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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: NTMA and author own calculations.

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

Box-out:

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

25/1/2012: Return to the Bond Markets

According to the report in FT Alphaville (link here) Ireland has 'returned' to the bond markets by carrying out a swap of a 4% coupon 2014-maturing bond for a 4.5% coupon 2015-maturing bond. This reduces 2014 outgoings on redemption of maturing bonds and forces more maturity into 2015, which has more benign profile. But the switch comes at a price - the coupon is up 12.5% on previous.

In effect, if this is less of an Ireland's 'return to the bond markets', more of Eddie 'The Eagle' Return to the Olympics type of an event. Much pomp (official announcements and Government statements to follow), no circumstance (Ireland still cannot fund itself outside the Troika agreement), and even less real substance (avoiding a total blowout in 2014 is now clearly an objective for policy measures). But hey, let it be a much needed 'green jerseying' distraction, as FT Alphaville suggests, to the gruesome reality of Ireland torching another €1.25 billion worth of taxpayers' funds on that pyre called IBRC/Anglo.

1/1/2012: That debt overhang problem: replay

I am delighted to note that John Mauldin is also stressing the issue of total real economic debt overhang that I have been vocal about for some time now. Here's his 2012 predictions post: http://www.businessinsider.com/mauldin-collateral-damage-2011-12
that also contains this delightful chart:

And, spot the one country that stands out? Yep, that's Ireland - second to Japan in terms of total combined debt/GDP ratio, and well ahead of Japan when GNP is referenced in the above.

I have highlighted the issue of debt overhang and the long term real growth drag exerted by it in a number of articles now, including articles in the Sunday Times, the Globe and Mail, Ireland's Village magazine and on this blog. At last, analysts are starting to pay attention to the issue.

20/12/2011: IMF IV Review of Ireland Programme

Fourth review of Ireland's programme under the Troika package is out and makes for some interesting reading. As usual, between-the-lines reading skills required. This is the first post on the report, focusing on housing markets and mortgages arrears.


The review is overall positive, complimentary and almost glowing. This warrants a number of caveats:

• The review is based on QNA data through H1 2011, so Q3 2011 fall-off in GDP and GNP are not factored in
• The review is based on the general data sources through mid-October, so November Exchequer results do not appear to have been factored in either

Aside from the strengths highlighted in the media, here are the critical points of the report. Mortgages arrears first, with subsequent posts dealing with other core issues covered.

"However, housing market and household debt indicators continue to deteriorate (Figure 2). With the fall in house prices accelerating in October to 15.1 percent on an annual basis, prices are down 45.4 percent from their peak in 2007. The rate of mortgage arrears by value continued to rise, reaching 10.8 percent in September 2011 (8.1 percent in terms of the number of mortgages), up from 6.6 percent in September 2010. With the share of longer-term arrears (greater than 180 days) continuing to rise, the authorities have deepened their analysis of the mortgage arrears problem (Box 1)."

Of interest here is the analysis the IMF refers to. Here is the summary (quoted from the IMF report, my comments in italics):

1. Aggregate mortgage arrears continue to rise sharply and in September 2011 reached 8.1 percent by the number of loans to owner-occupiers. 
2. To better understand the nature of mortgage distress, the CBI has utilized loan-by-loan data from end-2010 that were collected as part of the review of banks’ capital needs published at end-March 2011. [I am puzzled with this statement. CBI clearly stated at the time of PCARs that they did not analyse individual loans data for mortgages, but considered samples of mortgages. At a later date - in September 2011, CBI gave a presentation of a study based on the specific loans data, but this was also based on a sample of data, a large sample, but still a sample, not the entire population of the mortgages on the books of 4 banks.]
3. Of those households in arrears over 90 days, almost 40 percent have been in this position for a year or more. The average amount of arrears on these loans is €27,000, compared with an average outstanding balance of just over €200,000. [Please, keep in mind, per IMF, this is data through the end of 2010, so it is, by now - one year old!]
4. On top of arrears of 90 days or more, there are a significant number of borrowers who have restructured loans or delinquent payments of less than 90 days, bringing the total affected to about 20 percent of borrowers at end-2010. [These figures - 20% of borrowers either in arrears or restructured, or as I call these 'at risk' - is much greater than reported by the CBI in their quarterly report, showing for Q3 2011 that only 12.96% of all mortgages outstanding were either in arrears, restructured or repossessed]
5. Arrears tend to be highest in relation to buy-tolet properties and first-time buyers, as these purchasers took on large debts owing to high house prices during 2005–08. 
6. Negative equity is extensive. It is estimated that 36 percent of owner-occupier households with mortgages in these institutions are in negative equity (at September 2011 house prices). [This, of course, is now higher again, as October and November price declines totalled 3.71%] 
7. For owner-occupier loans taken between 2005 and 2008 (half of outstanding loans), 48 percent of properties are in negative equity, while 52 percent of buy-to-let loans are in negative equity. [The two numbers are remarkably close to each other.]
8. Negative equity does not imply arrears. Despite widespread negative equity amongst borrowers, the vast majority of negative equity borrowers, over 90 percent, were not in arrears at end-2010. 
9. About half of owner-occupier borrowers in arrears at end-2010 had positive equity, with around 38 percent having at least 20 percent equity in their homes. The average negative equity of owner-occupiers without arrears is €68,000, modestly smaller than the average of €84,000 for owner-occupiers in arrears. [Which, of course, means that these arrears can be dealt with at no loss to the banks via a combination of restructuring, equity stakes assumption by the banks and/or foreclosures. In the end, this also means that significantly less resources will be needed to help those who are in negative equity and at risk of arrears - i.e. those who are subject to punitive provisions of our personal bankruptcy code]
10. Buy-to-let properties. Of the total loan book analyzed, 22 percent (€20 billion out of €87 billion), relates to buy-to-let property debt. The average outstanding balance for the 52 percent of buy-to-let properties in negative equity is about €320,000 and the average negative equity is just over €100,000.
11. Within the four institutions covered by the Financial Measures Program, 33 percent of buy-to-let borrowers also have an owner-occupier mortgage with the same lender.  

