9/4/15: IMHO Proposals Concerning Home Repossessions

IMHO proposals to the Department of Finance on the Risk of Significant Home Repossessions is now available here: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s442/sh/e8e02a47-30c0-49c5-9846-d09f1ab9c18f/20f2d8894a0ab47c9fde09b245120436. 

26/12/2014: Household Leveraging and Deleveraging in the U.S.

Household debt deleveraging is one of the key forces currently still working through the Western economies, suppressing investment and spending, and supporting precautionary savings. The U.S., having entered the Great Recession ahead of many other economies, armed with stronger consumer-centric systems of insolvency and personal bankruptcy, and having exited the Great Recession with more robust rates of economic growth than other advanced economies, presents a good example or a case study for this process.

One recent paper, by Justiniano, Alejandro and Primiceri, Giorgio E. and Tambalotti, Andrea, titled "Household Leveraging and Deleveraging" (see FRB of New York Staff Report No. 602: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229366) does exactly that.

Per authors, "U.S. households' debt skyrocketed between 2000 and 2007, but has since been falling. This leveraging and deleveraging cycle cannot be accounted for by the liberalization and subsequent tightening of mortgage credit standards that occurred during the period." Quite strikingly, the authors show that financial liberalisation does not fully explain the cycle.

Instead, "…the credit cycle is more likely due to factors that impacted house prices more directly, thus affecting the availability of credit through a collateral channel. In either case, the macroeconomic consequences of leveraging and deleveraging are relatively minor because the responses of borrowers and lenders roughly wash out in the aggregate."

Of course, the only reasons for this conclusion are the factors mentioned above: the U.S. personal insolvency and debt resolution regimes are far more benign, allowing for a more orderly and less disruptive 'washing out' of adverse effects of household debt overhang.

27/7/2014: "Kragle!"... Lord Business' Prescription for the Irish Economy

There is an interesting and mildly entertaining article in the Sindo (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/patrick-honohan-stay-the-course-its-paying-off-30460638.html#sthash.fHeQGdJO.dpuf), penned by the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Honohan.

Now, before I make few comments on the article, a disclosure: I like reforms and changes Professor Honohan brought to the Central Bank. And I think Professor Honohan has done an excellent job in the past to subtly highlight major bottlenecks in the Irish economic policies.

With that in mind, here are few quotes and some of my comments:

"Managing domestic demand, ensuring the banks are healthy, and offering advice to Government: these are the tasks of the Central Bank, and our measured approach to all three over the past few years has, I believe, borne fruit. Recovery remains slow and partial," said Professor Honohan.

So where are we on these tasks?

Per Professor Honohan, on the banks health: "...it is still not possible to describe them as being fully restored to health and delivering the services needed by the economy." In other words, ensuring the banks are healthy is still unfinished business. Central Bank either walks away from the test on this, or gets a poor grade - you choose.

On domestic demand: "…the total number at work and average living standards are both still well below the peak reached at the top of the bubble. And the elevated debt levels remain a lasting legacy." Now, wait, this also doesn't look like the Central Bank's finer moment, is it?

That was just Professor Honohan's own admissions. Now, here's a chart plotting evolution of domestic demand, 'managed' by the Central Bank:

You wouldn't be calling this 'managing' unless your management job is in demolition business...

Professor Honohan credits the ECB for providing 'some insulation' to mortgagees "who can currently just afford to pay" in the form of "exceptionally low interest rates". But there is a problem with this from the Central Bank's point of view. ECB rates did drop. Significantly. From 3.1% pre-crisis average to 0.15% today - a swing down of 2.95 percentage points. Yet, with all the trackers in, current retail interest rates for outstanding loans have declined (compared to pre-crisis average) by only 0.86 percentage points for mortgages with original maturity between 1 and 5 years, and by only 1.14 percentage points for mortgages with maturity over 5 years. Short term consumer loans rates and overdrafts rates have actually risen. Things are even worse if we are to measure the average rates to peak property lending around 2006, omitting 2007. So 'insulation' might have been provided by the ECB, but as far as Irish Central Bank actions go, these have ensured that the banks can extract more blood out of the economy, not that the banking system supports households in trouble.

There is a bigger problem for Professor Honohan here: if these borrowers 'can currently just afford to pay', what happens to their ability to pay when rates do rise? Or is Central Bank's 'managing banks and domestic demand health' not including looking into the near-term future?

