Economics 20/7/10: Is Zombie Nama propping up Mummified Irish Banks?

As the independents – Brian Lucey, Karl Whelan, Peter Mathews and myself – have warned (actively denied by the Government and its backyard ‘experts’), Nama Tranche II turned out to be yet another unmitigated disaster.

Nama paid €2.7bn for loans that its experts valued at €5.2bn. Of course, these ‘experts’ include many who were responsible for some of the most disastrous valuations of the Celtic Tiger era and are now ‘entrusted’ as being ‘experienced’ with re-valuing their own errors, while collecting a handsome pay packet courtesy of the Irish taxpayers. The implied average discount these folks put on the loans this time around is 48%. Anglo failed to transfer its loans – some €7-8bn worth – due to delays caused, per what I am hearing, by a rather shoddy documentation quality.

Per RTE: “The biggest discount on the second batch of loans was for those from Irish Nationwide. NAMA paid the society just €163m for loans of €591m, a discount of 72% [an increase of 14% on Tranche 1]. The figures for AIB and EBS were 48.5% [on €2.73bn marking a 6.5% increase on Tranche 1], and 46.5% [on €35.9mln and an increase of 9% on Tranche 1] respectively, while the Bank of Ireland discount was 37.8% [on €1.82bn - an increase of 2.8% on T1].” Overall, Nama now has in its vaults €20.5bn worth of loans (or rather largely worthless paper few years ago labeled as loans) for which it paid at a discount of 50.7%.

The loans are concentrated - related to just 23 property developers who are deemed to be 'second tier' aka less flamboyant than those in Tranche 1 and most likely, less experienced too.

It makes me laugh when I recall how our stock brokerage 'analysts' were chirping a year ago that a 20-25% haircut would be warranted by market valuations of these loans.

However, the real problem with all of these numbers is that while the discounts might sound impressive, they are not reflective of any reality. Instead, they are now fully bootstrapped to the capital commitments issued to the banks by Brian Lenihan. You see, as we warned from the start – and this too was vigorously denied by the Government – the heavier the haircut, the greater will be banks’ demand for capital, the greater will be the share of bank equity owned by the taxpayers. Mindful not to take too much stake in BofI – for that would produce poor optics internationally – Brian Lenihan is content to oversee a 38% discount on its loans. Having pumped capital up to 50% of risk-weighted assets transfers to Nama for AIB, the Minister is equally happy not to impose heavier haircuts on AIB Tranche 2 transfers than 50%. Hence the ‘magic’ 48.5% figure. Ditto for EBS. Sounds precise – not 49%, nor 48%. But in the end – the number is most likely utterly bogus.

To put some fluff in the air about ‘Nama is a tough player with the banks’, Tranche 2 hammered INBS and most likely will hammer Anglo. Unless, that is, Anglo fatigue has finally reached Upper Merrion Street buildings. In this case, a discount can be less than that for INBS. Not because Anglo loans have miraculously become sterling in quality, but because the DofF might be just slightly concerned that the bank will come with a fresh capital demand.

So instead of pricing the loans to market, Nama now appears to be pricing them to keep required post-Nama recapitalizations at the levels consistent with earlier Government capital commitments.

In the end, however, a 48% average discount is still a gross overpayment on these loans. Let’s do a back of the envelope calculation here.

25% of Nama loans are ‘cash generative’ – i.e. paying some sort of an interest repayment on interest due. Suppose – just for the sake of making an assumption – that 50% of those cash generative loans are paying full interest due and 50% are paying ½ interest due. Assuming average interest rate on the loan of 8% (a generous assumption, given that banks were lending at lower rates than that) and cost of refinancing banks funds at 3% (well below current yields on banks bonds, even way lower than the latest Exchequer yields of 5.25%, but let’s be generous), if the cost of managing loans at 1% (consistent with Irish banks’ margins), then:

• 75% of Nama loans are losing have a negative yield of 12% (annual loss on interest alone);
• 12.5% of Nama loans are losing 2% pa in net costs, plus 8% rolled up interest, implying their negative yield of 10% pa;
• 12.5% of Nama loans are losing net 8% pa.
  

Expected average annual loss on Nama overall portfolio is therefore 11.25% pa. Value this at x3 revenue flow. Nama portoflia of loans would have a negative, yes, negative, - 34% break-even valuation in the market. Just on the back of interest and costs alone, the value of Nama purchased portfolio of loans should be no more than 66 cents on the euro of face value.

Next, subtract the percentage of loans that are unsecured – while allowing for the expected recovery, subject to the risk. Suppose that 20% of loans taken on by Nama are unsecured (again, likely to be conservative assumption). Suppose these are distributed across the same 12.5%, 12.5% and 75% sub-portoflia following a uniform distribution (again, this is a generous assumption as lower quality loans are more likely to be less secured in the real world). The value of the entire package of loans is now worth only 59 cents on the euro.

Secured loans are also subject to a recovery risk. In general, risk of recovery implies that over 70% for loans in arrears will be non-recoverable, ca 50% for loans under stress (e.g. failing to pay principal when it is due) and 20-25% for loans that are fully performing (e.g. those that are repaying principal and interest to the full amount). These are numbers consistent with the 1990s experiences in Sweden and UK. Translating these into our valuation, adjusted for risk of recovery implies the value of Nama-bound loans around 30-32 cents on the euro.

Other risks can be priced as well, but let us stop here.

Even with relatively rosy assumptions, the value of the loans being purchased by Nama should be at maximum 32 cents on the euro.

Allowing for assets appreciation of 10% over 3 years would imply a valuation of no more than 37 cents on the euro without applying a PDV adjustment.

We are told that Nama is being a tough buyer, paying 52 cents on the euro. Who’s fooling who here?

Incidentally, 30 cents on the euro is what independent banking expert Peter Mathews has estimated as recoverable for all development and property loans held by the banks. It is also the number that myself and Brian Lucey have arrived at in our previous estimates of required haircuts, which were based on analysis of underlying property markets.

What is now clear is that 24 months since the crisis fully exploded in our faces and 15 months after the independent analysts started telling the Government that it is committing a grave error in pushing forward the solution that, under the original name TARP was rejected in the US two weeks after it was put in place, the Irish Government remains hell-bent on pursuing this wrong approach to banks recovery. More egregiously, with Tranche II loans in, there is a strong enough reason to suspect that Nama has turned into nothing more than a façade for delaying even more capital demands from the banks until the end of 2010. The reason for this, one might speculate, is to keep our 2010 public deficit from exploding to beyond 20% of GDP.

A zombie institution (Nama) now is fully in charge of our mummified banking system. What can they do next to make things even more dynamic than that?

Economics 30/04/2010: Minister Lenihan's statements in the Dail

Some interesting points on Nama, coming out of Minister Lenihan's answers to Dail questions this Wednesday, April 28 (emphasis is mine):

"The NAMA SPV structure has a subscribed capital of €100m. As explained to the Dail at the time of the legislation, and subsequently agreed with the EU, 49% of this capital was advanced by NAMA and 51% by private investors.

Three private investors, namely, Irish Life Investment Managers, New Ireland Assurance and a group of clients of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers, have each invested €17m in the vehicle. It is important to note that in each case the beneficial owners of the investment are pension funds or other clients of these investment companies and not the parent credit institution. [It is equally important to note that in each case the full owner of each one of these entities is an institution directly involved either in Nama or in Banks Guarantee scheme, which, of course, under normal rules of engagement would imply potential conflict of interest]

The SPV has been established in accordance with Eurostat rules. The Board of the SPV is chaired by the CEO of NAMA and has three NAMA nominated directors with the private investors retaining the right to nominate a further three directors. Thus the SPV is structured in such a manner that NAMA representatives will maintain an effective veto over decisions of the SPV Board. [Thus the so-called 'veto' is a de facto, not de jure. Should one of the Nama representatives on the board fall ill, be delayed in travel or be absent on some state-sponsored junket, in absence of the said member, it is quite possible - even if only in theory - that the veto power can pass over to the 'private' owners of SPV.]