Some very interesting observations from the IMF summary of the CBI evidence on drivers of arrears: 

• Studies, including from other countries, point to unemployment, debt service, and loan-to-value ratios as key determinants for arrears, although geography and loan vintage are also important, as are rental and payment rates for buy-to-let properties. 
• Data availability can be an issue, however, especially for current income. 
• An alternative approach developed a transition matrix for predicting mortgage arrears based on loan vintage, borrower type, interest rate type, and region.

There's no summary of the transition matrix provided.

Here are three more interesting charts relating to the Irish property market:

28/11/2011: Updated data for 2007-2010 Government Debt: Ireland

The CSO issued today updated - revised - figures for General Government Debt for Ireland. here's the core changes:

As you can see, the error due to the DofF double counting has been now rectified and the adjusted 2010 GGD now stands at €144,269 million. This, to remind you, does not include Nama liabilities, but it does include the promissory notes issued to Anglo & INBS. Table below details holdings of the Irish Government debt (as of May 2011):

16/11/2011: Irish Mortgages Crisis

Unedited version of my latest Sunday Times article (November 13, 2011).

Per latest data available to us – at the end of June 2011, there were 777,321 outstanding mortgages in Ireland. Of these, 55,763 mortgages were in arrears more than 90 days, up 53% on same period a year ago. In addition, 39,395 mortgages were ‘restructured’ but are currently ‘performing’ – in other words, paying at least some interest. Adding together all mortgages in arrears, repossessions, plus those that were restructured but are not in arrears yet, 95,967 mortgages (12.3% of the total) amounting to €17.5 billion (or 15.2% of the total outstanding mortgages amount) are currently at risk of default, defaulting or have defaulted.

Given the trend in these developments to-date, we can expect that by the end of 2011 there will be some 114,000 mortgages in distress in Ireland. By the end of 2012 this number can rise to over 161,000 or some 21% of the total mortgages pool in the country.

This is a staggeringly high number. When considered in the light of demographic distribution and vintages, 21% of all mortgages that are likely to be in arrears around the end of 2012-the beginning of 2013 will account for up to 30% of the total value of mortgages outstanding.

Mortgages at risk of default

Source: Central Bank of Ireland and author own calculations

This is a simple corollary from the fact that mortgages crisis is now impacting most severely families in their 30s and 40s, with more recent and, thus, larger mortgages signed around the peak of the property bubble. These households are facing three pressures in today’s environment.

Firstly, they are experiencing above-average unemployment and income pressures. Per Quarterly National Household Survey, in Q2 2011, unemployment rate for persons aged 25-34 was 16.5% and unemployment rate for those in age group of 35-44 was 12.4, both well ahead of the 8.95% average unemployment rate for older households. By virtue of being more concentrated in the middle class earning categories, they are also facing higher tax burdens than their lower-earning younger and more asset-rich older counterparts.

Secondly, they are facing higher costs of living, further depressing their capacity to repay these mortgages. More likely to live on the outer margins of commuter belts, our middle-income earners are facing more expensive cost of commute, courtesy of higher energy prices, high taxes associated with car ownership and the lack of viable public transport alternatives. In September this year, prices of petrol were 15.4% above their levels a year ago. Inflation in diesel prices is running at 14.8%. Cost of road transport increased 5% in a year through September, and bus fares are up 10.8% These households are also facing higher costs associated with raising children. Since the time these families bought their houses (e.g. 2005-2007), primary and secondary education costs went up 21-22%, and third level education costs rose 32%. On average, larger families require greater health spending, the cost of which rose 3.4% year on year in September and now stands at 16% above 2005-2007 levels. The three categories of costs described above comprise ca 19% of the total household budget for an average Irish household and above that for a mid-aged household with children.

