Economics 04/08/2009: NAMA, Liam Carroll & Short Termist Bonds

I should make it a habit to direct every NAMA post reader to my proposal for NAMA 3.0 here.


Yeps, Supreme Court came in on the side of the Government, throwing a lifeline to NAMA and forcing taxpayers into deeper losses. My earlier note stand now (see here) with all the gory implications for losses on Mr Carroll's loans now being back in the NAMA court.

But two birdies have chirped to me that there is more brewing up in the land of NAMA-fantasy. Apparently, the rumor has it, the Government plan is to issue short term bonds to cover NAMA liabilities. Given that NAMA will start issuing bonds in 2010 for this undertaking, the short term nature rumored is for a 2011-2012 bonds.

This, if true, makes no sense for several important reasons. Here are some:

(1) Issuing short-term debt with maturity before 2013 is equivalent to a financial suicide. The reason is simple - there is no credible (or for that matter even an incredible one) commitment from the ECB that

• such issuance can be rolled over at the same or lower interest rates to cover maturing bonds; and
• the EU will allow these bonds to remain off the balance sheet of the Government upon the roll over.
  

(2) Issuing short term bonds will be a fiscal suicide, for their maturity, and roll-over date, will fall dead on in the years of heavy Exchequer borrowing and maturity of other - 2008-2009 issued bonds. Given that the market demand for fixed income paper worldwide will be thinner then (due to increased appetite for equities-linked risk), a flood of rolled over bonds can risk derailing the borrowing programmes for Irish sovereign debt. Now, if you are a forward-looking investor, expect Irish yields to run away from the benchmarks once again, then.

(3) Short term maturity does not take into account the main risk to NAMA valuations, namely that by 2011 or for that matter 2013, the assets taken over by NAMA will be priced at any significant upside relative to what NAMA will pay for them, implying that, under short-term issuance, this Government will face the need to

• engage in a massive refinancing operations
  
• at the time when its balance sheet liabilities will be almost at their peak (see Department of Finance projections);
• pay higher expected cost of borrowing than today; and
• potentially, load the NAMA liabilities onto Government own balancesheet, while
• facing market prices and demand for real assets that is well below the valuations applied by NAMA.
  

If you look at the latter point. DofF uses 7 year U-shape cycle as its basic assumption. Peter Bacon last week stated that the cycle is expected to be 5-10 years. My estimations, based on NBER research (here), show that the average duration of the U-shaped cycle in historical data for OECD economies for 1970-2003 episodes of house prices collapse co-measurable with the one we are experiencing today is between 18 and 23 years. This range is dependent on how you time the cycle, but it refers to a nominal price cycle, unadjusted for Forex devaluations that accompanied such cycles in other countries and inflation. Japan (in down cycle since 1989-1990), Germany (since 1972-73), Italy (since 1981) and Sweden (since 1979) have not recovered to date.

Considering rolled up interest charges on impaired loans, banks' restructuring of interest payment schedules on so-called 'performing' stressed loans that in any other country would be classified as having defaulted, NAMA will be purchasing assets from the banks at an extremely shallow effective discount.

For example, a discount of 30% applied to a loan with 1.5 years (since July 2008 through December 2009) rolled up interest at 10%, and a built in re-financing cost of 1% will be equivalent to an effective discount of just 18.1% relative to the original principal of the loan itself. If, in the mean time, the underlying asset value itself has depreciated by, say 40%, then
NAMA will be buying a Euro 60 asset for Euro81.86. Now, in order for NAMA to recoup the original cost of purchase (not counting the cost of financing the purchase and managing the asset etc), the asset value needs to appreciate by a compound 36.4% within the span of the bond
finance. Thus between now and 2011 when the alleged bonds should mature, the annualized rate of appreciation required on the assets for NAMA just to recoup the original loan amount would have to be 16.8% per annum!

If anyone in the Department of Finance thinks this is a sane bet on a market turn-around, God help us.

Short-term financing of long-term obligations, as we should have learned in the current crisis, is equivalent to giving steroids to an unfit athlete and sending him out to run a marathon.

Though to repeat once again - this is just a speculation at this moment in time although two independent sources have tipped me on this one.

Economics 04/08/2009: NAMA & Liam Carroll - the saga continues

Oh, you have to love the drama and tension surrounding NAMA.

The latest thing to hit the rumour mill as we expect this afternoon our Suprem Court's rulling on Liam Carroll's appeal of the High Court decision to deny his companies examinership protection is that, allegedly, BofI and AIB are considering a buy-out of ACC Bank. Now, this is a rumor at this moment in time, and I have to stress this once again - it is a rumor - but given that:

• ACC can be, probably had for ca Euro130-140mln;
• ACC's books are so toxic (30% plus impairement across the property portfolio, 39% impairment across commercial property alone that its parent Rabo Bank would simply love to get rid of it for any sort of money;
• ACC's removal from the challenge to Liam Carroll and other developers would allow the big 3 of Ireland to continue on their chosen paths to the taxpayer-financed feeding trough of NAMA;
• ACC's buyout wouyld please the masters in the Government; and
• NAMA would more than compensate the buyer for the extra cost (say ACC is bought at a 50% discount to the book, then NAMA buys roughly 75% of former ACC 'assets' at 30% discount, implying a nifty return of Euro 5 per original expenditure of Euro 100, and you get to keep 25% of the ex-ACC assets too...

