at 4.55% for owner-occupiers and 7.84% for buy-to-let mortgages, with 3,900 mortgage 'modified' in the period and 5,000 more in process of 'modifications'.
• Past-due loans stood at €5.743 billion in H1 2011 down from €5.892 billion in H2 2010. However, impaired loans rose from €10.982 billion in H2 2010 to €12.311 billion in H1 2011. So overall, past-due and impaired loans accounted for 16% of the loan book (at €18,054 million) in H1 2011 against 14% of the book (€16,874 million) in H2 2010. (see table below)

• Total volumes of mortgages held by the bank is now €58 billion down from €60 billion in H1 2010. However residential mortgages held in Ireland remain static at €28 billion, so there appears to be no deleveraging amongst Irish households despite some writedowns of mortgages in the year to date.
• SME and corporate loans volumes dropped from €31 billion a year ago to €28 billion in H1 2011.
• Property and construction loans declined €1 billion to €23 billion of which €19 billion is investment loans (down €1 billion) and the balance (unchanged yoy) is land.
• So far, as the result of deleveraging, bank assets book became more geared toward residential mortgages (52% as opposed to 51% a year ago), less geared toward SME and corporate sector (25% today as opposed to 26% a year ago) and unchanged across Property and Construction (20%), but slightly down on consumer loans (3%). In other words, the bank is now 72% vested into property markets against 71% in H1 2010.
  
• With only 1/2 Bank of Ireland's assets sourced in Ireland, impairments were reduced by 22% by its operations abroad, which contributed to almost 50% reduction in its underlying pretax loss. This suggests that as the bank continues to sell overseas assets, its longer term exposure to Ireland will expand, implying that the positive impact of the disposed assets on the bottom line will be reduced as.
• Table below breaks down impaired loans and provisions, showing - as the core result that overall impaired loans as % of all loans assets is are now at 11%, against 9.2% at the end of December 2010.
• Coverage ratios are generally determined by the nature of the loan assets and the extent and quality of underlying collateral held against the loan. Across the bank, impairment provisions as a percentage of impaired loans declined from 45% in H2 2010 to 44% at H1 2011. The coverage ratio on Residential mortgages increased from 67% to 72% over the period. However, Residential mortgages that are ‘90 days past due’, where no loss is expected to be incurred, are not included in ‘impaired loans’ in the table below. This represents added risk due to potential inaccuracies in valuations on underlying collateral and/or value of the assets. If all Residential mortgages that are ‘90 days past due’ were included in ‘impaired loans’, the coverage ratio for Residential mortgages would be 29% at
  30 June 2011, unchanged from 31 December 2010. Which, means that risk offset cushion carried by the bank would not have increased since December 2010. In H1 2011, the Non-property SME and corporate loans coverage ratio has increased to 42% from 40% on H2 2010. The coverage ratio on the Property and construction loans was 38% at 30 June 2011 down from 42% at 31 December 2010 primarily due to an increase in Investment property loans which are ‘90 days past due’ that are "currently being renegotiated but where a loss is not anticipated".
  
  

• Per bank own statement: ‘Challenged’ loans include ‘impaired loans’, together with elements of ‘past due but not impaired’, ‘lower quality but not past due nor impaired’ and loans at the lower end of ‘acceptable quality’ which are subject to increased credit scrutiny.
• Table below highlights the volumes of challenged loans.
• Pre-impairment total volume of loans stood at €111.902bn of which €24.464bn were challenged - a rate of 21.9%. In H2 2010 the same numbers were €119.432bn, €23.787bn or 19.9%. In other words, they really do know how to lend in BofI, don't they? Every euro in five is now under stress according to their own metrics.
  

• Per bank statement, deposits remain largely unchanged at the bank at €65 billion (through end of June), same as at the end of December 2010.
  
• This is offset by the fact that parts of its UK deposits book has grown over this period of time, implying contraction in deposits in Ireland. The bank statement shows Irish customer deposits at €34 billion in H1 2011, down from €35 billion in H1 2010. The UK deposits overall remained static at €21 billion (due to stronger Euro against sterling, with sterling deposits up from 18bn to 19bn year on year).
• With ECB/CBofI funding BofI to the tune of €29 billion, the above figures imply that the bank in effect depends on monetary authorities for more funds than its entire Irish customers deposits base, which really means that it is hardly a fully functional retail bank, but rather a sort of a hybrid dependent on the good will of Euro area subsidy.
  
• Loans to deposits ratio fell to 164% - massively shy of 122.5% the Regulator identified as the target for 2011-2013 adjustments. Which means that the scale of disposals will have to be large. This in turn implies higher downside risk from disposal of performing assets (selection bias working against the bank balance sheet in the future). The bank needs to sell some €10 billion worth of loans and work off €20 billion more by the end of 2013 to comply with PCAR target to reduce its dependence on ECB funding.
  
• Reliance on the Central Bank funding is down €1 billion to €29 billion - and that is in the period when the Irish Government put €3 billion of deposits into BofI.
  
• The Gov (NTMA) deposits amount to €3 billion and were counted as ordinary deposits on the Capital markets book, in which case, of course, the outflow of the real Irish deposits from the bank was pretty big. BofI provides an explanation for these numbers on page 2o of its report, stating: "Capital Markets deposits amounted to €9.7 billion at 30 June 2011 as compared with €9.2 billion at 31 December 2010. The net increase of €0.5 billion reflects the receipt of €3 billion deposits from the National Treasury Management Agency (which were repaid following the 2011 Capital Raise in late July 2011) partly offset by loss of deposits as a result of the disposal of BOISS whose customers had placed deposits of €1 billion with the Group at 31 December 2010 and an outflow of other Capital Markets deposits of €1.5 billion during the six months ended 30 June 2011."
  
• Hence, excluding Government deposits, the bank deposit book stood at €62 billion. Factoring out Gov (NTMA) deposits into the loans/deposits ratio implies the ratio rising to 172% from 164%.
  
• Wholesale funding declined €9 billion to €61 billion with some improved maturity (€3 billion of decline came from funding >1 year to maturity, against €6 billion of decline in funding with <1 year in maturity). The bank raised €2.9 billion in term loans in 2 months through July 2011 - a stark contrast to the rest of the IRL6 zombies.

• Net interest margin - the difference between average lending rates and funding costs - fell from 1.41% in H1 2010 to 1.33% in H1 2011 as funding costs rose internationally and as Irish households' ability to pay deteriorated further. Net interest income was down 14% as costs of deposits rose.
  
• In addition, the cost of the government guarantee of Bank of Ireland's liabilities rose 58% from H1 2010 to €239mln in H1 2011.
  
• By division, underlying operating profit before impairment charges fell in all divisions.
• Cost income ratio shot up from 61% a year ago to 83% in H1 2011.
• It's worth noting the costs base at the bank: Operating expenses were €431mln for H1 2011, a decrease of €36mln compared to H1 2010. Average staff numbers (full time equivalents) = 5,519 for H1 2011 were 101 lower on H1 2010. The staff numbers, therefore, are really out of line with decreasing business levels

• Bank Core tier 1, and total capital ratios were 9.5% and 11.0% respectively, against 31 December 2010 Core tier 1, and total capital ratios of 9.7%, and 11.0%. Were €3.8 billion (net) equity capital raising completed at 30 June 2011, the Group’s Core tier 1 ratio would have been 14.8%. Note that, much unreported: "A Contingent capital note with a nominal value of €1.0 billion and which qualifies as Tier 2 capital was issued to the State in July 2011." This comes with maturity of 5 years. The note has a coupon of 10%, which can be increased to 18% if the State wish to sell the note. If the Core tier 1 capital of the Group’s falls below 8.25%, the note automatically converts to ordinary stock at the conversion price of the volume-weighted average price of the ordinary stock over the 30 days prior to conversion, subject to a minimum conversion price of €0.05 per unit.

Summary:

• Overall, BofI confirmed with today's results that it is the only bank that we can feasibly rescue out of the entire IRL6 institutions, as impairments in BofI decline is contrasted with ca 30% rise in impairments at the AIB over the same H1 2011.
• However, severe headwinds remain on mortgages side and provisioning, funding and costs.
• The figures for impairments and 'challenged' loans show that the bank faces elevated risks on at least 22% of its loans.
• The figures on funding side show that the bank is still far from being a functional self-funding entity.
• The figures on deposits side show that it continues to lose business despite shrinking its margins to attract depositors.
• The figures on staffing and costs side show that the bank management has no executable strategy to bring under control its operating costs.
• The figures on lending side show the the bank is amplifying its exposure to property rather than reducing it, in effect becoming less diversified and higher risk.
• The figures on deleveraging side show that the bank risk profile can be severely adversely impacted by the CBofI-mandated disposals of assets.
  