Further:

"In line with my statement to the House on 30 March on the banking situation, I subsequently issued Promissory Notes on 31 March to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. These Notes will ensure that both institutions continue to meet their regulatory capital requirements. The initial principal amount of the Note that issued to Anglo Irish Bank is €8.3bn and to INBS it is €2.6bn. As I indicated in my recent statement, it is likely that Anglo will need further capital in due course but the extent and timing of such further support remains to be determined.

The terms of the Promissory Notes that issued to both institutions on 31 March are substantively the same and, inter alia, provide that 10% of the principal amount will, if demanded by the institution, be paid each year and that the first such payment will fall due for payment from the Central Fund on 31 March 2011. An annual interest coupon, related to Government bond yields, is also payable on the Promissory Notes which the Minister has absolute discretion to pay on the due date or to add to the principal amount. [So, in contradiction to the deeply-informed Dara O'Brien TD, it is the state who will be paying interest to the banks. Not the other way around]

This ensures that the Note meets accounting requirements to be “fair valued” at the principal amount in the annual accounts of each institution, consistent with the regulatory capital requirements. [This sentence is an example of Minister's habitual abuse of financial terminology, in so far as it makes absolutely no rational sense to anyone even vaguely familiar with finance. 'Fair valued' must refer to a benchmark, being a comparative/relative term. 'Fair valued at the principal amount' is gobbledygook as principal amount - the face value of the bond/note can only be valued in relation to the price of the bond or yield on the bond, none of which are referenced in Minister's statement. Furthermore, fair value concept does not refer to the regulator capital requirements. It refers only - I repeat, only - to the market value of the bond/note.]

In the event of a winding-up of either institution, the aggregate of the outstanding principal amount and any unpaid interest that has accrued on the institution’s Note falls due for immediate payment. [So, at least in theory, the Exchequer might face an immediate call for billions of euros in cash... what provisions have been made to ensure we will have this covered? How will Minister Lenihan be able to raise such funding even if the economy is not in crisis? What will be the additional cost of having to raise such funding in a fire-issue of a new state bond? Has the Minister established adequate pricing scheme to charge the banks for the taxpayers assuming such a risk or has he 'gifted' this risk premium away, thereby potentially exposing taxpayers to added hundreds of millions in new costs of such emergency issuance?]

The Deputy may also wish to note that, as indicated in my banking statement of 30 March, the use of Promissory Notes means that the institution’s capital requirements are met in a way which spreads the cash payments over a number of years and thereby reduces the funding burden on the Exchequer that would otherwise arise in the current year. [This statement clearly shows that Minister Lenihan does not understand the basics of interest rate/yield curve relationships. He implicitly assumes that in the future, the state borrowing costs will be lower than they are today. There is absolutely no reason for such an assumption.]

Economics 12/04/2010: Nama's economic distorionism

An interesting quote from the just-published paper (Claessens, Stijn, Dell’Ariccia, Giovanni, Igan, Deniz and Laeven, Luc A., Cross-Country Experiences and Policy Implications from the Global Financial Crisis. Economic Policy, Vol. 25, Issue 62, pp. 267-293, April 2010). I reported on this paper last year at length, when it was still an IMF Working Paper.

“An example of distortions between financial institutions and the fiscal conditions is the extension of guarantees in the case of Ireland to the largest banks. Prior to the extension of guarantees, the CDS-spreads for the large Irish commercial banks were very high. Post guarantees, bank CDS-spreads declined sharply, while the sovereign spread increased. Measures like these, now numerous in many advanced countries today, distort asset prices and financial flows.”

This goes hand-in-hand with the EU assessment of Nama as a market distorting mechanism, which, as reported last week by Irish Independent, was concealed from the public when our Minister for Finance issued a press release claiming that Nama was fully supported by the EU Commission.

Further per Claessens et al: “Guarantees on deposits and other liabilities issued by individual countries have led to beggar thy neighbor effects as, starting with Ireland, they forced other countries to follow with similar measures.”

This statement in effect condemns Irish Government claim that our Guarantee was a success because it was copied by other countries. Instead, as Claessens et al confirm, the Guarantee forced risk from Ireland onto our trade and investment partners. Not exactly a high moral ground.

“The rapid spread of guarantees led to further financial turmoil in other markets. Many emerging markets not able to match guarantees suffered from capital outflows as depositors and other creditors sought the safe havens. Distribution of risks sharply changed over time and across circumstances."

More importantly, both – the revealed note from the EU and the above academic assessment – provide a significant warning in terms of the future of the banking and property sectors in Ireland. Given the systemic nature of distortions, subsequent exits and scaling back of foreign banks presence in the country, the lack of transparency and fairness in the property markets, it is now virtually assured that post-crisis interventions Irish banks and property markets will remain in their zombie state. Japan-styled recession is a looming threat for Ireland Inc.


Of course, you wouldn’t notice this, if you were listening to some of our heroic stock brokers – especially those folks like Bloxham who back in mid 2008 ‘forecast’ that ‘markets do come back’. In their latest strategy statement, issued last Friday, the Bloxham’s boys have managed to outperform themselves in terms of Green-jerseying (emphasis is mine):

“Ireland is undergoing some of the heaviest self imposed penalties for the fiscal over exuberance of the 2000s of any EU economy since the global credit crisis began in 2008. From budgetary austerity measures to public sector wage cuts, from crushing additional taxes both personal and indirect, to a mega-costing banking recovery plan; all in the name of stabalisation and repositioning as a viable economy. As Ireland passes through the next major set of hurdles (the transfer of assets to NAMA and the recap of the banking system), the market reaction so far has been favourable.”

Any evidence of this?

“10-year sovereign Irish bonds are still trading at 146 basis points above German bonds, compared with 280 basis points at the worst point for the Irish system in March 2009. Compared with Portugal at 126 bps over Germany, Irish spreads still have strong progress to make.”

The more the things improve in the wake of all the measures passed by the Government, the more the spreads stay the same? Indeed: “Irish sovereign debt costs have remained static in the past week, while Greek debt costs balloon by 100 bps. In relative terms, Ireland sovereign performance has been exceptionally good since the “Super Tuesday” announcements from the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), the Financial Regulator and the Minister for Finance.”

But hold on to your seats for a wild ride into the land of bizarre logic: “A falling Irish debt cost is largely unappreciated domestically but is a very hansom reward for the pain taken in Ireland thus far.”

I am now thoroughly confused, folks – if the spreads stayed the same, what falling Irish debt costs do the Bloxham folks have in mind? Am I missing something in their vernacular? Or are they missing in the faculty of trivial maths – falling costs mean declining spreads, yet the spreads ‘remained static’ and debt costs did the same.


A real pearl of the note is in its conclusions: “We would expect that the wider Irish stock market will also benefit strongly over the next 6 months, as re-cap plans proceed and the export sector resilience is maintained. Ireland could be finally coming back on the international investor map.”

Indeed it might. Or it might not. I wouldn’t venture a prediction here, but Bloxham guys – having been so right on so many occasions in the past (including that brilliant note from them back in July 2008 (see the note here) surely would know better. Except, hmmm, what does Ireland’s exporting performance have to do with Irish stock prices? Not much – more than 80% of our goods exports and over 90% of our services exports are accounted for by the MNCs – none of which are listed on Irish Stock Exchange. So unless Bloxham guys know something about Fortune 500 companies plans to relocate their listings to Dublin…

Economics 08/04/2010: AIB first Nama loans

Earlier this week, Nama had completed the first transfer of loans from AIB. Per official report, Nama bought loans with a nominal value of €3.29bn for €1.9bn in NAMA bonds, implying a discount of 42.2%. This was below the discount of 43% announced by the Minister for Finance last week.

But what do these figures mean? Without knowing exact nature of the loans, it is hard to tell just how much did Nama over pay for the loans. Here is an averages-based estimate, however.