It would be no brainer for the AIB or BofI to load up on more toxic stuff to swap it for taxpayers cash.

From our, taxpayers' perspective, this is equivalent to throwing children off the sleigh in hope of holding back the wolves. The only hope we have at this stage is that a swift turning down of Carroll's appeal by the Supreme Court throws these schemes wide open.

Economics 03/08/2009: EU unemployment - no Green Shoots in sight

EU unemployment still climbing up: in June - the latest available data - 21.5 mln people, 8.9% of the labour force - were out of work in the EU27. The unemployment rate reached 9.4% for the Eurozone, the highest level since 1999. Spain (18.1%), Baltics (Latvia 17.2%, Estonia 17%, Lithuania 15.8%) led the EU27 in unemployment rate, followed by Ireland (12.2% and catching up).

The number of people unemployed increased by 246,000 in June relative to May. This is much slower than the gain of 646,000 recorded in March, but it nonetheless a continued increase.

So see if you can spot the 'green shoots' or bottoming out in unemployment that the EU has been talking about on the back of the latest figures (chart above). No flattening in the rate of increase since April 2009 moderation on March disastrous figures...

The above tow charts are rather telling as well.

Economics 03/08/2009: Lessons from Roubini for NAMA, Euro area GDP, Wages Falling in Ireland

NAMA has dominated newsflow in this country and on this blog. But the world around us still evolves to the laws that ignore the existence of the Senile Trio of Brian+Brian+Mary. So to recognize this - few housekeeping items that built up over the week.

First, the Eurocoin is out and it is time to update my Euroarea GDP projections. Chart below summarizes.Main features to note:

• Eurocoin improved in July, for the 5th month in a row;
• My forecast for Eurocoin to move in August and September marginally down from its current -0.42 position to -0.44-0.45 and stay there through September/October, awaiting a decisive move (either up or down - a 50:50 chance from this point in time) for either an W-shaped recession or something with a single (albeir of unknown duration) bottom;
• My forecast for June and July Euro coin came in relatively well -0.52 as opposed to Eurocoin measured -0.61 to -0.42. Bang-on in the middle.

Nouriel Roubini’s RGE Monitor also expects “the cyclical recovery in the eurozone [to be led by Germany and France and] to lag recovery in the US, the BRICs and non-Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) emerging markets”. This is relatively consistent with my expectation for Eurozne to bottom out in the sub0cycle around November-December 2009. Assuming there is no double dip. “Among the main factors muting Europe’s recovery in 2010 are a permanent decline in potential output; unwinding pressures of large internal imbalances leading to deflationary pressures; a more restricted monetary and fiscal policy response compared to the U.S. and especially to China; a leveraged financial sector with too-big-to-fail institutions and too-big-to-save features; and a strong reliance on bank funding by the corporate sector subject to a larger financing gap than that seen in the US.”

There are interesting NAMA-related bits in Roubini’s forecasts: “In order not to impair the banking sector’s lending ability permanently, a quick disposal of bad assets is warranted. Lending to the private sector is slowing quickly, and for small and medium sized enterprises with no access to capital markets, bank credit lines represent the only recourse for liquidity. Based on IMF and ECB estimates, total bank losses in the eurozone will amount to between $650 billion and $900 billion, implying substantial additional recapitalization costs.” So two things jump out:

1. NAMA is going to draw down ca €90bn of taxpayers funds to repair, hmmm €90bn in banks bad debts. Across the entire Eurozone, a 7% Tier 1 capital requirement against the backdrop of $650-900bn in total banks losses expected by Roubini will require (RWA inclusive) around €52-73bn in recapitalization costs – €37-51bn. The idiocy of NAMA is that we will spend more in recapitalizing our puny banking system than would be required to support the entire Eurzone! This shows why the IMF (see here) thinks that direct equity take over by injecting capital into the banks works more efficiently than what NAMA is proposing to do.
2. The second point of relevance to NAMA is that of speed of repairs. Roubini is clear that time is of essence. Of course, our Brian+Brian+Mary squad has sat on their hands for over a year now, doing preciously little other than panic-driven measures (blanket guarantees, rash recpaitalizations without proper equity transfers, nationalization of the dodgiest bank possible, followed by another rash recapitalization round, NAMA announcement, the extension of the guarantees…) But even more interesting is the fact that even if everything goes as planned by our Triumvirate, NAMA repairs will not bite in until January 2010 – 29 months after the crisis in the global financial markets started to unfold and 17 months after this Government bothered to recognize the reality of the challenges we face. If that is ‘a quick disposal of bad assets’ that ