Economics 09/09/2009: Has the Green Party Leadership Sold the Country for a Broom?

Gutless and short of any sort of vision!

The Green Party leadership (per RTE here) has announced a series of "significant changes" to the Nama bill. So what are those significant changes, then?

Before we dive into the details, here is what the papers are not telling you - Green Ministers, the birdie has chirped (hat tip to KOD), received a trade-off from FF: in exchange for introducing a Carbon Tax they signed off on Nama. Why this is the bad news for the Greens and the country? Two reasons:

• First a minor one - Nama is infinitely more important to this country than the Carbon Tax, so much so, that the Greens' leadership in effect sold family jewels to buy a new broom;
• Second a major one - Carbon Tax is simply another punitive unavoidable tax for this country. Do not confuse it with some environment improvement incentive measure. Here is why. If Carbon Tax were to be a true behavior modification tax, then at least in theory its introduction should induce people to opt for greener alternatives: use of more public transport (that should be less polluting), more telecommuting, more energy efficiency etc. All of these are good things. But the problem is that a family that works in Dublin and, because of past FF policies was forced to buy their house in Cavan (for example), there is no alternative to driving and there is no alternative to switch to 'cleaner' energy. Indeed, with ESB (legacy of FF) in charge of generation and Eirgrid (legacy of FF) in charge of the grid, we have no real less polluting alternative. So Carbon tax will be unavoidable to many of us and thus it fails as a real 'behavior modification' tax.
  
• (Note 1: Carbon Tax is not a punitive tax for middle class Dublin and Cork voters - core Green constituency, so the question I would ask Messr Greens - are you selling the entire country in hope that your small number of voters will swallow the pill?)
• (Note 2: Has the Green Party leadership signed off on Nama before their general party meeting in an attempt to prevent democratic process within the party forcing their leadership to take a more ethical position on Nama?)
  

Which brings us to the conclusion on this sad chapter in Irish Green Movement history - Ministers Ryan, Gormley, Sargent and Senator Boyle did indeed agree to Nama in exchange for being allowed to levy another consumer-abusing tax that will feed general budget hole left by the grotesque spending commitments of this Government.

Now to the news:

Just minutes ago Minister Ryan has told the nation that Nama is ok because Ireland will be getting money from ECB at a very low cost. This is the long-mulled 1.5% assertion. To remind you all - Nama supporters have for some time made the claim that Nama will come cheap - at 1.5% ECB financing rate. Of course, they won't tell us the term. We are in the dark as to how long will the maturity of these bonds be.

Here comes the flashlight: 1.5% charge is consistent with 9-month paper. This will be fine, if we are borrowing to cover short term liability. Or if we were looking at ordinary sort of repos volumes, so that rolling the bonds issued at 1.5% would not be a problem on an annual (or even less) basis. But hold your breath -

• We will be rolling over some €55-70bn in Nama paper annually! Plus whatever we get to borrow on short term to finance our ordinary deficits, say odd €15bn. Total amount of Irish bonds to be rolled over at the end of 2010 can thus be €60-85bn, in 2013 this amount will reach €104-120bn once interest is rolled up - that means that by 2013, 34-39% of Irish expected GDP will be rolled over in short term bond markets! I thought, honestly, that borrowing short to buy long term assets has gone out of fashion some time ago in the current crisis!
• A 1.50% is a premium of 1.25% over the ECB rate, and 50bps above the ECB fixed rate tenders. Back in Fall 2008 - amidst raging crisis, ECB rate was 3.25% and tenders were at 4.75% in October 2000. What happens if we go back there? In say 5 years time? By then, cumulated roll over will amount to €120-135bn and our 2016 interest bill on this Green Party legacy will be €5.3-6.4bn. That is interest charge alone!
  

Finally, let us look at the last set of news on the Green Party leadership shameful surrender. Per RTE site report: "Minister Eamon Ryan said the new measures would increase the protection afforded to the taxpayer." How? Apparently via:

• The introduction of risk sharing between the banks and NAMA: "in the case of a small proportion of the loans, the banks will not get all the money immediately. Whether or not the banks would get a further payment would depend on whether NAMA is successful.
• A windfall tax of 80% on profits will apply to developers where they gain from land that is rezoned.
• The amount of money NAMA can borrow will also be cut from €10bn to €5bn.
• The new agency will be obliged to report to the Minister for Finance every three months instead of the annually as included in the earlier draft legislation.

What does all of it mean?

First bullet point above: remember that 'levy' on banks that was deemed unfeasible because it creates an implicit option on the banks? Well, the same, in converse, applies to this risk-sharing scheme. If a share of proceeds issued to the banks will be held back, it simply cannot be brought into banks capital reserves without adjusting for the risk of Nama failing. What should such risk adjustment assume about the probability of Nama failure (which will mean banks don't get that extra cash)? Go back to my and other's estimates of the expected losses under Nama. Even Davy Stockbrokers earlier showed that Nama is likely to generate a net loss of ca 5bn. So even by Nama cheerleaders assumption, Nama cannot be expected to work. Thus, the proposed risk sharing scheme will never pay out that share of funds 'held back'. In other words, the expected value of the 'held back' share is Nil!

Further problem arises in the context of the Nama being lauded by various financial analysts (stock brokers etc) as the 'liquidity' event. In other words, it is supposed to solve the problem of our banks' balancesheets and inject liquidity into banks. Now, the amount to be injected will be reduced by exactly the amount of this 'held-back' payment. So if Nama was to be a success because it was injecting liquidity, holding this liquidity back certainly constitutes now a failure of Nama.

Lastly, Nama was supposed to reduce the risk of banks coming to the Exchequer and asking for direct recapitalization. The more 'risk sharing' is involved, the lower will be risk-weighted capital and the greater will be post-Nama demand for recapitalization. So, again, if Nama was in the first place to reduce secondary round of capital demand, new risk-sharing scheme will increase it.

Second bullet point: folks, I thought we were told that developers are not being rescued by Nama. So which profits are they taxing? You can't, Minister Lenihan, have a cake and eat it. Either Nama will rescue the developers (by helping them achieve profit in which case an 80% tax makes sense) or it will not rescue developers (in which case there will be no profits and an 80% tax makes no sense). I wonder if Eamon Ryan actually gave a single thought to this absurd proposal!