Finally, on something from the Central Bank's own frontline: the mortgages arrears. "At the same time, far too many cases persist where no adequate cooperation between bank and borrower has been achieved. It is mainly for these cases that the banks have gone down the legal path towards repossession. ...I would urge borrowers who have not been cooperating to recognise that that is a hazardous course of action: bear in mind that banks can get court approval for repossession if borrowers are not cooperating."

Professor Honohan is correct - there are many cases in which borrowers in arrears fail to cooperate with the banks. But Professor Honohan neatly omits thousands of cases where certain banks - two of which are Irish Government-rescued and form the 'Pillars' of the 'new banking system' here - are not cooperating with the borrowers. Presumably, criticising the borrowers is Central Bank's job, but criticising the lenders is not…

To sum up, the Central Bank has done quite a bit of a good heavy-lifting job on all fronts. But this is hardly the right time to start talking up its achievements to-date. As Governor Honohan points out himself: "our measured approach to all [policies areas] over the past few years has, I believe, borne fruit." That fruit is: "Recovery remains slow and partial". Not exactly commemorative medals time, yet, eh?..

11/7/2014: Notes on German ESM vote

Here are some of my briefing notes on last night's programme on TV3 covering the latest 'seismic' news on retroactive banks recapitalisations and ESM.


Eurogroup meeting on 20th June 2013 agreed on the main features of the European Stability Mechanism's (ESM) Direct Recapitalisation Instrument (DRI).  I covered the fallout from that meeting here  and here  and here.

Note in the first post above, there is a link to Irish Government-set target of 17% of GDP for retroactive recapitalisation.

• The objective of the ESM's DRI will be to preserve the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and of its Member States in line with Article 3 of the ESM Treaty, and to help remove the risk of contagion from the financial sector to the sovereign by allowing the recapitalisation of institutions directly.
• This does not decouple banking sector from the sovereign, but weakens the links.
• There is a specific provision included in the main features of the DRI, which states: "The potential retroactive application of the instrument should be decided on a case-by-case basis and by mutual agreement."

So do note: it is 'potential' (not assured access) and it is to be decided on case-by-case basis (so no 'symmetric' or 'equal' treatment) and it is 'mutual agreement' (allowing states to block any potential case-by-case deal). There is so much conditionality around this statement, one has to view it as being aspiration rather than prescriptive.

But, on a positive side, June 2013 agreement kept open the possibility to apply to the ESM for a retrospective direct recapitalisation of the Irish banks. I covered this here and the fallout from the second round deal here. The last link covers persistent opposition from Germany to retroactive recapitalisations. And if you thought this has gone away, here's the latest on that.

On June 10, 2014 the euro area member states reached a preliminary agreement on the operational framework for the ESM's direct recapitalisation instrument, DRI.

• This framework does not guarantee that we will get our case approved.
• It does not stipulate how retrospective recapitalization can take place (crucial detail).
• It requires unanimous vote of ESM board of governors (which is basically Council of Ministers).

All of this was forthcoming. See my article from March 2014 on this here.

The above is also confirmed by Minister Noonan on July 3 in the Dail. Minister further stated that: "However, it will not be possible to make a formal application to the ESM for retrospective recapitalisation before the instrument is in place. It would, therefore, be premature to make any submission, be it a technical paper or otherwise, in advance of the instrument being in place."

Incidentally, Minister Noonan's pronouncements on the topic have by now converged to repeating the same statement on every occasion. compare this and this.

So a reminder: After June 2012 summit, Minister Noonan went onto "Today with Seán O'Rourke", and said he expected the retrospective recapitalization agreement to be concluded by November 2012. Now, we are looking at the earliest possible application date or application consideration date of November 2014. But even this application date is uncertain. Methodology for valuation or even structuring recapitalisations is uncertain. In the mean time, we are getting less and less certain if it makes any sense for us to even apply for this measure.

Minister Noonan on the topic again: "When one thinks through the recapitalisation retroactive option, it was always envisaged that there would be some form of exchange of shares in the banks for capital upfront, and that this capital would be used to reduce the debt. While the technical work has been done on it, there is a question of value, price and judgment in all these matters. I certainly do not wish to talk ourselves into a position where just as the banks are becoming valuable, we give them away for the second time." This was stated on July 3 this year in the Dail.

Meanwhile, Bank of Ireland shares we hold have already yielded returns that are EUR1 billion in excess of original recapitalization, excluding the cost of the Bank of Ireland-related measures to the Exchequer via higher borrowing costs in 2009-2013 period.