Thirdly, as their disposable incomes shrink and mortgage costs rise (mortgages-related interest costs are up 17.2 year on year and 11% on 2006), the very same households that are hardest hit by the crisis are also missing vital years for generating savings for their old age pensions provisions and most active years for entrepreneurship and investment.

In short, courtesy of the crisis and the Government policy responses to it to-date, Ireland already has a ‘lost generation’ – the most economically, socially and culturally productive one. And this generation is now at the forefront of the largest homemade crisis we are facing – the crisis of mortgages defaults and personal bankruptcies.

Against this backdrop, the forthcoming Personal Bankruptcies Bill should form a cornerstone of the Government’s policy.

This week, the media reported some of the specifics of the forthcoming legislation, which include two crucial details: the 3-years release period for personal bankruptcy and the non-recourse nature of the arrangement. Under the former, the current period of bankruptcy will be cut from 12 years to 3 years, while under the latter, the new bankruptcy law will limit the extent of the household liability to the current value of the property underlying the mortgage. It is uncertain, at this stage, what claims, if any, can be levied against personal and family savings and other assets.

The provisions, as reported in the media, appear to be well-balanced for a normal bankruptcy reform, but remain excessively harsh for the legislation designed to tackle an acute crisis. Here’s what is needed.

A conditional bankruptcy release period for mortgages taken in the period of 2003-2008 should be set at 12 months subject to satisfactory completion of court-set conditions. Full release should apply after 3 years. There should be no restriction on companies directorships for those in the process, so as not to reduce entrepreneurship and small business ownership.

The lien against the personal income and assets should be designed as follows. No more than 25-35% of the after-tax disposable income can be diverted to the repayment of the mortgage, to allow for private sector rent payments. No more than 30% of the household assets below €25,000 can be used to repay the residual mortgage post-foreclosure. The amount can rise to 50% for assets valued between €25,001 to €50,000 and to the maximum of 70% for assets valued over €50,000. This will minimize losses to the banks, disincentivise strategic defaults and reduce moral hazard, while still allowing families to retain safety cushion of savings to offset the risks of sudden income losses or illness.

Banks objections to relaxing bankruptcy laws, raised this week, is that the new law will trigger a significant demand for capital as losses due to non-recourse clauses will be borne by the lenders. This is simply not true.

Firstly, with some claim on family assets in place, bankruptcy process will still be used only in the cases of extreme financial distress. A combination of a limited liability applying to some family assets and a 3-year repayment period will create both a disincentive to abuse the system and a cushion of burden sharing, reducing the end losses to the banks.  Savings on interest payments supports and legal costs will further reduce taxpayers potential exposure.

Secondly, the stress tests carried out earlier this year were supposed to provide ample supports for the banks against mortgages defaults. Blackrock estimates of the worst-case scenario losses on Irish mortgages over the life-time of the loans amount to €16.3 billion split between €10.2 billion owner-occupier and €6.1 billion for buy-to-let borrowers. Central Bank of Ireland assumed 3-year losses amount to the total of €9 billion. Reformed bankruptcy law is unlikely to raise the Blackrock estimates for life-time losses, but is likely to push forward the defaults that would have occurred outside the Central Bank-assumed time frame of 2011-2013. In other words, unless the stress tests performed were not rigorous enough, or the Central Bank assumptions on 2011-2013 defaults were not realistic, capital supplied to the banks post PCARs already incorporates expected losses.

Either way, there is neither an economic nor moral justification for using bankruptcy laws as a tool for locking borrowers in servitude to the lender. During the boom, the Irish state and banks have acted recklessly toward the very same borrowers. The duty of care to protect consumers and investors was abandoned by the previous Financial Regulator, the banks, public authorities in charge of regulating property markets and, ultimately, the Governments that presided over the system, which put full burden of risks associated with property purchases on the buyers. Remedying this requires giving distressed borrowers some powers to compel burden sharing vis-à-vis the banks.

Box-out:

This week, the entire world was consumed with the saga of Silvio Berlusconi’s resignation. Played out across the media – from print to facebook – the story of the ‘departing villain’ was almost comical, were it not tragic in the end. Tragic not so much in the inevitable rise in Italian bond yields, but in the sense of denial of reality that the media and political circus that surrounded Mr Berlusconi’s departure from power. Italy is a Leviathanian version of the zombie economies of Greece and Portugal. Between 1990 and 2010, Italian real GDP grew at an average rate of less than 1% per annum, less than half the rate of Spain, Greece and Portugal. Italian growth in exports of goods and services, over the same period was roughly one half of the rate of growth in Spain and 1.5 times lower than that for Greece and Portugal. Italy’s unemployment rate averaged just below that for other 3 countries. Italian fiscal deficits, at an average of 5.2% per annum, were greater than those of Portugal (3.3%) and Spain (3.1%), but lower than those in Greece (7.8%). Ditto for structural deficits. These are hardly attributable to Mr Berlusconi alone and are unlikely to be altered dramatically by his successors. While it is easy to point the finger at the internationally disliked leader, the truth remains the same – with or without Berlusconi, Italy is a nation with a dysfunctional economy.