First, let us reproduce the original claimed discount of 42.2% using averages. Table below does exactly this:
In the above, I assume:

1. Vintages of loans transfer running between 2005 and 2007;
2. 2 year roll up on interest maximum allowed in the loan covenants;
3. Roll up of interest commencing at a new rate in year 2008 and running through 2009;
4. 2 scenarios of average interest rates applied (Scenario 1: 5% pa, Scenario 2: 6% pa) – as you shall see below, these are optimistic rates;
5. Declines in values affecting different vintages as follows: loans of 2007 vintage – decline of 50% in value of the loan; loans of 2006 vintage – 40% and loans of 205 vintage – 35%.

As the last row shows, taking a simple average across all scenarios and vintages yields a discount on the loan face value of 41.7%, which, factoring in 0.5% Nama-reported risk margin yields the effective rate of 42.2% - bang on with the desired.

Having matched Nama numbers, let’s examine the assumptions and bring them closer to reality:

1. Let us use the actual average annual lending rates for non-financial corporations reported by the Central Bank Table B2 (here)
2. Let us also adjust the loans for security of collateral claims – remember, per official statements from Nama many loans (in the Anglo case up to 20%) are non-secured, with effective claims against the underlying assets of nil) – to do this, we induce the following security risk adjustments to value: 6% for vintages of 2005, 9% for vintages of 2006 and 12% for vintages of 2007. So the average is 9.9%. Although these are significant, remember – reports of 20% for Anglo loans are based on untested cases. It remains to be seen how higher these will go should other lenders contest Nama take over of the claims.
3. Since Nama valuations were carried out through November 2009, we must factor in further declines in value, so let us push up value discounts to 35% of 2005 vintages, 45% on 2006 vintages and 55% on 2007 vintages. Again, these are conservative, given evidence presented in the commercial courts.
4. Instead of running alternative interest rates scenarios (remember – I am taking actual rates reported by the Central Bank), take two different scenarios on vintages compositions: Scenario A assumes uniform distribution of loans across three vintages, Scenario B assumes a 20% for 2005 vintage, 30% for 2006 vintage and 50% for 2007 vintage split.
5. Finally, let us estimate two other alternative scenarios: Scenario 1 has no mark ups charged on average lending rates, Scenario 2 has a set of mark up reflective of higher risk perception of loans, especially in 2008-2009 period. Remember, lenders became unwilling to provide funding for property investments in 2008-2009, which means they would be expected to charge a higher interest rate (risk premium) on loans related to property than those reflected in the average corporate lending rates.

Tables below show the results of model estimation:
Alternative scenario 1: Nama overpayment over the current market value ranges between 42% and 51% or €561-638 million.
Alternative scenario 2: Nama overpayment over the current market value ranges between 48% and 57% or €617-688 million.

So averaging across two tables: Nama overpayment on AIB tranche 1 loans is estimated at between 42% and 57% or between €561 million and €688 million. At a lower estimate range, this suggests that Nama is at a risk of overpaying some €26 billion for the loans it purchases, should this type of valuations proceed.


Of course, some would say this overpayment reflects the expected long term economic valuation of these loans. Fine. Suppose it does – how long can it take for the LTEV to be realised to break even (real terms) on Nama assets then?

Let’s make two assumptions:

• suppose that Irish property markets see price increases of 150% of expected economic growth,
• suppose that expected long term economic growth will average in real terms between 2% and 3% per annum.

If Nama overpays 48% on the current value of the assets (lower range of my estimate), Nama will break even – absent its own costs of operations and funding – and assuming full recovery of the loans per their value – by the end of 2027 if the growth rate average 3% pa or by the end of 2035 if the growth rate averages 2% pa in real terms.

If Nama overpays at the top of the estimates range – 57%, then real recovery will take up to the end of 2039 if the average annual growth rate is 3% or up to 2053 is the average growth rate is 2% per annum.

Again – notice that these figures do not include:

• Legal costs of running Nama;
• Losses that might occur on the loans since November 30, 2009 valuation cut off date;
• 3 years long roll up interest holiday built into Nama;
• Operating costs of running Nama (inclusive of very costly advisers it contracts);
• Cost of Nama bonds financing
• Cost of actual working through the bad loans

Still thinking Anglo is the worst case scenario for us?

Economics 01/03/2010: AIB, Nama & tomorrow's numbers

From the Dolmen guys - today's preview of AIB results announcement tomorrow -

"We expect operating income of €2bn for the year, impacted by lack of demand for credit by Irish consumers and lower Net Interest Margins (NIM). Due to a pre-tax loss of €2.7bn, equity tier 1 of the group will move down to 5%. Overall, the market will be looking for guidance on NAMA, capital raise and credit quality in the non-NAMA loan book. It is also likely the group will announce an exchange offer on its Lower Tier 2 debt."

Note the figure of 5% Tier 1. Internationally (e.g. UK) target is for 8%+ Tier 1, for banks with Loan-to-Deposits (LTD) ratios in excess of 100%. AIB's latest accounts I have access to show LTD ratio of over 150%. This means that the AIB will be on the hook for up to Euro 4 billion in order to plug in the Tier 1 capital gap with its international peers. And this is before the expected loans losses of Euro 5-5.3 billion expected in the tomorrow's announcement. So on the net, H1 2010 demand for funding should be around €3.8-4.5 billion before Nama kicks in and before provisions for a new batch of bad loans...

This is more than 3 times the current market capitalization of the bank!

Also note Dolmen's reference to the lack of demand for credit. Spot on - the problem is that no matter how one spins the current credit crunch, consumers and businesses (burdened by massive debt and facing rising tax curve into the foreseable future, along with high risk of unemployment and huge uncertainty about the future performance of the economy) are simply in no position to borrow. This, along with the crippling expected cost of Nama to the real economy means that there is not a snowball's chance in hell the credit bubble can be relaunched in Ireland... at any level of interest rates...

Economics 23/02/2010: IMF on some of the Irish crisis policies

So we keep hearing how the entire world is applauding the Irish Government for doing "the right thing" (as Minister Eamon Ryan asserted today on Prime Time). Hmmm... I guess IMF isn't amongst the 'entire world' set.

IMF paper released today, titled "Exiting from Crisis Intervention Policies" states:

"For most advanced economies, including the very largest ones, fiscal stimulus vis-à-vis 2008 levels will be broadly maintained in 2010.

Among G-20 advanced economies, only Canada and France are expected to start a significant adjustment—on the order of ½ and 1 percentage point of GDP in 2010, respectively, in terms of their structural balance.

Larger reversal of stimulus is expected in Spain, and especially in Iceland and Ireland, but from very high structural deficit levels in 2009."

This doesn't sound like an endorsement, just a clinical admission of the fact, but... notice the words 'reversal of stimulus'. This really implies that the IMF is treating our cuts imposed in the Budgets 2009, 2009-bis and 2010 as being largely cyclical (consistent with a reduction in a temporary stimulus).

Of course, the IMF - as well as any reasonably literate macroeconomist - would like to see Irish government (and other governments as well) cutting structural deficits, not cyclical. And the IMF makes this point by stating:

"Few G-20 advanced economies have so far developed full-fledged medium-term fiscal adjustment strategies, although some have announced medium-term targets or have extended the horizon of their fiscal projections.

A notable development is the adoption by Germany’s parliament, in June 2009, of a new constitutional fiscal rule for both federal and state governments that envisages a gradual move to (close to) structural balance from 2011. The rule requires the federal government’s structural deficit not to exceed 0.35 percent of GDP from 2016. States are required to run structurally balanced budgets from 2020."

Might it be the case the IMF views our cuts as being at risk of turning out to be short-lived? It might.