Third bullet point: this is irrelevant, because the proposed bill allows Nama to borrow unspecified (unlimited) amount of money in the future with approval of the Minister. So who cares if they can borrow 10bn or 5bn on day one of their operations if they can borrow 30bn more on day two of their existence? Again, have Ministers Gormley and Ryan actually given a single thought to what they were signing?

Fourth bullet point: reporting to the Minister for Finance (behind the closed doors and no public scrutiny) is simply short of proper transparency and accountability procedures. It does not matter how often it is done. Putting a phone connecting two windowless and door-less rooms ain't going to let any light into either one of them, Messr Gormley and Ryan.

So to sum up - we now have it on the record. Ministers Gormley and Ryan, alongside the rest of the Cabinet have signed off on a document that will:

1. Coercively take ordinary people's incomes;
2. Clandestinely pass the money over to the banks;
3. Creating a buffer of opaqueness and evasion of responsibility and accountability between themselves and us, the taxpayers;
4. The banks will have no incentive to lend to the economy, the households will have no money to pay the bills - a new wave of mortgage defaults and personal loans defaults will be rolling over the banks. The economy will stagnate. Property markets will stagnate. Emigration will be back with the 1980s vengence.
   

Full stop. Nothing else worth adding.

Economics 31/08/2009: Myths of Nama's Parrots

The Sunday papers revealed to me the bizarre lack of independent and critical thinking amongst our senior journalists on the matters of policy.

The best example was the Sindo’s editorial on the subject of 46 economists’ signing the article in the Irish Times last week. In effect, Sindo is of the view that publicly employed academic economists and finance specialists cannot criticize Nama. What’s next? As PMD puts it: "Publicly employed physicists cannot assert existence of gravity?"

To his credit, Shane Ross stands tall.

In the mean time the Sunday Tribune article (here) exemplified some of the ‘new’ mythology of ‘official’ Nama position, while simultaneously revealing the lack of media’s ability to question the spin fed to it by the officials. These are worth dealing with in some more detail than Sindo’s article:

Myth 1: The ‘official’ version of Nama now claims that LTV ratios on Nama-bound loans were low, so the face value of the loans covers actually greater original value of the collateral. "But while the loans are for €90bn, the properties secured on those loans cost considerably more (we are not talking about 100% mortgages here).”

As far as I know, this 'arithmetic' was first floated at the official briefing for the journalists by the DofF. 

There is absolutely no evidence that the developers took 75% LTV ratios. Despite this, my earlier post (here) has dealt with this, showing that even at LTV ratios of 50-60% it is unlikely that Nama will be able to break even by 2021. Or for that matter, under majority scenarios until much later than that. Given that some people who’s incomes will be used to finance Nama will by then have lost their

• Savings;
• Pensions;
•  Homes

to Nama – due to the need to finance Nama costs out of our current income, implying much higher taxation – what measure of democratic accountability, equity, fairness etc can compel this Government and DofF to make such claims is simply unimaginable to me.

Contrary to DofF briefing claim on low LTVs, there is plenty of evidence from property consortia and from court cases (e.g Mr Carroll’s) that much higher LTV ratios were used in practice. In many cases the percentage that was not lent on the property directly was made up of additional cross-collateralised loans to the consortia itself, other members of this consortia or to the original borrower (developer) in a personal capacity. There were multiple cases of the same property being cross-collateralised for multiple loans.

Take a 'clean' (as in completely transparent, free of double-borrowing and cross-collateralisation) example. 

If a property was purchased for 100K in early 2005 at 50% LTV and rezoned, this ‘asset’ would have seen its market value rise 3 fold. In late 2006 this property would have the value of 330K and a loan of just 50K. The surplus value or equity of 280K could have been re-mortgaged at, say 50% LTV again. Total loans written against the property would total 190K. The surplus equity of 140K could have been borrowed against again in 2007 at, say 50% LTV ratio, resulting in a total loan volume of 260K. What is the overall LTV ratio on this property? At 2006 value of the property: we have LTV ratio of 79% in the end of these simple multiple loans trips each one of these loans was 50%.

Now, suppose Nama buys these at a 30% discount on the loan value, i.e. for 182K. Nama is instantaneously in the negative equity to the tune of 82K, or 45%.

The property market (depending on the type of property) is now around 2000-2004 (well below 2005 levels). How much below? Well, let us say 10% below. So the underlying property is now worth… 90K, and the negative equity is now 92K or 51%.

What is the rate of growth in the market we should expect to get back from this level of negative equity to a nominal break point on Nama? For 10 year horizon – an annualized rate of +7.2% per annum. For 15 year horizon +4.7%, for 20 year horizon +3.5%.

If inflation averages the ECB target rate of 2% pa over the next 20 years, we need a property prices growth of 5.5% per annum minimum for Nama to break even on this “50% LTV ratio loans package” in 20 years time!

Myth 1 is busted.

Myth 2: property crashes are benign… "Previous property crashes in London, Paris and Stockholm suggest that, within 10 years, prices recover to 30% below the top of the bubble".

I have shown in another post (here) that this is not consistent with the evidence from the past busts. So let me not repeat myself here. Furthermore, do any of us really believe we will get back to within 30% of the madness of the 2006-2007 markets ever again?

Instead, consider the statement itself.

First, this refers to nominal prices. Real prices (inflation adjusted) are much slower to recover.

Second, this refers to a simple price recovery. 

But Nama is about more costs than just the cost of loans bought. It is also about a cost of loans financing. So, suppose we take DofF and the journos for what they claim. 

Suppose our property prices will be back to 30% below the top of the bubble in 10 years from now. At 5% per annum the cost of bonds financing for Nama, 0.75% per annum cost of recapitalization financing (ca 8% shot – one off in 2010, taking into account the present value of this cash, recapitalization will actually cost closer to 1% pa over the 10 year horizon, but let us give the difference as a margin of error in favor of Nama). We have: the original (2007 value) 100K loan with LTV of 75% (DofF number) worth 75K on bank’s book today will be purchased by Nama at a 30% discount for 52.5K in 2010. Within 10 years time, property value is 70K. Nama can sell property for this amount and pay down 52.5K of the original loan purchase prices. Except, by then, Nama would have accumulated additional 33K in interest charges on bonds… 

Total loss to Nama on this transaction = 70K-52.5K-33K=15.5K, so Nama will still be posting a 30% loss on its operations.

Myth 2 is busted.