Value of AIB currently is around EUR11 billion, value of PTSB is virtually nil, which is less than ca EUR23.5 billion we put into the bank and PTSB.

Our borrowing costs are low, and are lower than those of other peripheral states - why would they approve a recapitalization for Ireland? See, for example, most recent pressure points on borrowing costs here.

Another pesky issue: ESM is EUR500 billion fund. But only EUR60 billion is set aside to cover all future and any potential retrospective recapitalisations of banks. Eurostat estimates Irish Government banks stake at EUR16 billion in terms of its future potential value, which means that Ireland's retroactive recapitalization will either have to be so small as to make no difference to us, or so large as to swallow some 20% or so of the entire DRI fund.

Do we seriously expect to get anything substantial from the ESM?

Let us remember that until June 2013, Germany resisted not only retroactive recapitalisations, but even forward recapitalisations. The reason German leadership changed its mind is that EU has substantially reduced any potential exposure of ESM to such recaps in the future and loaded more, not less, burden onto national banks and sovereigns. These are covered here and here.

In short, the latest news from Berlin are not a 'step forward toward retroactive recapitalisations of the Irish banks' - at the very best these are simply re-affirmations of the already taken steps and the muddle they left behind.

Meanwhile, there are 3 major points of pressure relating to Irish banks:

1. Recaps we put in are weighing on our debt levels: 25.3 billion against 13-14bn value. There is little we can hope to get from the ESM in this context.
2. Government bonds from Promo Notes conversion: 25 billion against nothing. There is nothing in the ESM that allows us to swap these bonds for anything that is cheaper. Instead, the real impact can be achieved by significantly delaying sales of these bonds to private markets, which is not related to the ESM but is rather an ECB action.
3. State of banks balance sheets - arrears and tracker mortgages (EUR36 billion in AIB and PTSB). Professor Karl Whelan has an excellent note on trackers here.

18/6/2014: ECB Assessment of Irish Banks: IMF view

In the previous post, I looked at the IMF report on Irish banks from the point of view of ongoing developments and balance sheet repairs (link here). Now, let's take a look at IMF report from the point of view of the ECB stress tests.

Per IMF: "The ECB’s Comprehensive Assessment and corrective actions where needed are important to reinforce confidence in European banks, including in Ireland (see stress tests parameters described below).

"AIB, BoI, and PTSB all reported capital ratios above the regulatory minima at end 2013. Notwithstanding, a finding of a capital need under the Assessment cannot be precluded, with results due to be announced in October." In effect, here's your warning, Ireland - IMF has no confidence as to the outcome of the tests and this is in line with the risks to the sector still working through banks balance sheets, as highlighted in the previous post.

Never mind, though, as per IMF "Private capital is the first line of recourse and it is welcome that market conditions for European bank equity issuance currently appear relatively favorable."

While IMF seems to think there are plenty of crazies out there willing to bet a house on banks stocks valuations, the IMF is still hedging its bets: "Nonetheless, where private capital is insufficient, public support may be needed, including from a common euro area backstop to protect market confidence and financial stability; the possibility of ESM direct recapitalization should not be excluded."

Which begs a question or two:
1) Will ESM come in ahead of irish taxpayers? Answer - unlikely.
2) If ESM were to come in, will it have seniority over previous taxpayers equity in the banks (in other words, will it destroy whatever recoverable value we have achieved so far)? Answer - likely.

IMF is less gung-ho on the idea of immediate state supports in the worst case scenario: "If the supervisory risk element of the assessment identifies other issues, such as profitability or liquidity, staff considers these should be addressed over time in a manner that contains costs while firmly safeguarding financial stability. This is especially important for PTSB, where staff continues to see risks to its return to adequate profitability over a reasonable horizon in its current form, but approval of its European Commission restructuring plan is on hold pending completion of the Assessment."

Oh… ouch…

A chart to illustrate the pains:

Watch that equity cushion in the above for PTSB and the margin on provisions… No wonder IMF is feeling a bit uneasy. But across all banks, Gross Non-performing Loans are nearly par or in excess of the Provisions + Equity + Sub-Debt.

Now onto stress tests.

Agin per IMF: "Irish banks are currently undergoing the ECB’s Comprehensive Assessment (CA). The five largest banks are included: three Irish headquartered banks (AIB, BoI, PTSB), and the domestic subsidiaries of Merrill Lynch and Royal Bank of Scotland. Based on end 2013 data, the CA comprises:
(i) an Asset Quality Review (AQR);
(ii) a forward looking stress test covering 2014–16; and
(iii) a supervisory assessment of key risks in banks’ balance sheets, including liquidity, leverage, and funding."