And that's folks, is the best bank we've got of all IRL6!

13/05/11: CBofI accounts

Update: Namawinelake blog has an excellent post on the lunacy of Government treasury management exposed by the CBofI's latest accounts - read it here.


On April 7, 1775, Samuel Johnson made his famous pronouncement: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". This statement caught the chord with many other illustrious thinkers. Ambrose Bierce's The Devils Dictionary: “In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. ...I beg to submit that it is the first." In 1926, H. L. Mencken added that patriotism "...is the first, last, and middle range of fools.”

Whether one can separate a scoundrel from a fool or the first refuge from the last, in recent years we have seen Government officials who have exhibited all four attributes of false 'patriotism'.

No doubt, the decision by the Irish Minister for Finance to instruct NTMA to deposit €10.6 billion of state money with the Irish banks were not supposed to be amongst one of them. However, motivated by a 'patriotic' desire to provide a temporary support for the zombie institutions, artificially increasing their deposits base, this was a significant mistake from the risk management point of view.


Irish banks are experiencing a severe liquidity crisis, as the latest figures from the CBofI clearly show (Table A.2, column E). Lending to Euro area credit institutions has risen from 30 April 2010 levels of €81.25 billion to the peak of €136.44 billion by the end of October 2010 and now stands at a still hefty €106.13 billion (April 29, 2011), down €8.37 billion on the end of March. That's folks - our banks debts to the ECB. As far as banks debts to the CBofI itself are concerned, these have declined by some €12.64 billion to €54.15 billion March to April 2011. Chart below plots combined ECB and CBofI 'assets' that are loans to the Irish banks.
So the banks are still under immense pressure on the liquidity front.

As far as their solvency is concerned, BalckRock advisers estimated back in March 2011 the through-cycle expected losses in excess of €40 billion for just 4 out of 6 Irish 'banks'. Although these relate to 'potential' losses, the likelihood of these occurring is high enough for the CBofI to provision for €24 billion of these.

Either way, Irish banks are not really the counterparties that can be deemed safe.

There is an added component to this transaction - under the deposits guarantee, the Irish Exchequer holds simultaneously a liability (a Guarantee) and the asset (the deposit) when Mr Noonan approved the transaction. Before that, the Exchequer only had an asset. In effect, balance-sheet risk of this transaction was to reduce the risk-adjusted value of the asset it had.

Lastly, the entire undertaking smacks of the Minister directly interfering in the ordinary operations of NTMA which is supposed to be independent of exactly such interference.

So whether Minister's 'patriotism' of supporting Irish banks was the first or the last resort or the first and the last range, the outcome of his decision to prop up banks balance sheets with artificial short-term deposits was an example of a risky move that has cost NTMA its independence and reputation. The move achieved preciously little other than destroy risk-adjusted value of Government assets. Not exactly a winning combo...

02/03/2011: Village Magazine - March edition article

Here is an unedited version of my column in the current edition of the Village magazine

Top legislative/policy priorities for the new Government should focus on addressing the four crises we face – the banking sector renewal, the debt crisis, the need to dramatically reform our economy and the long-term reform of our political and governance systems. The inter-connected nature of these crises implies that some of the reforms undertaken in one of the areas, such as, for example, fiscal adjustments, will have a positive long term effect in other areas, e.g. in stimulating private sector economic growth.

Given the constraints of the space, let me deal here first with the decisions that should take priority for the new Government over 2011 in the areas of banking and finance.

EU/IMF ‘bailout’ package: the new Government will be forced, willingly or not, to renegotiate the terms of the original agreement. Given the level of debt carried by this economy courtesy of the previous Government commitments, the question of the need for such a revision of the ‘deal’ is no longer a valid one. Instead, the real question we face is what path to a ‘default’ or debt restructuring do we take and resolving this issue should be the top of our Government agenda.