Myth 3: Bond markets do not like privatizations and they love Brian Lenihan’s policies. "Within five days of Anglo Irish being nationalised, the rate which Ireland is charged for borrowing money internationally had risen."

Firstly, while it is true that the bond spreads rose when the Government nationalised its not at all evident or even apparent that this happened

1. Because we nationalised Anglo or   
2. Because we had to nationalise Anglo.

In other words, did Irish Government bond spreads reflect the Government new exposure due to nationalization or did they reflect the fact that nationalization simply showed to the rest of the world just how sick our system really was.

Put differently, did the cardiogram go off charts because the patient went into a cardiac arrest, or did it go off charts because the patient was connected to the machine reading the cardiogram?

Recent research from the ECB (cited by me in the press and here on this blog before, you can find the original paper in the The Determinants of Long-Term Sovereign Bond Yield Spreads in the Euro Area.  Monthly Bulletin, pages  71–72, July 2009) showed no evidence that Ireland’s critically elevated levels of bond spreads at the time before, during and after the Anglo nationalization were somehow out of line with the general model. They were, per ECB model, reflective of the fundamentals in Ireland, not of the ‘nationalization’ one-off episode.

Incidentally, similarly, Greek, Spanish, Portugal’s and other APIIGS’ countries spreads rose at the same time as Irish and in similar proportions. They didn’t nationalize their banks… So what is the DofF talking about here and why is our media parroting this claim as some unquestionable truth?

Now, one of my TCD students has just completed a research paper applying the ECB model to Irish bond spreads. The break point in our bond spreads occurs about the same time that it occurred for other APIIGS -  October 2007. Not that close to Anglo event…

What is also interesting is that the current period of ‘falling spreads’ for Ireland – lauded as a sign that the Irish Government is being trusted by the international markets in all its hard work to destroy our private sector economy… ooops, sorry, to ‘correct our fiscal deficit’ in Leniham-speak, is really fully in line with just one factor – the overall improved sentiment in the global markets. Our ‘leadership’ clowns are riding the coat tails of the US and EU ‘bottoming out’ euphoria, not some miraculous change in sentiment to Ireland they are going to leave behind to the next Government.

Myth 3 is also busted.

Myth 4: "There is a reason why no country has nationalised its entire banking system."

Now, our own journalists simply do not treat other banks operating in this country as a part of the ‘banking system’… Just think two events in the recent past when scaring kids with ‘foreigners’ was en vogue:

1)    Anglo’s “shortsellers from New York and London are out to get us”. Of course it turned out that the shortsellers from abroad were spot on right about their reading of the bank’s position, while all the damage done to the Anglo was done from inside the bank – from its own senior management;

2)    American ‘vulture funds are swooping onto the wounded Irish banking system’. Of course were they to take our sick banks over, we wouldn’t have a need to cull family budgets for generations to come to finance Nama… wouldn’t we?

Every time someone says ‘we need to protect our national [insert any business-related noun here]’, I know I am smelling a rat. ‘Protecting national banking’ means, as Nama clearly illustrates, vast transfer of income and wealth from ordinary people of Ireland to shareholders and bondholders of these banks. I have nothing against the latter two groups of fine people and institutions, but I certainly do not love them enough to sacrifice my son’s college tuition fund and my own and my wife’s pensions to bail them out.

In reality, of course, the idea that ‘nationalizing’ 6 banks in Ireland will leave Ireland with no privately-owned banks is bonkers. Ireland has significant international banking sector that would be even greater in size were we not shielding BofI and AIB from competition through supporting their legacy positions. Furthermore, under my Nama3.0 proposal (see here), we would not nationalize any of the banks at all. We would simply change their ownership from that of the few who took wrong risks to that of the many who are now expected to pay for the mistakes of the others.

Myth 4 is busted.

 

Myth 5: "But the nationalisation option throws up enormous difficulties. The state would have to pay in the region of €5bn to shareholders of AIB and Bank of Ireland,"

Under my Nama3.0 proposal, we would first force the banks to take writedowns, then use remaining share holders’ and bond holders’ equity and debt holdings to offset these losses, then use private investors and swap-participating bondholders to recapitalize the banks. Only after that will there be a cost of the taxpayers. At any rate, this cost will be much lower than the 60bn cost of Nama purchases, plus tens of billions in bonds financing costs associated with Nama.

Furthermore, let us not forget that after Nama we will have to recapitalize the banks no matter what and that this recapitalization is likely to cost us well in excess of 5bn itself.

After all, we paid nothing for Anglo in excess of direct recapitalization costs involved, which are much lower than the cost of Nama buying Anglo’s loans and ‘managing’ them. Furthermore, the same costs were paid to AIB and BofI as well, despite these banks remaining 'private'.

Myth 5 is busted too.

Myth 6: "There is a reluctance to lend money to banks that do not have the transparency that stock market membership brings, and that are viewed as being open to political interference."

This is false.

1. Irish banks and banking institutions - listed or mutually owned - are not transparent already, as the Anglo saga clearly illustrated, as AIB repeated blunders in public statements have clearly highlighted and as the reluctance of all of these banks to take realistic writedowns on the loans attests. Were the Tribune folks actually to give it a thought - we know that AIB, BofI and the rest of the pack are artificially depressing expected losses on their loans in anticipation of Nama, since, by the entire Nama existence we know that absent Nama they would sustain losses much greater than their current capital reserves allow. So what 'transparency' are we talking about?
2. Irish banks cannot borrow without the twin ECB and Irish Government Guarantee supports, despite them not being in national ownership;
3. Irish banks will not be nationalized in Nama3.0 set up and their shares will be fully liquid;
4. Many private (Rabo, a host of Swiss banks and Belgian banks) and nationalized (Northern Rock) banks are capable of borrowing well better and cheaper than the Irish banks underpinned by full state guarantee.

Myth busted.

It is not the ignorance or the lack of knowledge amongst some of our leading journalists that defies my belief, but the innate lack of intellectual curiosity to question the spin they are being spoon-fed by the ‘official’ Ireland.

Hence, Mary Robinson is being paraded around the press as some sort of a ‘wise’ financial guru full of wisdom to breath new air into the debate about Nama. Spare me this nonsense!

Economics 26/08/09: Nama debate gone dirty

I have missed today's debate between Alan Ahearne and Brian Lucey, although as far as I understand Dr Ahearne failed to actually face Brian in this debate.