16/10/2011: Negative Equity and Debt Restructuring

This is unedited version of my article in Irish Mail on Sunday (October 16):

This week, we finally learned the official figure for what it would cost to address one of the biggest problems facing this country.

According to the Keane Report - or the Inter-Departmental Mortgage Arrears Working Group Report - writing off negative equity for all Irish mortgages will cost “in the region of €14 billion”. Doing the same just for mortgages taken out between 2006 and 2008 would require some €10 billion.

These numbers are truly staggering, not because of they are so high, but the opposite: because they contrast the State’s unwillingness to help ordinary Irish families caught in the gravest economic crisis we have ever faced with the relatively low cost it would take to do so.

Let me explain.

Firstly, the figure of €14billion itself is a gross overestimate of the true cost of dealing with negative equity. This is because this figure appears to include not just owner-occupiers but also people with buy-to-let loans in his sums.

Secondly, the real amount required to get rid of negative equity where it matters most – for ordinary first-time buyers - is lower still. For example the scheme could be set up in a sliding scale based on value of house compared to average house prices. This would reduce the final cost of the scheme and help those who need it most - moderate income and younger-age households.

In other words, a realistic and effective debt cancellation scheme can be priced at closer to €6-8 billion instead of the €10-14 billion estimated in the report.

In its simplest form it would work like this: say you bought a house for €300,000, with a mortgage of €250,000, and it is now worth just €150,000. The government, or the bank using the recapitalisation funds they have received, would pay off the €100,000 difference.

By doing this your monthly payments would be less, and you could now sell up to pay off the debt or move house, and in the meantime the extra money you have to spend could go back into the economy.

The scheme could even be set up so that write downs would be smaller on houses with above average values so as to prioritise young and low-earning families. In the above example, if the house was purchased for, say €500,000 and is no worth half that amount, the bank would write-off, say, €200,000, leaving the household with residual negative equity of €50,000. This would still improve affordability, but will also cut the overall cost of the scheme.

So why did the report completely rule this out? It was very clear on this topic: “a blanket debt or negative equity forgiveness scheme would not be an effective use of State resources and would not solve the problem,’ it says.

But it goes further, claiming that “the primary driver of mortgage arrears is affordability, not negative equity. While a write-down of negative equity would help mortgage holders in arrears, in many cases it is unlikely to create an affordable mortgage”.

I believe this rejection betrays the overall lack of understanding by our senior civil service officials of the problems we face.

The Irish economy is suffering primarily from three things. The biggest is excessive household debt.

While this would be bad enough, it is exacerbated by two additional factors. The cost of the government’s policy of bailing out our banks, which is being paid for with higher taxes on ordinary working households. And the rising cost of mortgagesdue to aggressive drive by Irish banks to improve their profit margins at the expense of the most vulnerable mortgage holders - those with adjustable rate mortgages who cannot protest. Both contribute to mortgages defaults.

By saying that cancelling negative equity will not be a magic bullet solution to the problem of the defaulting mortgages, the report is simply referencing the smaller problem of mortgage affordability to evade addressing the effects of the much larger crisis facing us.

Negative equity is the single most egregious and damaging segment of the debt problem faced by Irish families.

It is the most egregious because it was caused not by reckless borrowing, but by reckless lending by the banks - actively supported at the time by the Irish Government.

The problem of negative equity is the result of state policy in the first place, and it is up to the state to rectify it.

And contrary to the assertion of the report and Government claims, we do have the funds to deal with negative equity. Freeing these funds to help ordinary families is just a matter of priorities for the Government and the state-controlled banks.

To-date, the Irish Government has injected €63 billion worth of taxpayers’ funds into Irish banks.

Various other commitments, and the banks’ own state-guaranteed borrowings from the Central Bank bring the total cost of keeping our banking sector working to a gross figure of about €125 billion.

Yet while they have saved the banks, all of these measures have acted to increase, rather than reduce, the level of debt being carried by the households of this country.

In addition to their own household borrowings like credit cards or credit union loans, mortgages-holders are now in effect liable both for banks’ debts and their losses on property development and investment.

In contrast, even at Keane’s upper estimates, the cost of paying off negative equity liabilities for household mortgages would require just one ninth of the funds we have made available to the banks.

Last July the Government injected some €19 billion worth of capital into Irish banks. This capital is provided to cover potential future losses on loans. This included €9.5 billion, which was the estimated worst-case scenario for losses on residential mortgages. It also included another €8.9 billion to cover remaining expected losses on commercial property.