Overall, there are three possible scenarios that the new Government can face in this respect.

The first one – the scenario of exogenously imposed resolution – implies that the impetus for altering the terms of the original November 2010 agreement can come from the EU itself under the auspices of the broader EFSF reforms. Under this scenario, expected eagerly by many pro-status quo or ‘do nothing’ advocates, the EU is likely to marginally reduce the cost of the EFSF funding to, say 5% from the current 5.83% and potentially extend the duration of the loans (up to 20-30 years), while creating a ‘flexibility fund’ which will make additional funding available to Ireland post-2013, but at higher rates of interest incorporating any future increases in the ECB core policy rate. In exchange for such a ‘rescue from previous rescue’ package, Ireland will be asked to accept the need for enhanced fiscal coordination– re: tax harmonization.

The second path is of structured and orderly ‘default’ involving banks debts. Under such a scenario, Irish Government should first prepare significant buffers for dealing with the funding failure in the currently insolvent banks. Since not all of our Government-guaranteed banks are insolvent, this means that the damage limitation is relatively better contained than the current full exposure scenario. In fact, an orderly restructuring will require replacing the blanket Guarantee with the one that covers fully only the deposits held in the Irish banks. This will significantly reduce taxpayers’ future exposure to the banking sector.

At the moment, the entire banking system in Ireland holds €168.3bn in deposits. However, not all of these are held in the 6 covered banks. In addition, of the above deposits, €10.5bn is held under the termed contracts with maturity in excess of 2 years. Roughly, only ca €100bn of domestic deposits are held by the Irish banks and is subject to a withdrawal demand within the next 2 years. This means that to underwrite these deposits, the Government will need a funding buffer of ca €30-50bn over the next 2 years (providing a 30-50% cover). This buffer can be provided by a combination of new currency issuance by the CBofI, NPRF funds and a stand by facility from the IMF not exceeding €5-15bn. A far cry from what the Government, alongside the EU and IMF, are planning to burn already.

Of course, the scenario means that we will need to effectively radically reduce our banks exposure to their largest lender – the ECB. This can be done by restructuring the share of Irish banks debt held by the ECB and the CBofI into a combination of a 10 year loan at a fixed interest rate of 0.5% and a haircut of, say, 40%, in effect reducing the risk of future rollovers, while cutting the overall burden of repayment and the cost of financing. Along with it, the EU/IMF should also agree to a restructuring of the €67.5bn loan extended under the November 2010 agreement into, for example, a €35bn perpetual loan at 3% pa interest rate and a €30bn loan extended for 10 years at 1.5-2% pa interest. The key in both deals should be to achieve not only a reduction in the cost of financing the quasi-Governmental (banks) and Government debt, but also cutting the overall level of gross debt assumed.

The worst-case scenario would arise if the markets were to force Ireland into a disorderly default. In this case, the markets will execute a massive sell-off of Irish Government debt preceded by a complete collapse of the secondary markets in banks debts. This will leave the ECB with some €185 billion worth of Irish banks debts that will have virtually no real market value and an unknown (but sizeable) volume of Irish Government debt which will be selling at a 20-30% discount on the face value. Both, the sovereign bonds and the banks debt markets will cease. Overnight and demand deposits will be frozen and the country will find itself in the situation where the Central Bank will have to monetize the very same costs of the orderly restructuring scenario, plus the disruptive costs of a bank run at the same time. Instead of holding the buffers of cash and committed funds it might not have to draw down in full, the ECB system will end up in a situation where all cash will have to be delivered as soon as technically possible.

It is clear that a prudent Government action should be from day one to prepare for the second, less disruptive scenario.

Following the entry into the resolution process of the banks debts, the Government should swiftly address the banks balancesheets problems. Here, the actions should follow the Swedish model and start with the abandonment of the misguided Nama-based approach. The Government should order the six banks to supply – by the end of June – a full accounting of the loans they hold, with clear indication as to the riskiness of these loans with respect of the probability of their repayment, the quality of the underlying collateral and titles. By the end of August 2011, the Government should complete detailed evaluation of this information by an independent panel of economic, property, lending and finance experts. Parallel to this, the Government should set an exact target for banks bondholders writedowns to offset at least in part loans losses in the banks. All bonds repayments and interest payouts for banks debts due for 2011 should be suspended. The balance on the expected losses net of the funds recoverable from bondholders should be financed by the purchase of the direct equity in the banks by the Government at a price for banks shares at the time of the publication of the assessment exercise. The time-frame for such closing of the balancesheet gaps should be set for no later than November 2011.