First thing to note: the time horizon for tests is exceptionally narrow: 2014-2016, or 36 months, of which (by the time the tests are done, at least 6 months data will be already provided). Does anyone think Irish banks will have full visibility on risks and downsides expiring at 2016 end? Good luck to ye.

"The AQR will audit banks’ banking and trading books. For each bank, at least half of the credit risk weighted assets and at least half of the material portfolios will be covered. For the banking book, the AQR will look at the impairment and loan classification, valuation of collateral, and fair valuation of assets, while core processes, pricing models, and revaluation of Level 3 derivatives will be covered in the trading book review. Compared with the CBI’s BSA in 2013, the AQR for the CA has narrower coverage of the banking book by risk weighted assets (RWA), it does not review banks’ RWA models, but does cover the trading book although such exposures are not large for the domestic retail banks."

What this means is that the forthcoming tests are less robust than the CBI tests, but that assumes CBI tests were robust enough.

IMF provides a handy set of charts summarising stress scenario, baseline scenario for the CA against IMF own projections.

"The CA will apply a common equity tier 1 risk based capital floor of 8 percent for the AQR and the stress test baseline, and 5.5 percent for the adverse scenario, using the relevant transitional definitions. Results will be announced in October. If a capital need is identified, the additional capital will have to be raised within 6 months if the shortfall occurs under the AQR or baseline scenario, or within 9 months if it arises under the stress scenario."

In my view, CET1 at 8% floor is a bit aggressive. The floor should have been around 9-10% for Irish banks (and all other distressed banks), while for stronger banks the floor could be 7-8%. But ECB does not want to differentiate ex ante the banking quality tiers present in the euro area markets. Which is fine, but yields and outcome that strongest banks have implied identical floor as the weakest ones.

So overall, my view is that the IMF is being rightly cautious about the banks prospects under the ECB CA exercise. The Fund is hedging clearly in referencing the possibility for banks failing the tests. Key point is that the IMF - having had access to CBI and Department of Finance data and assessments, cannot rule out the possibility that Irish banks might need additional capital and that this capital may require taxpayers stepping in.

Next up: Households Balance Sheets

18/6/2014: IMF on Irish Banks: Still Sick to the Core, but of course, getting better...

IMF released Staff Report on the First Post-Program Monitoring Discussion for Ireland. Some of the highlights over few posts.

First up: banks.

Per IMF: "Banks’ 2013 financial statements show higher provisions and, although easing funding costs are supporting bank profitability, credit continues to contract." Ugh? Surely not because the banks are lowering rates on existent and new debt? CBI data shows no such moves.

Here is how dramatic was the decline in banks funding costs (all declines down to ECB lower rates, plus Government ratings improving):

"AIB, BoI, and Permanent tsb (PTSB) set aside provisions totaling €2.5 billion in the second half,
reflecting the CBI’s updated guidelines introduced in May 2013 and the CBI’s balance sheet assessment (BSA) finalized at end November, together with allowances for new NPLs."

Coverage ratios of provisions to NPLs increased at all the banks. Which is good for banks balance sheets and forward potential for lending, but bad for current potential. And it is material for the stress tests forthcoming (see next post on this).

"Higher net interest income in  2013 partly offset provisioning to result in a smaller full year overall loss than in 2012. However, new lending remained weak, with credit outstanding to households and non-financial firms contracting 3.7 percent and 6.2 percent y/y, respectively, in April."

Ah, I wrote loads about credit supply problems: here's a note on latest data for credit supply to households http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/06/1062014-credit-to-irish-households-q1.html and another one on latest data on credit supply to Irish private sector enterprises: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/06/662014-credit-to-irish-resident.html And the third post coming up today will cover the margins banks charge on loans relative to what they pay on deposits... the margins that act to extract value out of the economy.

And here's IMF's chart summarising the above developments:

All said, banking sector remains one of the core weak points. In assessing downside risks to Fund's forecasts for Ireland, IMF identified 4 key sources of risks. Banks are the fourth: "Bank repair shortfalls. As firms’ internal financing capacity is drawn down, sustaining domestic demand recovery will depend increasingly on a revival of sound lending, where substantial work remains ahead to resolve high NPLs to underpin banks’ lending capacity."