If some of these funds were used instead to restructure negative equity mortgages on family homes it would do two things for the banks.

Firstly, because the banks would now have securities as valuable as the mortgages they have given, a mortgage default would not be such a threat in terms of losses. This then reduces the bank’s need for further capital.

Secondly, the writedown of the mortgages will prevent defaults in the first place, at least for some families.

This implies that prioritising how that money is used to help mortgages rather than losses on commercial property loans, will be a more effective way to improve their balance sheets.

And it’s not like the money is not there. Our banking system currently has surplus capital available. Since August this year, our ‘pillar’ banks, instead of helping the struggling households, have used taxpayers funds to quietly buy high-yield Irish Government bonds.

Some €3 billion worth of Government debt was bought by the banks using our money in order to beef up their own profits. Don’t tell us that the banks cannot afford negative equity restructuring when they clearly can afford buying junk bonds in the markets to book higher profits.

And the farcical nature of Irish government responses to the mortgages and personal debt crises continues.

The Keane report ruled out increasing tax relief on mortgage interest finance for first time buyers during the boom, 2004-2008. Why? Because the estimated cost each year would have been €120 million.

Yet, come November, the very same state will pay in full the unguaranteed and unsecured €737 million debt of the bankrupt zombie Anglo. Between Anglo and INBS, the state has also committed to repaying in full €2.4 billion more of similar bonds in 2012.

Instead of repaying un-guaranteed bondholders, the Government should use the funds available to the banks to cancel commercial property-related losses on banks books, freeing the capital injected for this purpose in July this year to restructure negative equity mortgages.

Earlier this year, I proposed that Irish Government impose an obligatory restructuring of all mortgages to achieve a maximum Loan-to-Value ratio of 110%.

This would reduce the problem of ‘moral hazard’ because households with greater borrowings will still be left with more debt than their more prudent counterparts. But it would also reduce the overall debt burden faced by our families, freeing them to return to active economic and social life, helping to restart the Irish economy. Based on the Keane Report’s own estimates of the cost of such a scheme we have more than enough money to make this choice.

All we need is the will - the will to free hundreds of thousands of Irish families from the negative equity jail that was built by reckless banks which lent the money with explicit approval of the previous Governments.

26/09/2011: Ireland's Debt Overhang - unprecedented, unmanageable & unsustainable

A recent paper, titled "The real effects of debt" by Stephen G Cecchetti, M S Mohanty and Fabrizio Zampolli (05 August 2011) presented at the "Achieving Maximum Long-Run Growth" symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, 25-27 August 2011 put forward evidence on the overall effects of debt overhang - across public, private corporate and household debts - on the real economy.

Here is the summary of their findings, followed by a closer look at the implications of these for Ireland. I have to warn you - the latter are highly disturbing.

The authors argue that although debt can be used to drive growth and development, "...history teaches us that borrowing can create vulnerabilities. When debt ratios rise beyond a certain level, financial crises become both more likely and more severe (Reinhart and Rogoff (2009)). This strongly suggests that there is a sense in which debt can become excessive."

The authors set out to answer a simple question: When does the level of debt go from good to bad? 'Bad' as in producing the effect of lowering long term economic growth in the economy.

To do so, the authors used a new dataset that includes the level of government, non-financial corporate and household debt in 18 OECD countries from 1980 to 2010.

The core results "support the view that, beyond a certain level, debt is bad for growth":

• "For government debt, the threshold is in the range of 80 to 100% of GDP... Our result for public debt has the immediate implication that highly indebted governments should aim not only at stabilising their debt but also at reducing it to sufficiently low levels that do not retard growth. Prudence dictates that governments should also aim to keep their debt well below the estimated thresholds so that even extraordinary events are unlikely to push their debt to levels that become damaging to growth." Furthermore, "when government debt rises to [threshold] level, an additional 10 percentage points of GDP drives trend growth down by some 10-15 basis points."
• "Up to a point, corporate and household debt can be good for growth. But when corporate debt goes beyond 90% of GDP, our results suggest that it becomes a drag on growth."
• "And for household debt, we report a threshold around 85% of GDP, although the impact is very imprecisely estimated."
  

The table below shows the core results from the paper and adds the comparable data for Ireland (Ireland was not included in the analysis). Make sure you are seating before reading it:
As shown in the table above, using the study estimates, the potential reduction in Irish GDP growth over the long term horizon arising from the combined debt overhangs is 2.1%.

The table also shows that the largest impact from debt overhang for Ireland arises from corporate debt, followed by household debt. Despite this, our Government's core objective to-date has been to deleverage banks and to contain Government debt explosion. In fact, the Government is consciously opting for loading more debt onto households - by reducing disposable after-tax incomes and refusing to implement significant savings in the public sector expenditure.