Having heard the 'debate' afterward and having obtained a letter from one of the Green Party parliamentary party members to a senior ranking disillusioned member of the party in which a venerable Green legislator claims, as Alan did today, that academics commenting on Nama with a critical perspective are not fully appreciative of complexities of Nama and are not offering any solutions to the porblems Nama is supposed to tackle, I can say the following:

I stand by my original estimates of losses expected from Nama. Alan Ahearne's quoted figures are based on thin air, as Dr Ahearne has failed to produce any evidence to support his assumptions or estimations, while my (and Brian Lucey's) balancesheet for Nama has been in public domain and under public scrutiny for over two months now,

Points raised by myself, Brian Lucey and Karl Whelan (and some others as well) about the lack of safe guards, stop0loss rules, transparency, accountability and ownership of Nama and its assets are not academic, they are as real as Dr Ahearne's salary in the employment of the Minister. Nay, they are actually more real, because families who will be paying for Nama deserve to be the rightful owners of Nama assets and deserve to have full access to Nama operations,

As far as I know, neither Dr Ahearne, nor his masters have offered any, I repeat, any clarifications as to the amendments they plan to propose for Nama legislation. In contrast, everyone can read my proposal for Nama3.0, Karl Whelan's proposals for changing Nama legislation, Patrick Honohan's ideas on how Nama can be fixed and altered, and so on. None of us have been paid for doing so, unlike Dr Ahearne who, having not failed to accuse us all of being 'academic' has (a) called us 'colleagues' (surely this makes his musings on the subject also 'academic', and (b) has managed to produce no new ideas on Nama beyond what his masters produced in the proposed legislation.

I am having a very hard time understanding how myself and other independent observers of Nama can be labelled 'academic' when the questions we raised about Nama are both immediately relevant to the issue of Nama operations and are countered from the opposing side by the nonsense of unsubstantiated numbers quoting and references to us 'not appreciating the complexities'?

Here are couple of questions sent to me by one senior policy person in Ireland with my quick replies to them:

Q: Apparently, in one of the debates, a pro-Nama person suggested that Banks nationalisation cannot occur before Nama is paid for because, while the ECB will do the swap for Irish government bonds as a reasonable discount, they will not give the same deal for a nationalised bank. Or if they do help us, they will insist on their pound of flesh i.e.they will do an IMF on us and we will lose all economic sovereignty. My questions about that are... a) is that really true...

A: It is true in so far as the ECB lending window is for private banks that are solvent. However, it is a technicality, since the ECB will have to offer lending facility to the governments as well. It simply has not been confronted with such a prospect before, but hey, there is always a first one.

b) if Irish government put their shares in Trust for taxpayers as per Nama3.0 - hey presto no link to government - does that get over ECBproblem?

A: Yes, it does, further, recall that I have argued that (steps 3 and 4) the Government can provide for private ownership diluting its own share holding in the banks, so the banks will be owned by a trust (Nama), plus two large groups of private investors, with the Government nowhere to be seen. We can even go further and include as shareholders in Nama some developers/investors by offering them shares in Nama in return for equity in their development projects written against the loans.

Economics 16/08/2009: Alan Ahearne on NAMA - not an ounce of sense

Alan Ahearne has decided to produce a definitive defense of NAMA in today's Sunday Business Post (here). And I would have to respond. As usual - Italics are mine.

The first half of Alan's article is saying absolutely nothing - nothing as in nada, zilch, nul, nil. He simply outlines in a tedious and lecturing fashion a litany of trivial observations as to why a banks crisis resolution is necessary. He does not show that NAMA is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for crisis resolution.

"Nama is also designed to ensure that the resolution to the problem of legacy loans is orderly. Nama can achieve this outcome because it will be patient in disposing of property assets which it has seized from delinquent borrowers." This is an unproven statement that can be argued to be untrue as NAMA can and is being shown to be likely to produce a prolonged period of highly uncertain property markets with buyers and investors holding back in anticipation of future NAMA disposals of property. The longer NAMA holds these properties, the longer it will delay new investment in property in this country. The longer it will keep banks uncertain about future NAMA losses (which - as we were told - will be clawed back from the banks), the longer the mortgage holders will remain in negative equity, withholding from consumption and investment and so on.

"Outside of Nama, a liquidator appointed to wind up a property company has a duty to sell off seized properties quickly. During an economic crisis, when markets are under severe stress and banks are not functioning properly, these properties may have to be sold at a discount to their underlying economic value." Again, Alan presents a dishonest 'extreme' alternative to NAMA as we know it. Outside of NAMA, there can be better mechanisms designed for systemic and orderly adjustment of the property bubble legacy. My own NAMA 3.0 is one. Karl Whelan proposed a similar scheme as well.

"Economists refer to the discount that the liquidator must pay for a quick sale as ‘the price of immediacy’. By design, Nama will not have to pay this discount because it will sell the properties at its own pace. It is important to note that the outcome for delinquent borrowers is identical, whether liquidation occurs inside or outside of Nama. Property companies are wound up and collateral is seized. The difference is in the speed at which the seized assets are re-sold to the market." Again, this is simply not true. NAMA will keep certain projects (and thus certain property developers) in business and will even aim to complete some of the projects. If this is not a rescue clause, I am not sure what is. And as far as NAMA not paying the discount due to long term nature of the undertaking to dispose of the properties, well, this does have a price -
the longer NAMA holds these properties on its books:

• the heavier will be taxpayers' losses on bond financing (interest);
• the longer will the property markets take to adjust;
• the longer will be the period of banks uncertainty as to their costs of NAMA;
• the longer will be the period of stock markets uncertainty about the banks profitability;
• the longer will be the period of subdued investment and consumption in Ireland.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, Alan. And NAMA is not getting close to one either.

"It would be impossible to dispose of ten of billions of euro worth of distressed properties in a short time under current conditions -and extremely destructive to even try." Again - no one I know of - neither Karl Whelan, nor Brian Lucey, nor myself have said there should be a fire sale of assets. Why is Alan Ahearne allowed to deflect public attention from the real issues that are being raised against NAMA? Has he morphed into a spin doctor for DofF?

"No wonder, then, that the IMF, in its recent report on Ireland, describes Nama as ‘‘pivotal to the orderly restructuring of the financial sector and limiting long-term damage to the economy’’." Well, IMF has not endorsed NAMA and was actually critical of its provisions. Alan knowingly distorts IMF analysis by selectively quoting its report.