But for all the talk, banks remain sick. Per IMF: "Banks’ NPLs remain very high, at 27 percent of loans at end 2013, in a range of 17–35 percent across the three Irish headquartered banks. Such ratios reduce banks’ potential capacity to lend by hurting profitability, including through higher market funding costs, limiting the supply of collateral for funding, and diverting credit skills. With recovery taking root and property markets improving, banks may see further upside from postponing NPL resolution. But such choices at the individual bank level may not sufficiently internalize the macroeconomic impact of banks collectively leaving NPLs at high levels in terms of barriers to new lending and an inefficient allocation of capital, warranting supervisory pressure on banks to accelerate asset clean up. Reducing uncertainties around the value of banks’ loans will also enhance public debt sustainability by supporting valuations for the government’s bank equity holdings, which it intends to dispose."

Here's an interesting bit. We know banks have been slow to deal with Buy-to-Lets, parking bad loans in hope that current debtor will part-fund warehousing of BTL properties (via renting them out) until such time when prices rise and bank can foreclose on these. This strategy clearly maximises banks returns and is happy-times for CBofI, concerned with how good banks look on their 'profitability' side. But it is bad news for the economy, where investors (aka ordinary punters) are bled dry of cash to fund BTLs which will never return any fund they 'invested' in them.

IMF basically tells the CBofI and Irish authorities: you have to force banks deal with these BTLs and smaller CRE loans, i.e. foreclose earlier, not later.

And IMF is onto the task: "In view of improved market conditions, the authorities should press banks to broaden their resolution efforts into impaired CRE loans. Banks hold mostly smaller CRE exposures (below €20 million) that were not transferred to NAMA, yet delinquent CRE loans still account for 40 percent of NPLs. Recent strong IBRC and NAMA deal flow points to potential investor interest—although the nature of the assets differ somewhat—and the banks’ portfolios also have relatively high provisioning cover. Staff therefore recommends that banking supervision press forward the restructuring of these NPLs or their disposal in a manner that achieves sufficient deal flow while avoiding flooding markets. Although one bank is exploring disposal options for its CRE loan portfolio, others prefer loan restructuring to retain potential upside and their customer base."

And a handy chart:

Do notice how weaker provisions cover is delivered on mortgages, while over-provision is a feature of other loans? Priorities… priorities…

SMEs loans are still a huge problem: "SME loan workouts will require ongoing oversight to ensure viability is restored. The two main banks making loans to SMEs report substantial progress in developing workouts for their distressed SME loans, although in practice such workouts will be implemented over some years as restructuring steps by SMEs move forward." Read: the reports are fine, but we won't see full results over some time. Question, unposited by the IMF is: why?

"Recent amendments to the Companies Act facilitating SME less costly examinership procedures are expected to become operational in June, which may be most useful in multi-creditor cases as banks otherwise prefer to conclude workouts outside of the courts."

And finally: mortgages arrears:

"Mortgage resolution should be both timely and durable. …Banks report that by end March they had concluded solutions for over 25 percent of primary dwelling and buy to let loans in arrears for more than 90 days." Never mind the rest?.. Oh, by the way - of 132,217 accounts in arrears in Q1 2014, 39,111 accounts are less than 90 days in arrears. Of all mortgages that were restructured (92,442 accounts) only 53,580 accounts are not in arrears following restructuring. Again, IMF ignores this.

"Targeted audits give the CBI comfort that the solutions underway are durable, but reducing reliance on shortterm modifications paying interest only or less remains important." Interestingly, this is what we - IMHO - have discussed in depth with the IMF team. Irish authorities have seemingly no problem with the banks 'restructuring' mortgages by loading more debt onto households and spreading this debt either over greater duration or offering temporary relief from cash flow pressures of this debt.

How sustainable is this? Well, 'targeted audits' might suggest that a household that owed 100K on a property and was unable to fund it at full rate, can be made sustainable with 110K debt over same property but with 3 years worth of interest-only repayments. I am not so sure. Neither, it appears, is the IMF.

Another thing we discussed with the IMF: "Securing constructive engagement by borrowers remains a key challenge to progress, where extending independent advice to borrowers willing to negotiate with lenders may be helpful."

So far, the CBI has given independent advisers no support whatsoever and given the banks no encouragement to engage with such advisers. IMHO has worked closely with some banks to deliver such advice - and we have a proven track record showing it works. But two 'pillar' banks refuse to engage with us and any other independent advisor on any terms, unless the borrowers pay directly for advice out of their own pockets. Even IMF now sees this to be completely nonsensical.