Yet, folks, our debt levels are extreme. They are more than extreme - the table below shows comparable combined public and private (non-financial) debt for the countries in the study sample, plus Ireland.
And the reates of our debt increase during the crisis are also extreme:

In fact, we have both - the highest level of debt to GNP ratio, the second highest debt to GDP ratio and the fastest increases in 2000-2010 in both ratios in the developed world. In the nutshell, this means we are more bust than the most bust economy in the world - Japan. Unlike Japan, however, we are faced with:

• No prospect of devaluation
• No prospect of controlling our interest rates
• Young population that requires growth and jobs creation, and
• Much heavier levels of private and corporate debt - i.e. debt that has more significant adverse economic effects than sovereign debt.
  

Yet, even exporting powerhouse of Japan is not delirious enough to believe their debt overhang can be brought under control via 'exports-led' growth.



Now, much of the issues and data discussed in this post relate to the question raised in the Dail by Peter Mathews, TD, who relentlessly pursues, in my view, public interest in raising such questions. The record of his question and Minister Noonan's answer is provided below:

14/09/2011: Ireland & Portugal are allowed to restructure some of their sovereign debts

The EU Commission issued its proposals for altering terms and conditions of loans extended under the EFSM (and same is expected for EFSF). The details of release are here.

The move comes after July 21 EU summit agreement to alter these terms and took surprisingly long to deliver. This has nothing, I repeat - nothing - to do with the claimed efforts by the Irish Government to secure similar reductions over recent months. The reductions come on the foot of the EU-wide deal for Greece.

Per Commission statement: "The Commission proposes to align the EFSM loan terms and conditions to those of the long standing the Balance of Payment Facility. Both countries should pay lending rates equal to the funding costs of the EFSM, i.e. reducing the current margins of 292.5 bps for Ireland and of 215 bps for Portugal to zero. The reduction in margin will apply to all instalments, i.e. both to future and to already disbursed tranches."

Two critically important points here:

• The reductions, especially for Ireland, are significant in magnitude and will improve Ireland's cash flows and net small reduction in debt burden over time. However, much of these are already factored in recent debt and deficit projections.
• The reductions are retrospective, which is a very important point for Ireland.

Further per EU Commission statement: "...The maturity of individual future tranches to these countries will be extended from the current maximum of 15 years to up to 30 years. As a result the average maturity of the loans to these countries from EFSM would go up from the current 7.5 years to up to 12.5 years."

Two more important points follow from the above:

• Extended maturity in combination of lower coupon on borrowings imply significant cuts in NPV of our debt from EFSM, which, in turn, means that under current EU Commission proposal we will undergo a structured credit event (aka - an orderly default). When this course of action was advocated by myself and others calling for the Irish government to force EU hand on providing for structured default, we were treated as pariahs by the very same 'green jersey' establishment that now sings praise to the EU largess.
  
• Second point is that, as I have noted back in July, this restructuring implies longer term maturity period and can result in total net increase in our overall debt repayments, were we to delay implementation of austerity measures. The silver lining, folks, does have a huge cloud hanging over it.

Lastly: "...the new financial terms will bring benefits such as enhanced sustainability and improved liquidity outlooks. Moreover, indirect confidence effects through the enhanced credibility of programme implementation should result in improved borrowing conditions for the sovereign as well as the private sector."

In effect the above implies that absent such reductions and maturity extensions, Ireland and Portugal are unable to remain on a "sustainable" path and/or lack or experience a deficit of "credibility" whne it comes to their adjustment programmes. That, of course, is plainly visible to all involved.

So here we are, folks - we now had:

1. Bank defaulting on some of its liabilities - and cash machines kept on working
2. Government undergoing debt restructuring - and cash machines keep on working.

Not the end of the world, is it?

12/09/2011: IMF admits failures in debt risk forecasting frameworks

In the analysis published just minutes ago, the IMF ("Modernizing the Framework for Fiscal Policy and Public Debt Sustainability Analysis" by the Fiscal Affairs Department and the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department, dated for internal use from August 5, 2011) implicitly admits deep errors in the methodology for analyzing public debt dynamics. Given the magnitude of errors reported by the IMF (see table summary below), the entire exercise puts the boot into the EU-led attacks on the Big 3 ratings agencies - it turns out that the wise and uncompromisable IMF was not much good at dealing with fiscal sustainability risks either.

Here are the core conclusions: "Modernizing the framework for fiscal policy and public debt sustainability analysis (DSA) has become necessary... [This paper] proposes to move to a risk-based approach to DSAs for all market-access countries, where the depth and extent of analysis would be commensurate with concerns regarding sustainability..."