"A key question relates to the value at which the loans will be transferred from the banks to Nama. Some commentators have mistakenly talked about the price which Nama will pay for land and development properties. Nama is not buying properties, but rather buying loans that are secured on properties and other assets -there is a fundamental distinction." Again, Alan uses this article to deflect the real criticism - not a single serious commentator said that NAMA will be buying actual properties. But in buying the loans, NAMA will acquire titles to underlying collateral. So - a play of words for Alan is a fertile opportunity to reduce public focus on the real issues.

"The transfer value will be in accordance with EU Commission guidelines on the treatment of impaired assets. The commission is very clear on this issue: the loans are to be transferred at values based on their so-called ‘real’ -or long-term - economic value. These are the terms used by the commission. Paragraph 41 of the commission’s communication published in February states that “ . . .the transfer value for asset purchase or asset insurance measures should be based on their real economic value’’. Annex IV of the communication states that ‘‘the objective of the pricing must be based on a transfer value as close to the identified real economic value as possible’’. Well, actually, a 'real economic value' is not the same as the 'long-term economic value'. Plus, as several of us have pointed out before (Karl Whelan, Brian Lucey, many others and myself) - 'long-term' economic value can mean anything. Absolutely anything. So what Alan is saying above, just as his masters did earlier is that 'the EU Commission allows us to buy these assets at whatever price we want to pay for them'. This might be good for the Commission. But it is not good enough for us, as taxpayers who will ultimately pay this price.

"Some commentators have claimed that Nama should instead transfer the loans at what they refer to as ‘current market clearing prices’. It is hard to see how this makes sense. The reality is that there is no price at which the market for land and development can clear under current conditions. This is not to say that land has no value, but rather that the market for these assets is not functioning." In the current markets we do have real valuations of land and development assets. There are sales, there are some investments, there are transactions. Furthermore, today's price can be taken as a short-term valuation based on standard hedonic valuations. The only problem - for the banks, developers and their guardians in the Leinster House - is that these valuations are too low. So they use an academic economist to argue nonsense about 'markets are not there, man, me doesn't know much about what value things might have'.

"There seems to be a misapprehension among some commentators that, for Nama to break even, property prices need to revert to the peak levels seen in 2006-07. This is not the case."
Well, do the maths, apply discount of a% on a property loan of X bought, assuming the loan yields y% annually. Hold it for T years. Assume that the underlying collateral appreciates at k percent per annum. The present value of this loan T years from today if the prevailing rate of interest is R is
(1-a)X{Sum([1+y+k]/[1+R]^i} where i=1,...,T
The cost of financing this loan is at R+g where g is the risk premium, taken over T years and discounted back to today:
(1-a)X{Sum([1+R+g]/[1+R]^i}
The break even on this deal requires that the first identity is equal to the second one. This in turn implies that to break even, NAMA will have to either

• enjoy property yields + appreciation on the capital in excess of the cost of bonds financing and the cost of running NAMA itself - which really means a property boom (in yields terms) will be required well in excess of the 2004-2007 one, or
• enjoy property price appreciation that will cover the cost of bond financing, plus the cost of running NAMA, plus inflation, less the discount a.

This is soo excessively optimistic, that actually it makes me believe that in making his statement, Alan reveals not having done even a basic estimation of NAMA likely costs and losses.

Now, it is also telling that Alan fails to even mention the problems of protecting taxpayers' interests, ensuring transparency of NAMA operations, or any other major issues for which NAMA has been criticised by many commentators, including myself.

I also find it extremely arrogant and outright rude that this public servant has managed to escape any scrutiny as to:

• why as the economic adviser to the Minister for Finance has he not produced any economic assessments of NAMA?
• why has he failed to consider the economic costs of NAMA (he does attempt something of an analysis - albeit extremely simplistic - of what would happen if NAMA was not enacted)?
• why is he allowed to simply claim - with no evidence or arguments to support such a assertion - that NAMA will restore functional banking system in Ireland?
• why is he allowed, unchallenged, to claim that all external analysts are supporting NAMA, while we know of several Nobel Prize winning economists, numerous other respected international academics, not to mention all internal independent analysts working in Ireland who unequivocally identified NAMA as being a bad idea?

In short, Alan's article is a waste of space - pure and simple, providing not a single fact, not a single logical argument, not a single ounce of economic reasoning to support his thesis.

Read my alternative to NAMA here.

Economics 1/08/2009: NAMA - alternatives Part IV

June 2009 paper from the IMF, titled The Economics of Bank Restructuring: Understanding the Options by Augustin Landier and Kenichi Ueda is something Minister Lenihan and indeed the entire Irish Cabinet should have read, and probably would have read if their economic advisers actually did their jobs. But, of course, the readers of this free (unlike Alan Ahearne's advice) blog can read it here.

Here is a summary (italics are mine):

"This note ...evaluates various restructuring options for systemically important banks. The note assumes that the government aims to reduce the probability of a bank's default and keep the burden on taxpayers at a minimum [a tall assumption for own Government, but hey...].

...If debt contracts can be renegotiated easily, the probability of default can be reduced without any government involvement by a debt-for-equity swap. Such a swap, if appropriately designed, would not make equity holders or debt holders worse off. However, such restructurings are hard to pull off in practice because of the difficulty of coordinating among many stakeholders, the need for speed, and the concerns of the potential systemic impact of rewriting debt contracts.

When debt contracts cannot be changed, transfers from the taxpayer are necessary. Debt holders benefit from a lower default probability. Absent government transfers, their gains imply a decrease in equity value. Shareholders will therefore oppose the restructuring unless they receive transfers from taxpayers.

The required transfer amounts vary across restructuring plans. Asset sales are more costly for taxpayers than asset guarantees or recapitalizations. [We know thi - NAMA will ask us to pony up €60bn in bonds, plus another €10bn+ in recapitalization funds on top of already awarded €7bn+ - all for bailing out a system that in its entirety is worth no more than €10bn]. This is because sales are not specifically targeted to reduce the probability of default. Guarantees or recapitalizations affect default risk more directly. Transfers can also be reduced if the proceeds of new issues are used to buy back debt.

