Economics 12/08/2009: An afront to our democracy

So Mr Carroll's case has been now refused the examinership by the Supreme Court. Welcome news - at least there is a remnant of sanity left in this country and it is the Judiciary. But the telling reaction to the highest court in the land verdict came from the Department of Finance. In a blatant disregard of the Supreme Court powers, a mere civil servant-run lowly department (that is but a fraction of one of the three pillars of the state) has in effect told the Supreme Court (the highest body of another pillar of this state) to pack off.

In a response penned, most likely well in advance of the Supreme Court decision, the DofF stated that (quoting the Irish Times report - here): "The Department of Finance rejected any suggestion that the Government’s plans for Nama were affected by the court ruling. “It makes no difference – Nama will proceed as planned,” said a spokesman for the Minister for Finance. “We’ve always made clear that Nama will operate in line with EU Commission guidelines, which set out the use of the long-term economic value measurement.”

So Supreme Court telling the nation that, in agreement with the Commercial Court, its assessment of Mr Carroll's assets is that these assets are not worth even 15-20% of loans advanced to the company, 'makes no difference' to the NAMA. We will still pay Euro60bn for the same assets.

Now, do the math, Mr Carroll owes the banks over Euro2bn. He has trouble paying on Euro136mln. His companies are generating around Euro27-30mln per annum - and that according to his company records, that Commercial Court, in the context of his the survival plan, identified as “lacking reality” and bordering, if not trespassing, on the “fanciful”. So here we are, the valuations of Mr Carroll's loans quality is in (this time confirmed by the highest authority in the land):

• According to the courts, Mr Carroll's loans are not worth 21.3% of their face value (in other words, a discount of 78.7% on their value will not bring the price down to the current market valuation) (Euro265mln out of Euro1.26bn = 21.3% value of assets);
• The balance sheet below illustrates clearly that even assuming 7% annual cash flow growth, plus 5% asset growth per annum for 2008-2020, a very benign interest rate environment (note we assume max cycle interest rate of 10% on Mr Carroll's borrowings in Scenario 2) and disposal of all his properties in the end of the term, the net market value of Mr Carroll's companies in 2020 will be a negative Euro5.7-7.5bn.

Now, it is the only attempt of estimate Mr Carroll's loans net worth at this stage known to me, so do take your time to read through it. The really, really scary part, that if NAMA were to buy his loans at a 50% discount, NAMA will be making a cumulative loss of between Euro2.41-2.56bn by 2020. If the discount were to 70%, NAMA resulting losses will be Euro1.19-1.34bn. At a 70% discount, folks!

And DofF still thinks we shall all p***s off: NAMA is here and there is nothing we can do about it!

This is bad news for:

• the responsible and accountable Government and governance, for our DofF in effect is stating the position of the State as 'NAMA - no matter what'; and
• the Irish democracy, for DofF has expressed absolute and public disdain for the highest court of this land.

And thus we have (courtesy of http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2452/3813875003_7e58e1ddc3_o.jpg):

Economics 02/08/2009: Liam Carroll's case

For those of you who missed, here is my article from Saturday edition of Irish Daily Mail

An Irish person recently remarked to me in the context of NAMA that “If any other electorate in Europe, nay, the world, faced this scandal, their citizens would be on the streets.” They would. We have been led to believe that NAMA is a necessary solution for the banks having to write down the odious development debt acquisition of which over the years past was cheered on by the Government through tax breaks and the stamp duty widnfalls. In reality, NAMA is Ireland’s own financial Chernobyl – a self-inflicted devastation of taxpayers’ finances perpetuated for the sake of doing something about the crisis.

By denying the examinership to Liam Carroll’s six companies, the Irish High Court has put itself out as the sole branch of State that stands between the innocent taxpayers and this redlining reactor.

First, let me clearly state that I have no objection to proper developers who build what is truly demanded by the market. They too will be the victims of the NAMA debacle.

Pursued by a creditor, the ACC Bank, Liam Carroll has been languishing in the High Court for a better part of this week, awaiting a decision on whether he will be granted an examinership for six of his companies. An alternative for Mr Carroll was to face an appointment of a receiver – a sure bet that his companies will be shut down. This alternative has now come to its logical fruition – denying Mr Carroll the examinership, the court has forced him to face the music. Receivership is now all but inevitable.