Nama loans that belonged to the banks should be valued as banks’ own in the above exercise and following the completion of the valuations, Nama should be shut and loans transferred back to the banks for management.

Subsequent deep reforms of the banks strategies and operations should be scheduled for the first quarter 2012.

Parallel to this, the Government should submit to the Dail no later than June 2011 a full draft bill dealing with reforms of our personal bankruptcy codes. These reforms should at the very least:

Make past and future loans for the purchase of personal residence non-recourse against the person of the borrower and his/her future income and assets;
Reduce the period of bankruptcy restrictions to just 2 years and complete removal of the bankruptcy history from credit history after 5 years of continued financial probity performance; Replace a blanket ban on companies directorships for individuals in bankruptcy with a restriction on their holding such directorships subject to satisfactory financial probity conduct during the bankruptcy period;
Restrict applicability of the Loan-to-Value ratio covenants in forcing the liquidation of the existent loans where the borrower continues to pay at least 75% of the interest on the mortgage.

The new bankruptcy laws should come into force as soon as possible and prior to that, the Government should impose a requirement that no state-guaranteed institution can bring new bankruptcy proceedings against homeowners.

Lastly, the Government should act swiftly to put in place an independent expert panel consisting of independent economists, financial analysts and banking experts that will function as a check on the Government decisions in the area of banking and financial services reforms. The panel should be required to provide quarterly reports and testimonies to the Dail which will be made public. The panel will have the powers to propose specific measures to the Government, to request and receive any information from the banks and financial services provider (subject to upholding the required confidentiality clauses) and question any bank official. The panel remit will only cover those institutions in which the Government holds at least a 35% stake and those that are covered by the State guarantee.

Of course, the above measures will help addressing a large share of our debt problem, effectively reducing the Government and banks’ debts, while alleviating the burden of personal debt for mortgage holders. However, other changes will have to take place in the areas of economic, fiscal and political reforms. These proposals will be outlined in a follow up article, so stay tuned.

Economics 28/06/2010: G20 to euribor: beware of the central banks

Update: with a slight delay on this blog's timing - Reuters picks up the same thread here.


Another Monday, another set of pear shape stats.

First, we had a farcical conclusion to a farcical meeting of G20. If Pittsburgh summit was a hog wash of disagreements, Toronto summit had a consensus view delivered to us, mere mortals who will pay for G20 policies. This consensus was: G20 leaders called for

• austerity, but not too much (not enough to derail growth, but enough to correct for vast deficits - an impossible task, assuming that public deficit financing has much of stimulating effect in the first place);
• generating economic growth (with no specifics as to how this feat might be achieved);
  
• increased tax intake (to help correct for deficits); and
• no changes to be made to the global trade and savings imbalances.

In other words, G20 decided that it is time to have a 4 course meal without paying for one.

Then , on the heels of these utterly incredible (if not outright incompetent) pronouncements by G20, Bank for International Settlements (BIS) came in with a stern warning to the Governments worldwide to cut their budget deficits "decisively", while raising interest rates. Funny thing, BIS didn't really see any irony in cutting deficits, while raising the overall interest bill on public debt. Talking of Aesopian economics - let's pull the cart North and South, in a hope it might travel West.

In many ways, BIS got a point: “...delaying fiscal policy adjustment would only risk renewed financial volatility, market disruptions and funding stress” said BIS general manager Jaime Caruana. Extremely low real interest rates distort investment decisions. They postpone the recognition of losses by the banks, increase risk-taking in the search for (usually fixed) yield, perpetuating nearly economically reckless financing of sovereigns that cannot get their own finances in order, and encourage excessive levels of borrowing by the banks.

Continued water boarding of the western economies with cheap cash through Quantitative Easing operations by the CBs risks creation of zombie banks and companies with sole purpose in life to suck in liquidity from the markets. Alas, the problem is - shut these zombies down and you have no means for monetizing public debt in many countries, especially in the Eurozone. Boom! Like the main protagonists in Stephen King's movies, governments around the world now need zombies to rush into their disorganized homes before the whole plot of deficit financing blows up in their face.