Depending on the options chosen, restructuring may generate economic gains. These gains should be maximized. Separating out bad assets can help managers focus on typical bank management issues and thereby increases productivity. Because government often lacks the necessary expertise to run a bank or manage assets, it should utilize private sector expertise [Now, if you read NAMA legislation, the system will rely on NAMA-own employees to run risk and credit committees - what 'private sector expertise'?]. Low up-front transfers can help prevent misuse of taxpayer money [Well, NAMA will have up-front transfers of some €60bn!In contrast, my proposal for the banks to take market-driven writedowns before NAMA transfers would minimise this.]. Moreover, the design of bank managers' compensation should provide incentives to maximize future profits.

If participation is voluntary, a restructuring plan needs to appeal to banks. Bank managers often know the quality of their assets better than the market does. This means banks looking for new financing will be perceived by the market to have more toxic assets and, as a result, face higher financing costs. Banks will therefore be reluctant to participate in a restructuring plan and demand more taxpayer transfers. A restructuring that uses hybrid instruments - such as convertible bonds or preferred shares - mitigates this problem because it does not signal that the bank is in a dire situation. [Of course, NAMA is all about one instrument - taxpayers' cash] In addition, asset guarantees that are well designed can be more advantageous to taxpayers than equity recapitalizations. [Well, of course we had no 'well-designed' guarantees - we have a blanket guarantee. And thus we also have subsequent recapitalizations. And now NAMA. And after NAMA - more recapitalizations... I mean this Government and its advisers wouldn't last long in a junior policy research job at the IMF...] A compulsory program, if feasible, would obviously eliminate any signaling concerns. Information problems can also be mitigated if the government gathers and publicizes accurate information on banks' assets. [NAMA is a compulsory programme. And yet, despite the IMF advice, it is reliant on a sweet-heart deal for the banks with total disregard for the taxpayers' interests. Reckless? Venal? You decide.]

In summary, systemic bank restructuring should combine several elements to address multiple concerns and trade-offs on a case-by-case basis. In any plan, the costs to taxpayers and the final beneficiaries of the subsidies should be transparent. [NAMA legislation makes its operations fully concealed from any public scrutiny and fully indemnified against any charges of reckless waste of taxpayers' resources. It even makes it impenetrable to the courts.] To forestall future financial crises, managers and shareholders should be held accountable and face punitive consequences. [This is explicitly prevented in the NAMA legislation] In the long run, various frictions should be reduced to make systemic bank restructuring quicker, less complex, and less costly.

I rest my case. In a nutshell, even by IMF standards, NAMA is a monster that will willingly or recklessly defraud the Irish taxpayers.

Economics 29/07/2009: NAMA time horizon

Peter Bacon on today's Morning Ireland has stated that the time horizon for the real estate cycle built into NAMA assumptions is between 5 and 10 years. I have written about this assumption in the previous post (here). Assuming that what is meant by the 'cycle' here is peak-to-peak U-cycle, the most conservative Government estimate, then, is for the growth of 14.86% annually in house prices, if we are now at the bottom of the cycle. Oh, that is realistic, of course, but only if the Government spends the next few months blowing up - physically - so much housing stock in this country that it will create a massive overhang in demand over supply. Good luck!

But there is an added complication that was revealed by Liam Carroll's examinership case. As we all knew, loans to developers, by and large - all developers - to date have not been serviced with interest roll overs becoming a routine at the very latest mid 2008. This means that by the time NAMA purchases a given loan with face value €X, given the reasonably expected average rate of interest on refinanced loans of 8-11%, this loan will be refelective of:

• 12.24-16.95% cumulative rate of rolled interest, plus
• the orignal principal of €0.8305-0.8776 to the Euro of the face value of the loan

Now, suppose NAMA applies a haircut of 25% on the loan, so we buy €1 of the loan at a price of €0.75. What do we get for that €0.75? A loan that had at the time of its origination an underlying asset value of €0.83-0.88. So the real face value discount we are getting is 0.75/0.83 - 0.75/0.88 or 9.64% to 14.77%.

But wait, the actual principal (face value) amount has depreciated by, say, roughly 50% since the time the loan was written, so in reality, the discount NAMA will take will be negative 70-78%! What does it mean? Take a simple analogy. You walk into a shop and see a TV advertised 'For Sale'. The signs reads:
Original Price €100.00
Sale Price €178.00
How fast will you walk away from this 'deal'?

NAMA will overpay for the assets it buys on a vast scale!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Economics 27/07/2009: NAMA, ILandP rate hike, US home sales and redemptions

So NAMA failed the first day of Cabinet debate. We know this much - even RTE managed to issue a post, although the Montrose boys lacking anything real to report managed to produce a cheerful note on the debacle. Oh, how much they want the State to succeed in soaking the private sector...

But what really hides behind the Cabinet in-decision? Well, it is rumored that not the (allegedly) ethical Greens, but Mr Cowen's own troops are unhappy about NAMA. Some senior ministers, as I hear, are saying 'Hold on, we'll have to face constituency out there one day and you are about to load an average person (25 yo+) in this country with some €20K in fresh debt from the bankers and developers alone'. Good for them. And I certainly hope the Greens also stand up and tell Mr Cowen where to pack that NAMA idea.

Oh, and apparently, the DofF men are saying that the 'long term economic' value under the NAMA formula will be based on, well, more than 5 and less than 9 years. Hmmm... What does this mean? It means that NAMA should be expected to break even (at the very least) were we to price the property assets to be purchased into NAMA on this 'long term' valuation basis. Ok... but...

First there is one majour issue here - in real world of economics, long-term market value usually means a long-term past average or trend. What it means for NAMAphiles is thatwe will be forecasting the values forward over some long-term horizon. Anyone familiar with forecasting knows that this, in reality, means that we will be in a completely arbitrary forecasting territory. In other words, for DofF to say we want to take current discounts based on future values projected 5, 7, or 9 years ahead is like saying 'we'll name the price and then justify it afterward'.

But wait, there is also a problem with the way the DofF is allegedly timing the cycle.