Another interesting feature of the report is the following statement (which comes right after the Fund saying that it expects the governments to start lifting banks guarantees since funding conditions have been easing):
"Deposit insurance schemes have not undergone any significant modifications since their expansion at the beginning of the crisis. The average duration of schemes is about three years. Since June 2009, New Zealand and the United States (for transaction accounts) adopted changes and extensions to their programs, including a rise in participation fees to better reflect market prices and risks."

Now, give it a thought: the Government has extended banks guarantee, but cut the deposits guarantee - exactly the opposite of what other governments are doing. Another uniquely Irish way of 'doing the right things' for the banks and taxpayers?

Doubting? Take IMF's data for the extent of support we have given the banks to date:
Do remember - the above figures for Ireland do not include the full exposure due to Nama and the latest stakes-taking exercises the Government is engaging in with BofI and will be engaging in with AIB in three months time. Notice just how massive is our exposure relative to GDP when compared to two other crisis-stricken countries - Denmark and the Netherlands. Also notice just how much more aggressive these countries are in writing down their banking systems' bad debts? In fact, not a single country comes close to us in terms of engaging in bad assets purchases from the banks. Why? They do not believe in the 'long term economic value' that Nama is based on?

Another interesting table from the paper:
This, of course, shows that majority of countries out there are completing their programmes for stabilisation of the banking sectors in 2010-2011 period. Ireland is not at the races here. Unlike majority of our counterparts, we are bent on dragging out Nama through some 15 years worth of the zombie banking, zombie development and zombie economy - Japan-style. Except, unlike Japan, we have young population.

Economics 20/01/2010: Banking Inquiry

I have three simple points to contribute to all the discussion concerning the Banking Inquiry proposals:

1. Any Inquiry must be fully public, to the point of live television broadcast of all proceedings. Imagine a case of not one, not two, but six largest hospitals in the nation recording serial acts of systemic malpractice that were to result in some Euro 70 billion worth of damages. Would Mr Cowen call for a closed-doors inquiry?
2. Any Inquiry must be swift and must lead to convictions and severe punishment of anyone found guilty of malpractice or non-fulfillment of duties (including public officials in charge of regulatory and supervisory functions, should they be found guilty). Imagine a total collapse of six largest bridges in the country at the peak traffic - would Mr Cowen sum up the situation as 'We are where we are, now is not the time to deal with the past'?
3. Any Inquiry that does not cover Nama and Banks Guarantee scheme will simply fail to deliver full account of the causes and the full extent of the damages caused by the current crisis. This is why I oppose an idea of the 'wise men'-drafted preliminary report to set terms of reference for the second stage inquiry. Given this Cabinet will be selecting the 'wise men', I have serious doubts as to the integrity of the process or the group put in charge of restricting any direction of the future inquiry.

Ireland needs its own Truth & Reconciliation Commission to deal with the systemic failures of our supervisory, regulatory and banking systems. If public operation of such a Commission results in irreparable damage inflicted on our banks - how can one tell? After all, with Anglo at the helm, these banks have already done enough to damage themselves. The price of keeping them alive on artificial respirator of paucity, opacity and public cash is the collapse of public trust in our institutions and in our financial system - a price that is much higher than the withdrawal of all international bond holders from Ireland Inc can ever be.

After all, am I the only person one noticing the complete and total ethical collapse of our social system that takes ordinary folks' money to pay the cost of the full and unlimited guarantee of the (largely) foreign bondholders in Irish banks, while their own deposits are now under the risk of being covered by a limited guarantee up to Euro100K?

Economics: 15/01/2010: Bank levies

Per FT report today, the US administration is likely to impose a levy on the banking sector to recover. Per President Obama, "every dime" owed by the banks to TARP. The levy will aim to raise $90 billion from the 50 largest institutions in the US, including those with foreign operations in the country (a point that raises the issue of unfavourable treatment of the foreign banks which had no access to TARP and yet are expected to pay for it). 60% of the fee is expected to be generated from the top 10 institutions – another strange feature of the plan that skews the burden of the proposal toward larger banks despite the fact that there is no evidence they benefited disproportionately more from TARP funding. The levy – envisioned for 10 years period – is being set at 15 bps of all insured debt other than deposits and will apply to all institutions with assets over $50 billion. Of course the net effect of the levy will be a higher cost of banking for the end customer.

One can rationally expect the EU to follow the US suit and slap more charges on already stretched taxpayers/consumers.

Bashing the banks is a happy past-time for our commentators, politicos and regulators who have been calling for higher levies on the banks. But anyone with economic stability and growth on their mind should really think as to where the money for such levies will be coming at the end.

Irish banks are in no position to pay the Exchequer for any support out of earnings, so it is us – common banks customers and, co-incidentally the taxpayers – who will be tasked with paying DofF the going costs of banks guarantee scheme, Nama and any other levies the Government might impose on the banks.

As one cannot escape this charge on his/her account, it will be an involuntary transfer from the private economy to the state. Care to call it a new tax, then?

Economics 10/01/2010: A desperate state of economic analysis

This week has been marked by some remarkable statements on the prospects for Irish economy in 2010 that simply cannot be ignored.

Firstly, yesterday, Irish Times (here) decided to devote substantial space to the musing of one of the stock brokerage houses. Bloxham's chief came out to tell us that things are going to be brilliant in 2010: 10% growth in house prices and commercial real estate valuation, and ca 100% increase in banks shares prices to €3 per share for BofI and AIB. So:

1. Pramit Ghose thinks that there is little to Irish economy other than demand for property and banks shares. The implication of this is that the only way that prosperity and growth will be achieved once again in Ireland is through another construction and lending boom. Have our stockbrokers learned anything new from the crisis? Doesn't look like it.
   
2. Mr Ghose also seem to have little time for the fundamentals of Irish consumers and domestic economy. Massively heavy debts loaded onto Ireland Inc don't matter for growth to him. Neither are sky-high marginal taxation and the prospect for more tax hikes in Budget 2011, nor even high unemployment mar his optimism.
   

Banks shares will rise, you see, because investors will become optimistic. Optimistic about what, Mr Ghose? Low profitability of our zombie banks? Their over-stretched customers who cannot be squeezed for higher margins without triggering massive defaults? High default rates on already stressed loans and high proportion of negative equity mortgages on the books? Exporting sectors suffering from the lack of credit and overvalued currency? The reversion of the interest rate curve upward due to expected ECB policy changes and margins rebuilding efforts by the banks? Double-digit deficits on the Exchequer side?

All in, Mr Ghose thinks that the banks shares might reach €3 per share sometime in 2010. He might be wrong, he might be right. I have no prediction on a specific price target. But here is a thought:

The two banks need some €5-6 billion in capital post Nama. At €3 per share two banks market cap will be around €4.5 billion. So with recapitalization - whether by the state or by the international dupes (oh, sorry - investors) - the market value of the two banks will be €9.5-10.5 billion or close to their 2006-2007 valuations. What sort of expectations curve does Mr Ghose have to get there?

A glimpse into his thinking can be provided by his July 22, 2008 note reproduced below:
You judge the merits of this prediction for yourself, but here are the facts
85-142% wrong?

Oh, and do note that in his July 2008 note, Mr Ghose doesn't do any better in historical analysis either. He completely failed to take into the account real (as in inflation-adjusted) returns to equities. If that little inconvenient fact is considered, the '2/3rds of the 1996 price offer' paid on Mr Ghose's family house 8 years after the crisis would represent just 33-40% of the 1996 offer real price. Markets did come back for Thailand, but once inflation (see IMF) is factored in, Mr Ghose's analysis yields a real loss on the 1996 offer of 50%! Ouch...

Mr Ghose's Chief Economist seems to have little time for Mr Ghose's optimism for 2010. Writing an intro to Daft Report this week he states (here): "in overall terms, I would expect house prices to drop another 10-15% on average this year, with Dublin again seeing the biggest decline [now, Mr Ghose thinks prime real estate will lead in growth, which means Dublin]. ...Looking further ahead, I expect house prices to be higher on average in 2011 than in 2010, and should rise on a five-year view as the labour market returns to normal. That said, the level of any increase in house prices over the next few years is likely to be only in single digits, with three factors - the banks' adoption of a more cautious stance to lending than in the 'Celtic Tiger' era, the return of interest rates to 'normal' and the possible introduction of a property tax for 'principal' homes of residence - all weighing negatively on the market."