DSA could be improved, according to the IMF report, through a greater focus on:

• Realism of baseline assumptions: "Close scrutiny of assumptions underlying the baseline scenario (primary fiscal balance, interest rate, and growth rate) would be expected particularly if a large fiscal adjustment is required to ensure sustainability. This analysis should be based on a combination of country-specific information and cross-country experience." (Note that in Ireland's case such analysis would probably require, in my view, using GNP metrics in place of GDP).
• Level of public debt as one of the triggers for further analysis: "Although a DSA is a multifaceted exercise, the paper emphasizes that not only the trend but also the level of the debt-to-GDP ratio is a key indicator in this framework. [Apparently, before the level of debt didn't matter much, just the rate of growth in debt - the deficit - was deemed to be important] The paper does not find a sound basis for integrating specific sustainability thresholds into the DSA framework. However, based on recent empirical evidence, it suggests that a reference point for public debt of 60 percent of GDP be used flexibly to trigger deeper analysis for market-access countries: the presence of other vulnerabilities (see below) would call for in-depth analysis even for countries where debt is below the reference point." [So, now, folks, no formal debt bounds, but 60% is the point of concern. Of course, by that metric, IMF would have to do country-specific analysis for ALL euro area states]
• Analysis of fiscal risks: "Sensitivity analysis in DSAs should be primarily based on country-specific risks and vulnerabilities. The assessment of the impact of shocks could be improved by developing full-fledged alternative scenarios, allowing for interaction among key variables..." [Another interesting point, apparently the existent frameworks fail to consider interacting risks and second order effects. That is like doing earthquake loss projections without considering possibility of a tsunami.]
• Vulnerabilities associated with the debt profile: IMF proposes "to integrate the assessment of debt structure and liquidity issues into the DSA." [Again, apparently, no liquidity risk other than maturity profile analysis is built into current frameworks]
• Coverage of fiscal balance and public debt: "It should be as broad as possible, with particular attention to entities that present significant fiscal risks, including state owned enterprises, public-private partnerships, and pension and health care programs." [It appears that the IMF is gearing toward more in-depth analysis of the unfunded state liabilities, such as longer-term liabilities relating to pensions and health expenditure, as well as more explicitly focusing on unfunded contractual liabilities, such as specific contractual exposures on state pensions. If that is indeed the case, then there is some hope we will see more light shed on the murky waters of forthcoming sovereign exposures that are currently outside the realm of exposures priced in the market.]

Now, several interesting factoids on sovereign debt forecasts and sustainability as per IMF paper.

Here's the summary of IMF own assessment of its forecasting powers when it comes to Ireland: "The 2007 Article IV staff report included a public DSA, which showed that government net debt (defined as gross debt minus the assets of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the Social Insurance Fund) was low and declining. In the baseline scenario, net debt was projected to fall from 12 percent of GDP in 2006 to 6 percent of GDP by 2012. The medium-term debt position was judged to be resilient to a variety of shocks. The worst outcome-a rise in net debt to 16 percent of GDP in 2012-occurred in a growth shock scenario. Staff identified age-related spending pressures as the most significant threat to the long-run debt outlook. The report noted that, although banks had large exposures to the property market, stress tests suggested that cushions were adequate to cover a range of shocks. Net debt to GDP subsequently increased nearly fivefold from 2007 to 2010, owing to a sharp GDP contraction and large fiscal deficits linked mainly to bank recapitalization costs."

No comment needed on the above. The IMF has clearly missed all possible macroeconomic risks faced by the Irish economy back in 2007.

On Greece: "In the 2007 Article IV staff report, staff indicated that fiscal consolidation should be sustained over the medium term given a high level of public debt and projected increases in pension and health care costs related to population aging. ...In the baseline scenario, public debt to GDP was projected to fall from 93 percent in 2007 to 72 percent in 2013. All but one bound test showed debt on a declining path over the medium term. In the growth shock scenario, debt was projected to rise to 98 percent of GDP by 2013. Two years later, staff warned that public debt could rise to 115 percent of GDP by 2010-even after factoring in fiscal consolidation measures implemented by the authorities-and recommended further adjustment to place public debt on a declining path."

So another miss, then, for IMF.

Here's the summary table on these and other forecast errors:

Next, take a look at a handy summary of debt sustainability thresholds literature surveyed by the IMF (largely - sourced from IMF own work):
So for the Advanced Economies (AE), debt thresholds range from 80-150 percent of GDP, the range so wide, it make absolutely no sense. Nor does it present any applicable information. By the lower bound, every euro area country is in trouble, by the upper bound, Greece is the only one that is facing the music. Longer term sustainability bound is a bit narrower - from 50% to 75%, with maximum sustainable debt levels of 183-192%.

And, for the last bit, off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities and actual debt levels chart:
Here's an interesting thing. Consider NPV of pension and health spending that Ireland is at - in excess of aging economies of Italy, Japan and close to shrinking in population Germany. One does have to ask the question: why the hell does the younger economy of Ireland spend so much on age-linked services and funds?