BIS also warned that many economic experts and central banks are underestimating inflation risks. And this is just fine, assuming you are dealing with short term investment horizons. However, for a Central Bank to ignore the possibility of a restart of global inflation - fueled by the emerging markets growth and later also supported by accelerated inflationary pressures in the advanced economies following the re-flow of liquidity out of the bank vaults into the real economy once writedowns are recognized and banks balancesheets stabilise - is a very dangerous game. inflation, you see, is sticky.

And inflation might be coming. Look no further than the Fed (here) and the US Administration insistence on the need for continued debt-financed stimulus.

Or, look no further than the movements in the interbank lending markets:

So the long term Euribor is up, up and away despite all the Euro area leaders' talk about fiscal solidarity funds and tough austerity measures. Think: why? Either the interbank markets don't believe in Euro area's ability to get its own house in order (which they certainly don't) or they believe that future inflation will be higher (which of course they do)...

Hence, shorter maturities are in an even more pronounced push up:

While dynamically, the trends are deteriorating:
Now, think about the Irish banks (Spanish, Portuguese, Greek - etc) that are on life support of interbank markets and ECB. Can they sustain these credit prices?.. While facing continued writedowns?.. Don't tell I did warn you about these.

Economics 30/10/2009: Reliance or dependency

Quick points on post-Nama recapitalisation, credit flows from ECB to Ireland and Frank Fahey encounter with an egg...

I have done some sums on demand for equity capital by Irish banks post-Nama. Assuming underlying conditions for loans purchases as outlined in Nama business plan, using 6% core equity ratio as a target (remember, this is a lower target by international standards) and assuming no further deterioration in the loans books quality post-Nama:

• AIB will require €3.2-3.5bn in equity capital post-Nama;
• BofI will need €2.0-2.6bn;
• Anglo will need €4.5-5.7bn;
• INBS/EBS & IL&P will require total of €1.1-1.2bn.
• Total system demand for equity will be in the range of €9.7-12.4bn.

Approaching the same issue from the angle of Risk-Weighted Assets, system-wide demand for equity will be around €10.8bn post-Nama. This will extend Nama-associated rescue costs to:

• €54bn in direct purchases;
• €5bn in completion 'investments' with estimated further €3-5bn in future completion additional funds;
• €1bn in legal, advisory and management costs;
• €9.7-12.4bn in equity injections;
• Past measures €11bn.

Net of interest costs and losses, total price tag looks now like €84-88.5bn. This, for a system that can be fully repaired through a direct equity-based recapitalisation at a cost of roughly €32bn.


Our agriculture is the heaviest subsidised in the EU (and indeed in the world). This fact has never troubled our policymakers, as if subsidies are a sign of industry viability and strength, as long as they are being paid by other countries taxpayers (as in the case of CAP).

Now, we have become the biggest ECB liquidity junkie by far. Table below from RBS research note shows the dramatic level of financial life support our economy requires.
Note that the above list of countries includes heavily crisis-impacted Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, APIIGS (less Ireland), aggregated in the 'Other' grouping. And yet... they all have larger economies than Ireland and smaller demand for liquidity injections.

Does anyone still believe that Nama can add liquidity to our economy? Or that such an addition can improve lending conditions? Apparently, ECB-own lending operations were not able to do so to date...


And on related note, there is an interesting quote from Dr Alan Ahearne in a recent article in the Southern Star newspaper (here):

"As one economist warned last year, ‘buying the assets at inflated prices would amount to a back-door recapitalisation of the banks’. Best practice ‘is for the banks to recognise the losses on these loans up front and sell the assets at fair market value’. Whose words? Dr. Alan Ahearne – now economic advisor to Brian Lenihan and one of the chief advocates for NAMA. Go figure."

Well, not much to figure, really - call this miraculous conversion a '€100K effect' triggered by new employment...

Oh, and while we are on Nama, here is an excellent 'Public Anger at Nama' account of the latest Leviathan encounter by Peter Mathews. I wonder if Senator Boyle and Frank Fahey get the point - people are angry at the way the country is mismanaged, but they are even angrier at being pushed into Nama.