The second comment, courtesy of today's Sunday Tribune (page 1, Business), comes from Prof John Fitzgerald of ESRI. After largely staying off the topic of Nama and banks recapitalization for the entire duration of the public debate, Prof Fitzgerald decided to offer an opinion on Ireland's 'financial rescue'.

Now that the stakes in the game are low, credit must be claimed for the future 'I too was critical' position, should things go spectacularly wrong on the Nama side.

Prof Fitzgerald thinks that state-injected funds into INBS and Anglo are totally worthless and will be lost. Who could have thought such a radical thingy!?

Some 4 months ago I provided my estimates showing the demand for recapitalization post-Nama totaling €9.7-12.4 billion (here and here). Having spent the entire 2009-long debate on Nama on the sidelines, Ireland's ESRI macroeconomics chief is now telling us that €10-12 billion will be required to complete recapitalization of the banks. This, according to the Tribune is news!

I am delighted to know that Prof Fitzgerald belatedly decided to agree with myself, Brian Lucey, Karl Whelan, Peter Mathews and Ronan Lyons. One only wishes that next time a matter of economic urgency, like Nama, comes up for a public discussion, he joins the debate when it matters - not four months after the fact.

Economics 16/11/2009: Notes on Banks post-Nama & Eurozone recovery

There is an excellent issue on Financial Sector Regulation published tonight by The Economists' Voice of BE Press (free link here), it also contains a superb article by Rob Schiller of Yale on housing bubble.

Oh, and per today's Bloxham note: "...media speculation is suggesting that Anglo needs a €5.7bn capital injection if it is to continue lending. Finance Minister Lenihan said on November 13th that a second capital injection won't be needed, but reports now suggest that if Anglo is to form part of a new banking force in Ireland the eventual cost will be in the region of 5.7bn to meet international capital adequacy levels. Finally the report suggests that a wind down option is now believed to be gathering support in the Dept of Finance."

Hmmm, see my blogpost here. Two weeks ago I predicted this same exactly number - 5.7bn as the upper envelope of the capital demand from Anglo... Glad to see media now catching up...

Watch tomorrow's Mail for my comment on why Anglo can be wound up at a lower cost than continuing the sorry saga of the bank...


Now to news:


You all heard the news: five consecutive quarters of economic contraction later, and the euro area's economy finally grew by 0.4% in Q3 2009. Anemic (as in expectations were for 0.5%) but this does mark the region's exit from its worst recession since World War II.

Eurostat has yet to release a breakdown of the third quarter, but it looks like exports were the drivers for growth. Of course, the other side of the economic equation - European consumers - is still stalled in the quick sands and is now gearing up for higher taxes, lower incomes and permanently higher unemployment in years to come. All of this as the Euro area's debt to GDP ratio is now heading for 100% by 2014. For comparison, US National Debt today stands at around $11,996bn or 96.5% of GDP.

Back to Europe: France expanded by 0.3% (0.6% growth was expected by the markets), Germany grew by 0.7%, (against 0.8% expectation).

Now, Ireland's GDP was stagnant per Q2 2009, while GNP fell another 0.5%. Technicality might be that Ireland will post a positive growth in Q3 2009, but that would mean preciously little: Irish GDP is extremely volatile and another negative correction might be easily coming in Q4 2009 / Q1 2010. This volatility is driven by exports' mammoth share of the country GDP.

Lastly, there is a problem of European fiscal and monetary stimuli - both covered by me before. Once unwinding begins, even the stronger economies of Europe are not immune from a sudden growth reversal. what's there to say about Ireland, Spain and Greece?..


And on a separate note couple of thoughts concerning Nama's passage:

There is an excellent article in the October issue of the US version of Vanity Fair magazine about the legacy of TARP. To remind you - TARP is a US programme to help struggling banks that:

• started its life with an idea of purchasing distressed assets off the banks' balancesheets (just like Nama),
• ended up purchasing common and preferred equity in the banks;
• overpaid grossly (to the tune of 30%) for the equity bought (even though unlike in the case of Nama there was a ready and functioning market for these banks' shares); and
• like Nama promised to deliver easing of the credit crunch conditions.

Now, a year from its inception, we know that TARP:

• resulted in banks taking Government cash and parking it in Government bonds, lending out virtually nothing;
• was immediately followed by a severe tightening of existent lending contracts and revisions of performing loans to squeeze more cash out of households;
• has led to multiple defaults by cash-strapped students, homeowners and credit card holders as banks are going on with their business rebuilding profit margins.

Any idea now what we can expect from post-Nama Irish Banking sector? Or with that ESRI estimate of 300,000 households at risk of negative equity?

Economics 21/10/2009: Ireland = the most leveraged SPV on Earth?

And so we now learn than Nama beast has mutated into a high-risk derivative game with ghost investors, imaginary assets and illusionary payoffs. We are, for all intent and purpose, in the BaNama Republic.

Here is the story: per Annex H of the original statement of intent to establish Nama (April Supplementary Budget 2009 : here), the state will set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to issue bonds (Nama bonds) that will be guaranteed by the State. Per Eurostat analysis (here) these bonds will not be counted as Irish Government debt.

First point to be made – we are now the first developed country in history that is about to throw the weight of its entire economy behind a private undertaking of extremely risky financial engineering nature.

€54bn worth of Nama Bonds will be issued by this SPV. SPV will be 51% owned by private equity investors who will supply €51mln worth of capital. Total capital base of SPV will be €100mln. This SPV will be borrowing (by issuing bonds) €54bn – which means that on day 1 of its running, the SPV will be 54,000% leveraged or geared. This will imply that Irish Nama-SPV will be leveraged in excess of LTCM – the infamously riskiest of all major investment propositions that anyone saw in financial history before Nama SPV idea came to being.

Point two: the Irish state will be engaged in the riskiest derivative instrument undertaking of all known to man to date.

To cover up the farcical arrangement (with folks with €51mln buying €77bn worth of risky (but recoverable, by Minister Lenihan’s assertions) assets), maximum 10% of SPV value can be distributed in profits. 10% of what you might ask?

CSO submission to Eurostat states that: “The profits earned by the SPV will be distributed to the shareholders according to the following arrangement, which reflects the fact that the debt issued by the Master SPV will be guaranteed by the Irish Government:

• The equity investors will receive an annual dividend linked to the performance of the Master SPV.
• On winding up of the Master SPV, the equity investors will only be repaid their capital if the Master SPV has the resources; they will receive a further equity bonus of 10% of the capital if the Master SPV makes a profit.
• All other profits and gains of the Master SPV will accrue to NAMA.”

Two possibilities: 10% of expected (by DofF) Nama profits or 10% of Nama assets?

In the unlikely event of 10% of assets, the lucky ‘private equity’ folks can get 10%*€54bn*51% share – or €2.754bn – on the original investment of €51mln. They face no downside other than their initial capital injection less whatever dividends they collect prior to default, as bonds are guaranteed by the State. I assume this is a fantasy land. But one cannot make any rational assumptions about Nama anymore.

In a more likely event, it will be 10% of Nama profits. Ok, per DofF, Present Value of Nama profit is €4.7bn * 10% * 51% = €239.7mln. With principal repayment this means they will collect a cool €291mln on day last of Nama existence if DofF projections stack up.

We know nothing about the dividends, but we do know that the dividends will be paid out over 10 years. For some sort of decorum the Irish Government will have to allow SPV to appear to be legitimate and therefore it will allow it to pay a dividend on assets managed. Suppose the dividend will be around ½ of the standard management fee for assets, or roughly 100bps on revenue generating loans or 2.5% on net cash flow. Per DofF Table 5 of Nama business plan, this will add up to €12bn*1%*51%=€61.2mln using the first method or €61mln computed using the second method. In present value terms. Thus €51mln in initial investment will generate:

Scenario 1 – Nama works out per DofF assumptions = €352mln (inclusive of principal) – a handy return over 10 years of 690% or 21.3% annualized. Not bad for a government guaranteed scheme…

Scenario 2 - Nama loses money and is pronounced insolvent. Investors lose €51ml of original investment, but keep €61mln in dividends. 100% security, 0% risk...

Which brings us to the third point: as Irish taxpayers, we are now in a business of paying handsome returns to private equity folks (more on those below) in exchange for them covering up the true nature of our public finances. A good one, really.

Who owns this SPV? This is an open question. 51% will be held by ‘private investors’. 49% by Nama. 100% of liability will be held by you and me. Is this a Government throwing the entire weight of the sovereign state behind a privately held investment scheme? You bet.

But wait. Who are those ‘private investors’? Can Sean Fitzpatrick be one of them? Why not? Of course he can. Can Ireland’s non-resident non-taxpayers be amongst these? Why not? Of course they can. So as taxpayers we will be issuing a guarantee to tax exiles? Possibly. But wait, it gets even better – can the banks themselves be investors in SPV? Well, of course they can. Wouldn’t that be a farce – banks get to unload toxic waste on taxpayers and then make a tidy profit on doing so…

One way or another – parents struggling to put their kids through schools, elderly people struggling to pay medical care costs, single parents trying to balance work and raising family, young folks studying to better their lives – all of them and all of the rest of us will be bearing 95% responsibility of assuring that some ‘private investors’ will make a nice tidy profit, so Minister Lenihan and Taoiseach Cowen can go around the world claiming that Irish bonds that underpinned Nama were not really Irish bonds!

Which brings us to the fourth point: Why is Eurostat assured by this massive deception scheme to accept it?

Globally, G20 summits one after another have been focusing on how we will have to deal with the risks of the traditional SPVs and other ‘alternative investment’ assets classes that spectacularly imploded during the current crisis. Yet here, in a Eurozone country, a Government is actively setting up the most leveraged, highest risk SPV known to humankind. Surely there is a case to be made that the EU authorities should be actively stopping such reckless financial engineering instead of encouraging it?

The entire SPV trickery works because the Government has managed to convince the Eurostat that SPV will be fully operationally independent of the state. So far so good. But, Nama will sit on the board with a right of veto over SPV managerial and operational decisions: “The NAMA representatives on the Board will maintain a veto over all decisions of the Board that could affect the interests of NAMA or of the Irish Government.” Furthermore, Minister Lenihan and his successors will have veto power over Nama decisions and will be the final arbiters of Nama. Is that arms-length getting to finger-length?

At this point, there is only one institution still standing between the madness of the runaway train of Nama and the crash site of the SPV-high leveraged high finance gables with taxpayers money. That institution is ECB. The ECB will have to be concerned with non-transparent (Enron-like) accounting procedures that are being created by the Irish Government when it comes to accounting for Nama bonds. It has to be concerned if only for the sake of the Eurozone stability and its own reputational capital. Will ECB step in and tell this Government that enough is enough?

Economics 20/10/2009: Ahead of DofF

A quick announcement:
RDS Concert Hall 8pm Wednesday Oct 21st

HOW NAMA WILL LOSE €12bn: There's a Sounder Alternative
by Banking Expert Peter Mathews, MBA, FCA, AITI.

Peter is the only senior banker with experience in managing large distressed loans portfolio. His work, in collaboration with myself and Brian Lucey is featuring in the current issue of Business&Finance magazine. This should be very informative and worth attending. See Peter's excellent website in the issue of Nama costs: http://www.bankermathews.com.

We will also hold a Q&A session after the speech, with yours truly also on the panel.

Free for students.



A quick note:

Apparently the latest Government projections for 2009 tax intake are €31bn. Pre-budget estimate in April 2009 was €34bn, while January 2009 addendum to the Finance Bill was €37bn (here).

My forecasts earlier this year gave this figure (here) back in August, May (here) and April (here). In fact, since December 2008 I have been giving forecasts for revenue figures that were ahead of the official numbers produced by a sizable department responsible for doing these forecasts within DofF. Table below lists their projections before the April Budget:
Latest Government admission - €31bn... welcome to TrueEconomics, folks...

Economics 15/10/2009: NAMA Business Plan Falls Flat

Updated 09:01

Note: Karl Whelan's post on Nama Business Plan is available here.


So let us start with Nama Business Plan published tonight: the main claim is that Nama is expected to generate a net present value return of €4.8bn by 2020.

I beg to differ. Here is why in two steps:

Step 1:

“This €77 billion is made up of approximately €49 billion land and development loans (€28 billion and €21 billion respectively) and approximately €28 billion in associated loans.” Of the latter, €14.2bn is in derivative instruments.

Now, land values have fallen by some 70% plus, with some land now valued at a 90% discount. What the recovery rate on these loans? Assume 30-35%, to the total loss of €18-20bn.

Development loans currently carry default and roll-up rates of well in excess of 40%. Suppose Nama buys an average portfolio of these and that the default rate rises to 1/3 of all stressed development loans. Expected loss here is therefore around €7-9bn.

Associated loans include second recourse and non-recourse loans and cross-collateralized loans. They have lower seniority on underlying assets. And this includes (50%) derivatives – instruments that actually cannot be priced directly without requisite information that has not been supplied by DofF. So suppose the default rate here is the average of the above two rates, or ca 50%, to the total loss on this part of the book of €14bn.

Add this up: total expected loss on Nama loans book value is €39-43bn before we factor in roll ups of interest. Day one of operation, Nama will be holding the portfolio of loans with expected value of €77-€41=€36bn against the liability of €54bn, which implies it will be in the red to the tune of €18bn.

Make another clarifying assumption. Assume that for the last segment of the book – the associated loans – derivative instruments are similar to the average market derivative contracts as stipulated in Table 3 of the BP. This pushes losses on this part of the book up by additional 25-35% of the derivatives segment value. The total loss Nama will incur on day one of its operations will then be a staggering €21.7-23.1bn.


“The estimated aggregate average loan to value (LTV) rate for these loans is approximately 77% i.e. the value of the real estate collateral at the time the loans were originated was €88 billion. The loans were made over a number of years and not all were made at the peak of the market.”

Suppose this is true, although I have no confidence that this number is real. Suppose average vintage of the loans is 2005. Land is currently at below 1999 levels in pricing. Development projects are around 2001-2002 pricing and completed property is around 2004. Assuming we are at the bottom, average LTV on these loans today is around:
€28bn/0.77*0.3+€21bn/0.77*0.5+€28bn/0.77*0.85=42.7/0.77=€55bn
This is LTV ratio on Nama purchase as of today of 98.2%. Not 77%, but 98.2%.

If average vintage of Nama loans shifts to 2006 (a more likely scenario, as Nama will not be buying an ‘average bank loan, but a non-performing loans portfolio with so-called ‘performing’ loans to be mixed in coming from stressed loans side of the balance sheet), then the actual today’s LTV shifts to:
€28bn/0.77*0.2+€21bn/0.77*0.42+€28bn/0.77*0.81=37.1/0.77=€48.2bn
This is LTV ratio on Nama purchase as of today of 112%. Not 77%, but 112%.

Incidentally, Nama ‘Business Plan’ contains no sensitivity analysis of this sort or of any sorts – neither for expected inflation, nor for spreads on bonds, nor for cost of administration, or for any other assumptions.

Step 2: redoing Nama balancesheet:

Table 5 clearly states that Nama expects life-time default rates for all loans and derivative instruments transferred to be 19.35% of the book value of loans at origination! Business Plan admits (page 9) that in the last year alone the banks took a charge of €7.3bn on the book – just under 10%. Thus, DofF expects 2009-2011 default rate to be only 10% more. This is for a book that overall contains 40% non-performing loans already! It is simply a case of amazing degree of optimism.