Another thing to notice in the above is that there appears to be virtually no identifiable strong statistical relationship between debt levels and pensions & health expenditures. This clearly suggests that the bulk of age-related spending looking forward is yet to be factored into deficits and debt levels. Good luck with getting that financed through the bond markets, I would add.

16/05/2011: Debt Restructuring - two insights

What if, folks... what if default or debt restructuring is the end game?

Here are two sets of thoughts on the topic. The first one is from the Lisbon Council and the second set is adopted (via my edits) from here.

Lisbon Council launched last week Thinking the Unthinkable: Lessons of Past Sovereign Debt Restructurings See , an e-brief by Alessandro Leipold, chief economist of the Lisbon Council and former acting director of the European Department at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). See www.lisboncouncil.net for full details

Mr. Leipold argues that "European debt resolution requires a much more forward-leaning, information-driven approach, involving

• Supplying markets with better, more timely information (including tougher banking stress tests - I would give credit here to CBofI which did carry out much more rigorous testing of Irish 4 than the EU has ever allowed to take place across the euro area)
  
• Abandoning untenable timelines (such as the “no-restructurings-before-2013” mantra), and
  
• Staying ahead of the game via recourse to tools such as pre-emptive bond exchange offers

Mr. Leipold draws five key lessons from past sovereign debt restructurings:

1. Avoid Detrimental Delays. Delays in restructuring are costly (output losses, entail “throwing good money after bad” via increasingly large official bailouts, and ultimately require a larger haircut on private claims). Realistic debt sustainability analyses are needed to detect, and communicate, the possible need for debt restructuring. The EU’s “read-my-lips: no-restructuring-until-2013” sets an arbitrary and non-credible deadline: the sooner it is abandoned, the better.
2. Repair the Banking Sector. The equation “euro debt crisis = core European bank crisis” needs to be broken. I might add that the equation 'euro debt & banks crises = European taxpayers destruction' must be broken even before we break he debt-banks link. This requires getting tough on bank stress tests, enhancing their rigour and credibility, possibly by associating the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and IMF with European Union supervisors. Banks tests must be accompanied by much greater pressure from EU supervisors to speed up bank recapitalisation and to close down non-viable entities. Banking resolution legislation should proceed rapidly, as should creation of an EU-wide bank resolution mechanism.
3. Remove Politics from the Driver’s Seat. The current set-up, including the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which will begin operations in 2013), "virtually ensures that EU creditor countries’ domestic political interests will play a front-and-centre role. The recent attempted quid pro quo with Ireland whereby Europe would agree to a reduction in the cripplingly high interest rate on its loans in return for changes to the Irish corporate tax code is but one indication of this. Put simply, the decision-making and governance mechanism should be distanced from the high-pitched political positioning characteristic of EU ministerial meetings, thereby also facilitating constructive communication with markets, and helping shape expectations as needed to promote crisis resolution". I can only add to this that politicization of the economic concept of debt restructuring is also evident within the PIIGS themselves. In Ireland, we have now a virtual army of pundits - many well-meaning, of course - arguing against the restructuring on the basis of (1) 'default'=evil, (2) our debts are sustainable, and (3) current path of delaying restructuring until post-2013 is the optimal choice. These are supported, in some instances via lucrative public appointments, by the political elite.
4. Stay Ahead of the Curve with Preemptive Exchange Offers. "Traditional bond exchange offers, made preemptively, prior to an actual default, worked well in several emerging country debt restructurings over the last decade or so, including Pakistan, Ukraine, Uruguay and the Dominican Republic. Experience indicates that such voluntary restructurings need not, contrary to some claims, be too “soft” for the debtors’ needs. Reasonably priced, and with proper incentives, deals can be concluded rapidly with negligible free riding."
5. Do Not Expect Too Much from Collective Action Clauses. "Contractual provisions such as collective action and aggregation clauses no doubt help at the margin. But they have not shown themselves to be decisive in debt restructurings. Furthermore, they cannot help in dealing with the current stock of debt".

Much of the above prescriptions/warnings is echoed in the tables summarizing debt restructuring options available to the PIIGS that I have edited based on their original source (here).

Both provide one core lesson to us - any state close to the point of no return when it comes to its debt levels (and no one is denying that we are close to that point, all arguments today are about whether we have crossed it or not) should be:

1. Prepared to act
2. Prepared to act preemptively
3. Be transparent about the problems faced

On all 3 so far our officials are failing miserably, although we are making some progress on the 3rd point...

19/03/2011: Updated probabilities of default

Updated probabilities of default and spreads on Irish bonds. As usual, a preventative disclaimer - this is just simple mathematical estimate - what the numbers say. No comment to be added.
Cumulative spreads tell us how much more we are expected to pay for our borrowings over Germany's cost of fiscal deficit financing, over the period of bond maturity. 85% more for 10 years borrowing currently.