Last bit: "The Insolvency Service is developing a protocol to standardize loan modifications, which could also help." So IMF now endorses idea of standardised solutions. From 2010 on, when mortgages crisis blew up, I campaigned for the state to impose onto banks standardised resolution products, such as loans modifications parameters, arrears capitalisation and write downs parameters etc. The state refused. We at IMHO briefed the Central Bank on the need for such standardisation. Our submissions were ignored.


Next: ECB Assessment of Irish Banks: IMF view

14/5/2014: Puff... and in a second few mortgages arrears were gone...

Irish Times covered Fitch report today that shows that for mortgages tracked by the agency as a part of 12 residential MBS (RMBS) packages posted another rise in arrears. In 2013 the 90-days in arrears mortgages accounted for 16.7% of total tracked by Fitch. In Q1 2014 this rose to 18.4%.

Irish Times article is available here: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-mortgage-arrears-continuing-to-accelerate-says-fitch-1.1795586

The article notes that Central Bank data showed decline in mortgages in arrears in the most recent 3 months period covered by Central Bank data. Alas, there is a caveat: in Q4 2013 data - the most current reported by the Central Bank, the authorities have omitted mortgages sold by the IBRC to private funds. Adding these mortgages back into the equation and applying the latest known arrears data on the IBRC brings the proportion of all mortgages in arrears 90 days and over for Q4 2013 closer to 13.04% which is above Q3 2013 reading of 12.9%.

Mystery of the declining arrears might just be the successful shifting of mortgages from the books of the entities regulated by the Central Bank to the vultures. In other words...

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

4/3/2014: A new Initiative from IMHO

Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation (IMHO) are launching a new programme along with KBC Bank Ireland, aimed at providing independent, consumer-oriented advice and negotiation services to mortgage holders who are currently in arrears or experience difficulties with their mortgages.

Here are the details (click on images to enlarge).

2/2/2014: IMHO-AIB Pilot - First Results

IMHO just published the results of the ongoing IMHO-AIB project for the first 55 days of the scheme operations:
https://www.mortgageholders.ie/blog/posts/progress-update-on-initiative-between-imho-and-aib-ebs-haven

The core numbers are sizeable enough to represent a good sample of borrowers and provide a strong basis for arguing that the independent, professionally provided and borrower-centric advice does work.

I want to stress that all credit for delivering on these results goes to the brilliant frontline team at IMHO!

12/12/2013: Measuring the Mortgages Crisis in Ireland

As the readers of this blog would know, I rarely comment on articles in Irish press, and rarer yet on articles in the Irish Times. So here is a rare occasion, not because of the article itself, but because of what it suggests about our national treatment of statistics.

Let's start from the top. The New York Times published an article on Irish crisis today. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/business/international/as-bailout-chapter-closes-hardships-linger-for-irish.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&rref=business&hpw&pagewanted=all

Irish Times - in some ways correctly took the New York Times article to task: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/are-we-really-reduced-to-shooting-pigeons-for-food-1.1625588

Let me take up one point in the two articles. Original version of the NYT article cited - quoting from the IT response - that "most startling is the assertion that two-thirds of homeowners have not paid their mortgage “on time for the last two years”".

IT correctly points that this is not true, saying that "The bank’s most recent arrears figures suggest 18.5 per cent of mortgage holders are in arrears of some sort or other.
They also indicate that 22 per cent of those currently in arrears are behind in their payments for at least two years or more."

The NYT published correction to their original claim. Story ends there.

But from the point of view of reality, it does not. This is pivotal to our narrative about the crisis.

Mortgages arrears have many meanings in the economy. But in the social context and in relation to mapping out the extent of the crisis here's what matters: Mortgages arrears are a signifier of the extent of the crisis. In this, they are neither the only indictor, nor are they a relative indicator. Let me explain.

1. Assume we want to identify the extent of the crisis as it impacted the households holdings of property.
2. Assume we have official data to do so only.

From (1) and (2), identifying the crisis extent is simple and yet hard. 

Take an analogy of identifying the crisis in the macroeconomy. That would be GDP. Or rather, the size of the crisis = the gap between the GDP at pre-crisis peak to GDP at crisis-period trough. One thing that does not matter to this analysis is where the GDP is today (post-trough). Should in the future the GDP hit a new trough and should the drivers for this be consistent with the drivers for the original crisis, then that new trough becomes the crisis metric. Should GDP recover to pre-crisis highs (as it will one day), the magnitude of the crisis will not be zero, it will still be GDP pre-crisis less GDP at trough.