The motivation behind this battle was NAMA. Mr Carroll would like his companies debt to be assumed by the state, allowing for them to continue as an ongoing concern. Mr Carroll even hoped to convince the folks running the bad bank to give him few quid to finish some of his
failed projects. A pipe dream for a businesses that, by his Senior Counsel’s admission generates just €22-23 million in annual revenue against the debts of roughly €1.4 billion. Now, do the maths – a company that was supposed to be bought by us, the taxpayers into NAMA will not be able to cover even 15% of its annual interest bill.

Mr Carroll’s case has serious implications for us all – the Irish taxpayers – as the underwriters of NAMA.

Mr Carroll’s Senior Counsel Michael Cush told the court that the six companies in question, had historically been very successful businesses. But he said more recently they had suffered credit problems, the downturn in the property market, and some “problems with investments”. Per Mr Cush, the companies are clearly insolvent and if liquidated, their unpaid debts will reach €1 billion. This indicates that there is no hope for a recovery of the business and that examinership was rightly denied to them.

But it also shows that there is not a snowballs chance in hell that NAMA will be able to recover any positive value from Mr Carroll’s companies, unless it forces his banks to write down at least €1 billion of some €1.4 billion in loans amassed. That NAMA will do nothing of the sorts, preferring to continue the circus of pretending that these businesses worth something in excess of their debts is clearly something that the courts disagree with.

The NAMA legislation published this Thursday states that the taxpayers will be paying for the current values of the banks loans, while the developers will be pursued for the original loans amounts. Mr Carroll’s case illustrates that currently insolvent businesses continue to accumulate liabilities (rolled up interest and fresh demands for continuity funding) that simply cannot be repaid, ever. These roll up debts are odious, for they are extended to the clearly insolvent companies in the hope that NAMA will simply cover them at a higher rate than the markets would were the banks to go out into the open trying to liquidate these development loans.
Which means that NAMA will be using our money to pay for the rolled up interest on top of already grossly overvalued loans of insolvent enterprises.

Do a simple math, with a 50% fall in the value of underlying assets, 11% interest charge on the non-performing loans and a 25% NAMA discount, the taxpayers will be overpaying for the assets they by to the tune of 70% plus. Put simply, imagine walking into a shop and seeing a TV set on sale. The sign reads: ‘Sale! Original price €100. Sale price €170”. That does look like Minister Lenihan’s bargain for the taxpayers.

Liam Carroll’s case also shows that over the last year, soft budget constraints for insolvent businesses, like Liam Carroll’s empire, were accepted by the banks solely on the anticipation of a state bailout. If not, these banks actively engaged in destroying their shareholders’ wealth by undertaking knowingly reckless decisions. Take your pick.

I have absolutely nothing against Mr Carroll's enterprises, other than the simple argument that if they are insolvent today, the should be shut down today and they should not be allowed to accumulate additional liabilities at our, taxpayers' expense.

The examinership case for Mr Carroll’s companies was not warranted from day one of his application to the court. Minimizing losses to the economy and the taxpayers resulting from his companies farcical ‘operations’ required an appointment of a receiver and no restructuring period under the examinership would have done any good to their solvency. If only the same wisdom of the courts can be applied to NAMA itself.

Economics 28/07/09: NAMA & Liam Carroll's Case

Of course, the news is in - NAMA got Cabinet approval around 7 pm tonight. This does not change much - we still have a battle to wage to ensure that proper taxpayer protection and risk management, as well as investment strategies and stop-loss rules are put in place, but we are now one step further away from seeing it done.


Per RTE report (here), the High Court has delayed its decision to Friday afternoon on an application by six companies controlled by property developer Liam Carroll to have an examiner appointed to them. There are several significant implications of this for NAMA.

First: it is now clear that any decision will hang over the weekend, providing for increased uncertainty in the banks shares valuations in the days before Monday. Irish banks shares are currently valued as a call option on success of NAMA. If Carroll is not granted an examinership, this will open up a floodgate for the banks to race to force the receivership on other developers in a hope of salvaging whatever value they can under the prospect that NAMA will distort the seniority structure of debts. This, in turn will act to reduce the scope of assets left for NAMA to pick off the banks balancesheets and will force the banks to write down the loans under receivership. The resulting decrease in the future valuation of the big 3 Irish banks will translate in the fall of the value of a call option, thereby reducing the price of the banks shares. Forcing the Carroll decision to Friday afternoon leaves the markets in a serious uncertainty for the next 3 trading days – an uncertainty where anyone staying long in Irish banks shares has a 50:50 chance of not coming out alive, comes the opening bell on Monday.

Second: about that 50:50 chance. Reading into RTE report, one gets a serious sense that examinership might be denied to Carroll. “Senior Counsel Michael Cush said the companies, and the wider Zoe group of which they are a part, had historically been very successful property development businesses. But he said more recently they had experienced difficulty due to credit problems, the downturn in the property market, and problems with investments. In particular, he said difficulties arising from the development of a new headquarters for Anglo Irish Bank at North Wall Quay in Dublin had created significant difficulties. He said Vantive Holdings is now clearly insolvent, as are three other companies related to it. If liquidated, he said, the estimated deficiency of the group as a whole would be over €1 billion.”

This indicates that indeed, aside from historical record, there is no chance for a recovery of the business and that receivership, not examinership should be applied.

Mr Cush also said that “following the drawing up of a business plan in 2008, seven of the companies' eight banks had supported the continuation of the businesses. He said this had required huge forbearance from the banks. Part of the plan, he said, had seen AIB and Bank of Scotland Ireland make available additional finance to pay back third party unsecured creditors, which had since been done. Another feature of the plan saw seven of the banks agree to a moratorium on repayment of the loans and the rolling up of interest. But he said ACCBank, which is owed €136m, or 10% of the six companies' bank debts, had taken a different view, and its intention to have the companies wound up had prompted the application for examinership.”

This is also significant not only because it is showing the scale of banks’ willingness to roll over for large developers – itself hardly a laudable practice – but because it shows clearly that currently insolvent businesses continue to accumulate liabilities (rolled up interest and fresh demands for continuity funding) that are simply cannot be repaid, ever. Again, examinership is not warranted here, since loss minimizations should require an immediate appointment of a receiver to wind down the companies. In fact, this claim invalidates the ‘hardship’ argument about receivership resulting in €1bn loss on current obligations, as it shows that this loss is only going to increase under the case of examinership that will not be able to introduce any chance of reducing the probability of such a loss.

Mr Cush “said that given time, forbearance of the banks (none of which is opposing the examinership application) and the orderly disposal of assets, there has to be a prospect of survival for the companies. He also pointed out that the companies are not envisaging having to write off any of the money they owe the banks, and intend repaying in full.” This is simply impossible under the conditions outlined by Mr Cush in previous paragraphs.


“The court also heard that since the new business plan was put in place [in 2008], the companies had sold 39 residential units, worth €11.7 million.” Which, of course puts these companies cash flow at maximum €23mln pa, with expected loss of €1bn and the combined debt of companies of ca €1.4bn. Now, at 11% yield, the cost of servicing this debt will be around €154mln pa – hardly a sign of ‘survivability’ of the companies.

“Summing up, Mr Cush said it was a most unusual application for examinership as it was not being opposed by any creditors, no debts were being written down, and 90% of creditors were co-operating, all of which must satisfy the requirement for there to be a reasonable prospect of survival.” What Mr Cush neglected to mention is that the lack of opposition by the debtors is simply a jostling for seniority between Irish banks, not a reflection on survivability of the firm.


Carroll’s case shows conclusively that NAMA will transfer liability of the banks and developers onto the taxpayers that is well in excess of the original borrowings. Rolled up interest, operating capital injections and other soft budget constraints for insolvent businesses, like Carroll’s empire were accepted by the banks solely on the anticipation of a state bailout (otherwise these banks actively engaged in destroying their shareholders’ wealth by undertaking knowingly reckless decisions). Once again, the markets have neglected this risk. They might have to reprice that call on Irish banks shares now, or risk being repriced by the more proactive traders comes Monday.