Calculated Risk blog (see below) - the top forecaster for US housing market shows expected time to the bottom in price in the US residential market of 5-7 years. Do you think we gonna get there in this time here in Ireland? No. We have had worse correction in the market to date than Japan, who are 20 years into the downturn in their property markets and still not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

And NBER research paper 8966 (BOOM-BUSTS IN ASSET PRICES, ECONOMIC INSTABILITY, AND MONETARY POLICY by Michael D. Bordo and Olivier Jeanne) has a handy set of charts at the end, showing the most recent busts in property markets in the OECD economies. Ratios of boom length to bust duration are (defining as boom - trough to peak prices, bust - peak to trough):

• Australia 1980s: 3 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio of 3:7;
• Denmark 1980s: 4 years of boom 7 years of bust: ratio of 4:7;
  
• Finland 1990s: 4 years of boom, 6 years of bust ratio of 2:3;
• Germany 1980s: 4 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio of 4:7;
• Ireland 1970s-1980s: 3 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio of 3:7;
• Italy 1970s-1980s: 3 years of boom, 6 years of bust: ratio of 1:2;
• Italy 1990s: 4 years of boom, 6 years of bust: ratio of 2:3;
• Japan 1970s: 2 years of boom, 4 years of bust: ratio of 3:4;
• Japan 1985-today: 6 years of boom and 19 years of bust: ratio of 6:19;
  
• Netherlands, 1970s-1980s: 4 years of boom, 8 years of bust: ratio 1:2;
• Norway 1980s-1990s: 4 years of boom, 6 years of bust: ratio 2:3;
• Spain 1970s-1980s: 2 years of boom, 5 years of bust: ratio 2:5;
• Sweden 1970s-1980s: 4 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio 4:7;
• Sweden 1980s-1990s: 3 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio 3:7;
• UK 1970s: 2 years of boom, 4 years of bust: ratio 1:2;
• UK 1990s: 4 years of boom, 7 years of bust: ratio 4:7

So average ratio is 1.874 years of bust per year of boom... and that means that, given we had 5 years of a boom that the historical data suggests a bust of 9.4 years duration at an average. That is 9.4 years to a trough in Irish property prices! Not to a realization of some miraculous 'long term economic value', but to a trough.

Well, let's take a look at the same data from the point of view of time to full return to pre-crisis property prices, or peak to trough (nominal prices):

• Australia 1980s: 18 years from 1981 through 1998;
• Denmark 1980s-1990s: 8 years (1979-1986) and 13 years (1986-1998);
  
• Finland 1990s: 1989-2004 or 16 years;
• Germany 1970s: 1973- today... oh yeah, right - some 36 years;
• Ireland 1979 to 1995 or 17 years;
• Italy 1981- through today... right, so that's about 29 years;
• Japan: 1973 through 1986: 14 years;
• Japan 1990- today: 20 years;
• Netherlands, 1978 through 1998: 21 years;
• Norway 1987 through 2003: 17 years;
• Spain 1978-1987: 10 years;
• Spain 1991-1998: 8 years;
  
• Sweden 1979-today or 31 years;
• UK 1973-1987: 15 years;
• UK 1989-2000: 12 years.
  

So average peak to trough for 'long term nominal economic value' is 17.8 years. Again, given our peak at 2007 we have to look forward to NAMA recovering peak valuations at around, hmmm... 2026... But wait - not all corrections were steep enough to match ours... so let's isolate those that were:

• Australia 1980s: 18 years;
• Finland 1990s: 16 years;
• Germany 1970s: 36 years;
• Italy 1981: 29 years;
• Japan 1990: 20 years;
• Netherlands, 1978: 21 years;
• Norway 1987: 17 years;
• Sweden 1979: 31 years;
• UK 1973: 15 years

Which yields an average of 22.6 years, pushing our recovery to beyond 2030. By this standard, a break even value for NAMA should be based on something closer to 15-16 years, if we are to take a 20-25% haircut on current book values of the loans.

So DofF is talking about under 9 years then... I see... ah, the poverty of expectations...

The Government has time to get it right - they have the entire month of August to sort the new piece of legislation on NAMA, outlining in details:

• Provisions for taxpayer protection;
• Complete and comprehensive balance sheet and cost/benefit analysis of the undertaking;
  
• Exact amount of equity the taxpayers will receive in return for NAMA funds (hmmm, 100% would be a good starting point);
• The exact procedures for divesting out of the banks shares in 3-5 years time with exact legal obligation to disburse any and all surplus funds (over and above the costs) directly to the taxpayers in a form of either banks shares or cash;
  
• The formula for imposing a serious haircut (60%+) on banks bond holders, possibly with some sort of a debt for equity swap;
• A recourse to all developers' own assets - applied retroactively to July 2008 when the first noises of a rescue plan started;
• The list of qualifications for any bank to participate in NAMA, including, but not limited to, the caps on executive compensation at the banks and the requirement to set up a truly independent, veto-wielding risk assessment committee at each bank with a mandatory requirement for a position of a taxpayers' representative on the board that cannot be occupied by a civil servant or anyone who has worked in the industry in the last 10 years;
• Provision for a taxpayers' board, electable directly by people, to oversee the functioning of NAMA;
• A condition that the banks must undergo loan book evaluation prior to transfer of any loans to NAMA, the results of which will be made public - on the web - instantaneously - and will impose a requirement on the banks to write down their assets, again before NAMA purchases any of them, by the requisite amounts to balance their own books in line with valuations;
• A condition that any loan purchased by NAMA be placed on the open market for the period of 2 weeks and that NAMA will not pay any amount in excess of the bids received (if any), with a prohibition for the participating banks to bid on these loans;
• A condition that every NAMA loan should be publicly disclosed, including its valuations and bids it receives in the auction stage of the process;
  
• A stipulation that all and any regulatory authorities (and their senior level employees) that were involved in regulating the banking and housing sector in this country take a mandatory pension cut of 50% and return any and all lump sum funds they collected upon their retirement;
• A provision for dealing with the speculatively zoned land to be acquired by NAMA, i.e orderly de-zoning of this land and transfer of this land to either public (if no bidders arise) or private use consistent with sustainable agricultural development, environmental improvements, public use or forestry;
  
• The measures to prevent banks from beefing up their profit margins through squeezing their preforming customers;
• The measures to force the banks to reduce their cost bases by laying off surplus workers;
• The measures for accounting (in a transparent and fully publicly accessible fashion) on a quarterly basis for NAMA operations and the performance of the state-supported banks.

If I forget something, please, let me know...


Oh and on the topic of IL&P predatory rate hike for adjustable rate mortgages, here is a brilliant argument as to why Minister Lenihan must intervene to stop the practice of soaking the ordinary consumers to pay for past banks follies. Read it and think - can any government, acting in the interest of the broader economy and taxpayers and voters be so reckless in its attempts to hide behind 'protecting the markets' arguments as to willingly sacrifice its own people on the altar of cronyism. And do remember - I am a free marketeer, and a proud one, yet I see no moral strength in Lenihan's arguments.