Let us do the math for alternative scenario. Suppose the default rate overall will be 33%, in which case without challenging any other DofF assumptions in Table 5, the net gain of €4.8bn turns into a loss in present value terms of €10.2bn. Just like that!

Now, let us challenge the assumption on Nama yields. DoF data is shown in the Table below. The second table changes yield assumptions and retains my default assumption above:
Now, per table 2 above, combined assumptions of more realistic default rate and more realistic yields (consistent with current yield, adjusting for default rate expected through 2011), and recognizing that derivative instruments yields are unlikely to be achieved at all, bottom line Nama is now expected to yield an €8.6bn loss in present value terms.

Shall we move on? Assuming slightly steeper curve on the cost of bonds financing, table below shows that expected Nama losses can reach €11.5bn in present value terms (Table 3).

One last thing left to do. Recall that per Nama own Business Plan admission, 40% of loans are currently producing a yield. This implies that 60% are non-performing. If yield curve were to rise over time as Nama assumes, these loans are not going to start repayments at any time in the future. So suppose the default rate assumption goes to 45%. Table below shows the end game:
A loss of €19.1bn in real terms!

And this is before we compute the opportunity costs of this money.

Conclusion: DoF estimates for Nama make absolutely no sense. The best scenario I get is a loss of €10.2bn. The worst one yield losses of €19.1bn.

Note: the above do not include the cost of managing the Nama loans by the banks. These ordinarily range around 0.5% of the total loan value per annum. Suppose the banks will be able to pass these costs on their paying customers (you and me). The net effect will be an annual added cost to businesses and paying customers of €270mln.


Note: All Nama flows are targeted for 2013, which in effect saddles future Government with the entire obligation under Nama. A rescue package, then, for banks, developers (with a repayment holiday until 2013) and... FF...

Economics 13/10/2009: Nama politicised

Update: a must-read today is Morgan Kelly's article in the Irish Times (here). As I have shown in my Business & Finance column well ahead of Morgan, buying equity in the banks to repair their balancesheets makes financial and ethical and economic sense.


So the Greens are now going on a methodical politicising of Nama. This was predictable, but it is nonetheless ironic, for it is normally the domain of FF to turn every economic policy into a political / interest-groups circus.

As a part of their Programme for Government, the Greens have promised 'protection' of defaulting homeowners. Instead of calling for a reform of our archaic bunkruptcy laws the GP is now considering several possible options for doing so.

1. Force the banks to purchase homes from defaulting homeowners, writing down existent mortgage. Assuming 5% default by homeowners (conservative number in my view) on roughly €82bn worth of principal residence-tied mortgages will yield a direct hit on the banks balancesheets of €4.1bn in 2010. Given the lags, one can expect this to be followed by a roughly 3-3.5% default rate in 2011, inducing another hit of €2.9bn, for a grand total of €7bn in 2 years. But this is not all - buying these mortgages out will imply the banks will take on assets that are worth significantly less than the outlays implied. For example, assuming 75% LTV ratio and 50% decline is peak-to-trough valuations (note: the first to default mortgages are more likely tied to lower quality properties, so 50% assumption is a reasonable one, if the average peak-to-trough fall was to be around 35%) the banks will be taking on an asset value loss of 0.5/0.75=33% of the mortgages assumed, or an additional €2.31bn. So capital base impact of this scheme will be around: 10% of RWA of 7bn-2.3bn = 470mln + 10%*(1+expected default rate+expected devaluation rate) of 7bn liability or ca 840mln. New demand on capital for banks will be in the region of €1.3bn immediately. Two questions to our GP friends: (1) Where will this capital come from? and (2) Where will the funding for acquisitions come from? If Nama is to be expected to generate commercial lending, what funding is available for buying out mortgage holders?
   
2. The Greens are also considering US-styled scheme where lenders are subsidized to reduce payments by those in default. This would be a temporary (presumably) bridge. The problem here is that if you subsidise my neighbour, I will face a choice: (a) continue paying my mortgage at increased rates (someone will have to provide the 'subsidy') or (b) default and get subsidised too. Any guesses as to what a rational agent will do? Once again, who will pay for this scheme and how can it be made compatible with Nama objective of relaunching commercial lending. How will the banks exit this scheme in the long run?
   
3. Measures to reduce the interest on mortgages: now this is ironic, given that this coalition has already swallowed IL&P increase in mortgages charges with Brian Lenihan saying that the banks are private enterprises and must be allowed to increase their profit margins.
   
4. Banks taking equity in home loans - equity in what? In a negative equity asset?
   
5. Mortgage terms extended. Given that we have been saying that 30-year mortgages at 100% LTV were reckless lending, making the same mortgages (now at 140% LTV) a 40-year contract will certainly be a prudent idea.
   

In the end, Green Party's denial of reality is evident throughout these proposals. The Exchequer is broke and Nama now means that we have no longer any capacity to aid the economy - we have spent the entire family silver on rescuing a handful of banks shareholders and builders. Instead of correcting the Exchequer deficit, the Greens are now full set to expand it to plaster over their disastrous agreement to back Nama. All of the above proposals will contribute to the future deficits and to the ongoing squeze of consumers, mortgage holders and taxpayers.

Months ago, myself and Brian Lucey have told this Government (including our direct briefing of the Green Party leaders) that Nama will trigger a wave of households defaults and that this will induce a new run on banks capital. We were called scaremongers.

The IMF seconded our views. The Fund opinion was ignored.

Now the Greens are running for cover on this issue, having pushed through Nama in the first place. This ethically disastrous stance of the GP leadership is a glaring example of how not to do policy.

Economics 06/10/2009: A stockbrokerage strategist on Nama

And so it comes to my attention that last week in a local Chamber of Commerce hosted a debate on Nama. Per my contacts, “a number of issues arose that may be of interest”.

These issues are important because they largely outline main arguments about Nama made by the proposal supporters out there.


1) Nama supporter (NS) was keen to distance himself and Nama supporters from ‘theoreticians’ and ‘academics’ who exclusively populate the Nama critics land. It is important to note that many of the people who signed the letter of 46 economists, as well as other members of the critics camp are actually practitioners of the same fine art of finance as NS. Many.

How many? Well, just a quick run through

• myself – former business editor who brought finance coverage to the most respectable Irish business magazine, former director of research at NCB, currently head of research and strategy with an American brokerage.
  
• Greg Connor – former director of research for Barra, Fed employee.
  
• Karl Whelan – former Fed employee.
  
• Other members of 46 run options desks, have been bond traders, worked in central banks and finance ministries... you get the picture.
• Brian Lucey - former employee of the Central Bank;
• Ronan Lyons - former economist wit one multinational company and also chief economist of Daft.ie; and so on.
  

NS might think we in academia are just performing random walks in various universities’ squares, but no, we actually advise governments, international organizations, businesses and have some relevant experience in the real world.


2) NS contended that the main problem with Irish banking sector was that after 2001 we had "over competition" from (guess who?) the foreign banks. One assumes he means Rabo and KBC, for the British banks were here before 2001 and in addition we had our banks in their countries as well, aggressively lending to… yes, you’ve guessed it again – property developers there. So the foreign banks, thus, caused a property boom in Ireland. And the foreign banks forced our banks to issue 110% mortgages. And the foreign banks assured that most of our lending has gone to finance property deals of one variety or the other. Of course, it was the foreign banks that made sure that IL&P and Nationwide made strange dealings with Anglo. Why wouldn’t NS read Noel Whelan’s treatise on the crisis (see my comment here) – he might find out that in addition to the foreign banks, 46 economists also caused the crisis.