Variants on the above are possible by looking at various GDP metrics and/or pre-crisis and trough metrics (trend, potential etc). But the essence of analysis is the same: GDP pre-crisis - GDP at trough = Crisis Impact.

Now, back to the original issue: How shall be measure the impact of the crisis when it comes to mortgages?

The IT comments can suggest (and usually the media obliges to take this as given) that Arrears Current = Crisis Impact. But are they?

My view is that they are not. Let's compute the total impact:

1. Peak of arrears (we are yet to reach that) = part of impact
2. Restructured mortgages that are not in arrears = part of impact for two reasons: (a) they face high probability of going back into arrears (just under 50:50 chance currently and declining slowly); and (b) restructured mortgages are no longer the original pre-crisis mortgages, so the mere fact of restructuring them is a sign of the crisis impact
3. Repossessed homes = direct impact; and
4. Voluntary surrenders = direct impact.

What do we know from official sources: Total mortgages outstanding: 915,746 per CBofI (composed of 768,136 principal residences-linked mortgages and 147,610 BTLs), of these:

1. Total mortgages in arrears: 181,946 per CBofI (composed of 141,520 principle residences and 40,426 BTLs)
2. Restructured, not in arrears: 56,186 (composed of 43,034 principal residences and 13,152 BTLs)
3. Repossessed homes - we have no numbers for aggregates repossessed - neither the CBofI, nor Department of Finance report these on any regular basis. But in Q3 2013 we had 1,566 properties in repossession (1,050 residences and 516 BTLs). These are properties held in possession by the banks. We do not know how many they have sold since the beginning of the crisis.
4. Voluntary surrenders - we have no data on these from any official source, but the properties that are surrendered and are still in the possession of the banks are aggregated into (3) above.

So, with incomplete information on (3) and (4), to-date, the extent of the crisis is for all types of properties:

181,946 in arrears + 56,186 restructured, not in arrears + 1,566 repossessed and surrendered = 239,698 accounts or, ca 26% of all accounts outstanding.

And the number is growing...

This is not 2/3rds as claimed originally in the NYT, not even 1/3rd, and it is certainly not the percentage of mortgages in trouble over 2 years... and the above 26% include BTLs too... But the true extent of the crisis is that 26 out of 100 mortgages in the country have been directly impacted by it. And the crisis has not peaked, yet.

But here's what this tells us about our psychology when it comes to measuring the extent of the crisis: we commonly interpret arrears alone (and often only arrears in excess of 90 days) as the metric of the crisis. This is an error - an error based on the implicit anchoring of the idea of the crisis to the news and thus, to relative position in time. This is simply wrong. The crisis of WW2 is measured by the absolute level of destruction wrecked at the peak, cumulatively, not by where the losses were in 1955 or in 1948.


Actually, should you be interested, I track the evolution of the above metric (I call it mortgages in default, defaulted or at risk of default) in my regular posts on CBofI quarterly data. The latest was provided here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/11/28112013-irish-mortgages-arrears-q3-2013.html.

And for the conclusion: I recall in 2007 CEO of AIB at the time stating in a meeting with analysts that "Irish people do not default on mortgages. They never do." I replied: "Never is a very precise term. Is there any uncertainty around this claim?" and he retorted: "None." Back to that 26% figure, then?..

29/11/2013: Central Bank: Failure of Own Sustainability Criteria on Mortgages Arrears Resolutions?

So things are getting better with mortgages arrears crisis… practically easing the worries of the nation, according to the Irish media and officialdom… And the Central Bank is delighted that the banks are so actively meeting targets etc… (Note: my coverage of the arrears figures is here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/11/28112013-irish-mortgages-arrears-q3-2013.html)

Except…

Per Central Bank: “We expect that lenders will continue to progress and develop their approaches to ensure that future sustainability targets will be achieved.  With indications the banks are now offering long term sustainable solutions to customers, the Central Bank continues to encourage meaningful engagement between lenders and borrowers.”

And what these 'sustainable solutions' might be, you should ask?

Per CB: "As at end of September 2013 the lenders in total reported they had issued proposals to 43% of mortgage accounts in arrears against a target of 30%."