US data is now showing more serious signs of an uplift... or does it? Sales of new homes rose 11% in June is a sign that some decided to interpret as a return to growth. I wouldn't be so trigger happy myself - this is the largest rise in new homes sales since... oh you'd think like somewhere in 2006? no - since November 2008. This is volatile series and the seasonally adjusted rate of 384,000 new homes sales in a month is, while impressive, way off the old highs. Thus sales are still down 21.3% on already abysmal levels of 2008 so far this year.

Here is what my favourite US housing guys - http://www.calculatedriskblog.com - had to say about the latest rise: a W-shaped bottoming out is coming. And a superb chart from the source:
Or, in the words of the blog author:"There will probably be two bottoms for Residential Real Estate. The first will be for new home sales, housing starts and residential investment. The second bottom will be for prices. Sometimes these bottoms can happen years apart. I think it is likely that we've seen the bottom for new home sales and single family starts, but not for prices. It is way too early to try to call the bottom in prices. House prices will probably fall for another year or more. My original prediction (a few years ago) was that real house prices would fall for 5 to 7 years (after 2005), and we could start looking for a bottom in the 2010 to 2012 time frame for the bubble areas. That still seems reasonable to me."

And to me too. But what I would caution against is the optimism for the overall property markets. Here are two tidy little reasons:

One: US equitable redemptions are the lags between the property being reported as a non-performing on the loan book of a bank and the time it hits the foreclosure market. Now, these vary by state, with some states having no er provision at all, while others having 9 months plus. The US average is about 4 months. This is what is yet to be reflected in the 'distressed' sales gap - the gap between new home sales and existing homes sales. Chart below illustrates:
Again, the distressed gap is not closing, but both series are pointing up. Now, notice that around November 2008-February 2009, the days of the most fierce destruction of income and wealth worldwide, the number of existent properties on the markets did not rise. Why? The ER lags are kicking in. So take the average of 4 months and get June 2009 to start showing an increase in existent homesales rising - foreclosures are feeding in. This process is likely to continue through months to come.

Two: I would watch the maturity of securitized commercial loans... these are still looming on the horizon for the roll-over (and they are also a problem in Ireland, where most of commercial property lending was securitized)... Comes autumn, expect things to get tough once again... Oh, and then NAMA will coincide with the already tightening credit markets and will take a large chunk of liquidity our of the market... Gotta love that Lenihan/Cowen timing - like two elephants trying to dance polka at a Jewish wedding - loads of broken glass, but not to the delight of the newlyweds...

Economics 25/07/2009: NAMA Presentation

So NAMA... where can it lead us? This is a question I tried to answer for today's very engaging event. I would like to thank all the participants in it for having such tremendous patience to sit through my presentation.

Those of you who attended would remember a comment from the audience that Ireland has a debt overhang on the private economy side and that NAMA is justified as a form of correcting it. This is, in my view, the singular most problematic issue raised for five reasons:

1. Logic commands us to look at a problem to determine whether or not it requires a solution. Once we deem the problem to be grave enough to require a solution, it commands us to devise an appropriate solution. I agree - debt overhang is a severe problem and it requires a solution. However, no logic requires us to undertake a wrong solution to a rightly identified problem.
   
2. Economic efficiency argument tells us that we need to solve the problems relating to the most productive sectors of the economy first so as to rescue our productive capacity. Once that is done, only then can we have a luxury to use limited resources to address problems in less productive sectors. NAMA will concentrate solely on the problem of debt overhang on the developers' side. It will not address debt overhang on consumers' side or on the side of our businesses. Yet, while developers who are in trouble are not a part of the productive sector of our economy (they are, by and large in trouble because of highly speculative re-zoning and building projects they undertook) or at the very least not the most productive part of our economy, households and companies are the productive components of this economy. NAMA will do two things to Irish companies and consumers. It will retain their debts and magnify them by forcing banks to increase their existent loans' profit margins (as we are already seeing with variable rate mortgages and accelerated loans revisions for performing customers on the business lending side). And it will saddle companies and consumers with the debts of developers via NAMA bonds. Which part of this economic policy is economically literate?
3. Financial efficiency requires us to undertake a form of solution that minimises economic and financial costs to the taxpayers. NAMA is the least economically efficient means for doing so, for an alternative - buying out the main banks or forcing a restructuring of their debts (possibly via an debt-for-equity swap) will be cheaper and will offer more control and upside potential to the taxpayers.
4. Any Government policy must apply, without discriminating against or in favour of any particular group of people. And yet, NAMA will create a discriminatory structure whereby the failures in pricing risk by the banks and developers will be dumped unceremoniously onto the shoulders of the ordinary taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I face no chance of doing the same to the banks. In fact, even more egregiously, Minister Lenihan - a lawyer by training has announced recently that he cannot interfere in the 'markets' on behalf of the variable rate mortgage holders who are being fleeced by the banks hiking their rates to push up profit margins. This is the same Minister Lenihan who has no problem interfering with the 'markets' by dumping some €60bn in banks' liabilities on to the taxpayers. This is discriminatory, in so far as both actions are one way streets - the banks cannot be made accountable to the taxpayers, and the taxpayers cannot be allowed to renege on transferring their wealth to the banks.
   
5. Political and ethical legitimacy requires that any solution that uses collective resources must address first the needs of those who provide resources. In the case of NAMA that means the ordinary people. Not of companies (they come second in the tier as employers and creators of added value) and certainly not of the developers (who come in third in the picking order). Which part of NAMA will address the needs of an ordinary family that is going to:

• Pay taxes Messrs Cowen and Lenihan levy on us, while
• Also paying for NAMA, while
• Facing a risk of financial ruin from unemployment and
• Possible home repossession should the default on a mortgage payment because their savings will be wiped out by NAMA debt burden; whilst
• Having the bleak future with no pension provision as
  
• The banks and Messrs Cowen and Lenihan enjoy a nice tidy rescue package paid for by the aforementioned 21st century Irish Government serfs?
  

Hence to argue that we must support NAMA because we have a debt problem in this country fails on five fundamental principals: logic, economic and financial efficiency, non-discriminatory action by the state and political and ethical legitimacy. It is deeply immoral and has not a single rational point in its favour.

So here are the slides...