3) NS also allegedly claimed that as foreign banks leave Ireland, Irish banks will take a "more prudent, even oligopolistic approach to rebuilding their balance sheets". Oligopolistic? I hope the Competition Authority is reading this, plus the folks at the EU Commission. But for those of you who wonder what this means, let me explain. In the case of oligopolistic competition, banks would earn near monopoly profits by charging their customers (aha, you and me) excessive near-monopoly rents. Happy times, folks. A stockbroker calling for oligopoly? Surely not. Though it might happen if our regulators continue sleeping at the wheel. What’s next? Markets for shares becoming too efficient, so NS will call for regulated trade in equities? Incidentally, courtesy of Anglo, we already have had bans on shortselling - an activity that actually has been proven to aid price discovery in the markets.


(4) Per NS, the main aim of NAMA is to get credit flowing. If this turns out to be a problem in a recessionary economy, the profit motive of the banks will induce them to lend after NAMA. Ahmmm, ok, I have one question – why would they seek profit opportunities in Ireland?

• Because our margins are so high? Nope, they are low, Bloxham, Davy and other Irish stockbrokers said so. Can banks raise these margins? Yes, but only at the expense of already strained households, which will mean that their loans books will suffer more defaults. Surely NS wouldn’t call that an improvement in financial stability?
  
• Will the banks have an incentive to lend post-Nama because our lending bears lower risks? No, we are among the worst performing economies in Europe.
  
• Because the banks will simply have excess of cheap cash after Nama? Oh, no – they will still face some €130bn in interbank loans to repay (pricey stuff) (here).
  
• Maybe because they can’t get better returns anywhere else than in Ireland? Well, they can get higher returns pretty much anywhere else other than in Ireland, given our domestic economy will be contracting through 2010.

So, the banks won’t be rushing to lend here. And, incidentally, there won’t be many borrowers rushing in to borrow either – the households will be scrambling to deleverage in the next two years, not to borrow more. What is most likely is that the banks will use our taxpayers’ cash to repay some of the interbank loans, plus buy some discounted debt of which they had €103.8bn worth of senior bonds and €17.7bn in subordinated bonds as of June 2009.


5) Per NS, Nama provides asymmetric exposure to risk to the benefit of the taxpayer as the subordinated Nama bonds will take 1/3 of the risk. As far as I recall, the actual plan was to issue 5% of the Nama disbursed funds in the form of these bonds. Even if the risk weighting on them truly reflects the risk of Nama generating an end loss, this translates into just 5% of risk being shared. Of course, since we have no exact legally defined and enforceable criteria as to what constitutes ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of Nama, any future Government can ‘fudge’ whatever outcome achieved to be called ‘success’, so effective risk-sharing under subordinated bonds is NIL.


6) Allegedly, NS claimed that current commercial property yields are at 6% nationwide and are heading UPWARDS. These numbers were presented as facts in contrast to the ‘nonsense’ figures being quoted by some economists. (See Ronan Lyons on this one: here).

Of course NS explained that higher yields will come about as economy is now in imminent recovery mode and that we will see a positive q-o-q growth in Q2 2010. Thus, Davy’s Rossa White, for example, is a pessimist compared to NS who was not sure what Rossa White forecasted for Irish economy just a day before this event. Hmmm…

Now, Nama is apparently about Irish economy. Which of course is about GNP – in case NS did not know. In this context, I don’t think anyone really expects the yields to go up to 7% or to even 6% any time soon. And, in addition, I presume NS is unaware of such things as lags – it takes time to work through the surplus properties out there in the market, and it takes time before that to get consumers spending again. So Q2 2010? More like Q2 2011 for consumption to uptick significantly enough for yields to start stabilizing.

Suppose NS is right and the yields are heading for North of 6%, say towards 8%. Does he believe that these yields improvements will be driven by rents increases? In the current economic environment, even if there is some nominal growth in 2010 of say 0.5% in GDP, this an unlikely scenario with vacancy rates in commercial sector of 21% plus, and in residential sector with some 200,000+ properties unoccupied. So the only way yields can hit 8% is by price of property dropping further, and dropping by more than 20%. What does this mean for the ‘haircut’ applied under Nama? It means the haircut is too low. Significantly too low. If the yields were to firm up, per NS’s assertion, property prices will have to drop and Nama will instantaneously be overpaying even more than it already does.

And, folks, there is no arguing against this point for the yield is, by definition, a ratio: rent to price movement ratio. Ratio can rise either if the numerator rises (rents) or denominator drops (prices).


7) The good thing is that NS is at least more committed to some sort of accountability in Nama than the Government is. Per NS, allegedly, we will know if NAMA works within months, perhaps as little as three to six, as the restoration of credit would tell us that. And if not? What would NS do if Nama fails to deliver? Surely all stockbrokers have standard stop-loss rules to prevent reckless or rogue trades? Nama does not – and it always was a major part of my criticism of the current legislation. Surely NS would be familiar, therefore, with the need for a strategic Plan B? He is. And…


8) … of course – Plan B is to buy equity in the banks post-Nama – the Government already admitted this much. Which might lead to nationalizing of the banks or at least nationalizing a large chunk of them. But for NS this won’t work, as he said, allegedly, that people who advocate forcing the banks to face up to the losses are in fact advocating that not only should the equity holders bear the losses but also that the depositors should be expropriated. Of course, no one I know of in the debate on Nama has suggested that, not even unreformed socialists did. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, in every country where the banks were forced to face up to their debts – US, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain,... you name it – depositors remained intact.

Two more things come to mind here. Even post-Nama NS, taken at the face value of his argument, won’t stand for nationalization no matter what – in other words, should the banks need more capital he would, I presume agree to simply give it to them once again, with asking nothing in return. And also that post-Nama, when the banks ask for more cash we might be expropriating the depositors?

Is this for real? Is he suggesting that fully guaranteed depositors might face loss of their funds? Personally I think this is completely out of line scaremongering.


9) NS, allegedly, also stated, per my contact who noted it down as the meeting concluded for tea and buns, that NAMA will make a profit as the bonds will be euribor+50bps while the loans (apparently all) will be yielding at euribor+200bps. So the 44% of loans that are performing can easily take the strain of those that are not performing. Well, not so quick.

Assume for a second that NS is right. Banks pay the cost of managing the loans, so euribor+200bps is more like euribor+125bps once cost of managing loans is taken out. State pays the cost of issuing bonds, so euribor+50bps in bonds face value is more like euribor+65bps in gross cost to the state. Now, at 44% weighting, the average loans portfolio yield becomes euribor+55bps, which is below euribor+65bps. Nama makes loss even under NS’s rosy assumption of all performing loans paying euribor+200bps on average.

But here are two additional kickers:

(a) If interest rates increase, and NS should know this, more loans will go into non-performing category, plus, as I explained above. If NS’s assertion of 8% yield in near future is correct, again, more loans will go into non-performing category. Thus 44% of performing loans today, might drop to, ough say 35% or 30% tomorrow. This is what is roughly called interest rate sensitivity – as the cost of loans rises, more loans fail.

(b) NS’s assertion on euribor+200bps and on 44% performing loans rests on the assumption that the due diligence on these loans is straightforward, so Nama won’t make mistakes in buying up ‘performing’ loans. Again, any error, driving either 44% down or euribor+200bps margin down will hammer Nama bottom line figures.

10) NS asserted over some answers to specific questions, that there is a ten year property price cycle, in nominal terms. If he really did say this, this now provides yet another bogus ‘benchmark’ for property markets recovery – first there was a 7 year to 80% correction statement from one property specialist in the Dail, then there were 5 year turnaround time estimates from the Government advisers circles, now it is 10 year nominal recovery number from one of the stockbrokers.

Clearly NS is unaware of the long-term results for property market busts, and he is unaware that combined shocks to property market, plus to broader financial markets yield much deeper contractions than what his statement implies. I did some actual estimates based on OECD and IMF data and found that past busts across the OECD with an average magnitude being lower than that of expected Irish property prices contraction average 18 years in nominal terms. But what is even more surprising is that a stockbroker would care about nominal, not real, returns. Surely that is not what his usual client advices is based on, one hopes.