Now, let me be forthright here on my views:
1) Repossessions and voluntary surrenders are a part of the solutions tool kit and are unavoidable (and indeed optimal) in a number of cases.
2) However, the above can only be deemed sustainable if and only if they take place in the context of first (ex-ante repossession or surrender) concluding arrangements between borrower and lender on what is to be done with the residual balance on mortgage remaining at the end of the property sale.

Since we do not know what percentage of all repossessions and surrenders were accompanied by such an agreement, we do not know if there is ANY (repeat - any) sustainability of debt has been achieved in the process of such a resolution. In other words, the Central Bank cannot make a factual claim that 55% of the resolution measures proposed were sustainable (aka meet the CB own criteria for them satisfying the target requirement).

Worse, the massive number - 55% - is itself an indication that the entire Central Bank-led process is a complete failure. In fairness to the Central Bank, the language of the release (http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/CentralBankpublishesoutcomeofMortgageArrears.aspx) suggests that the bank is not entirely happy with the status quo distribution:

"There has been a change in the trend of proposed solutions from Quarter 2 to Quarter 3. In Quarter 2 62% of the proposals were in the Surrender/Repossession category, which decreased to 55% in Quarter 3."

But there are problems even with this claim. Firstly, there is no trend. There is not enough time series data to show ANY (repeat - any) trend up or down in the data. What we have is one quarter against another. Should the 'trend' of 7 percentage points per quarter continue, we will end 2014 with over 40% 'resolutions' leading to foreclosures or surrenders of properties. Given the bank wants to deliver 75% resolutions target by the end of 2014, this would imply that more than 40% of the mortgages accounts in arrears will be in liquidation. That is a trend to a national disaster.

28/11/2013: Irish Mortgages Arrears: Q3 2013

Numbers are out for Residential Mortgages Arrears in Q3 2013 and the data shows that the chronic problem of mortgages distress is still with us with little change after months of tough talks from the authorities, 'resolute' actions from the banks and a barrage of legislative, regulatory and rhetorical changes.

Top of the line numbers are still frightening, albeit things have largely faltered out on most fronts.

• Total number of PDH accounts at risk or defaulted (defined as all accounts currently in arrears, restructured and not in arrears, and in repossessions) at the end of Q3 2013 stood at 185,604, down 329 accounts or 0.2% from Q3 2012. 
• Over the 12 months through September 2013, number of BTL accounts at risk or in default rose 3,022 (+5.9%) to 54,094. 
• Thus, total number of mortgages accounts currently at risk or defaulted at the end of Q3 2013 stood at 239,698, which is 1.1% higher than in Q3 2012. 
• Total outstanding volume of mortgages at risk or defaulted for both BTL and PDH mortgages at the end of Q3 2013 was EUR46.77 billion, up EUR1.75 billion on year ago.
• As of the end of Q3 2013, 20.3% of all PDH mortgages accounts and 36.65% of all BTL mortgages accounts were either in arrears, restructured due to previous arrears or in repossession. 
• Across the entire system, 26.18% of all mortgages accounts and 33.6% of all mortgages volumes outstanding in Ireland were at risk or defaulted at the end of September 2013.

Deleveraging process is not working either:

• Total outstanding volume of mortgages debt in the country was EUR138.88 billion in Q3 2013, only 2.4% lower than a year ago.
• Total number of mortgages accounts fell to 915,746 in Q3 2013, down 3.08% y/y.
• Residential mortgages in arrears rose to 141,520 accounts (+0.1% y/y) and BTLs accounts in arrears numbered 40,426 (+10.35% y/y). Thus total number of accounts in arrears was up 2.2% y/y.
• Total outstanding volumes of mortgages in arrears stood at EUR36.56 billion in Q3 2013, up 5.8% y/y (comprising EUR25.56bn in residential mortgages volumes +4.75% y/y and EUR11.0bn of BTLs +8.32% y/y).
• Total amounts of actual arrears rose to EUR3.479bn in Q3 2013, up 28.2% y/y.
• Repossessions rose to 1,566 in Q3 2013 from 1,503 in Q2 2013 and 1,358 in Q3 2012. Residential repossessions rose to 1,050 from 1,001 a quarter ago and 944 a year ago. The process of repossessions remains very slow and is likely to accelerate in the near future.

These figures clearly show that banks-driven approach to the process of resolving the mortgages arrears crisis, adopted by the Government and the financial sector regulatory authorities is not delivering. To-date, the speed of mortgages arrears restructuring and resolution is disappointingly slow.

Some charts to illustrate the trends: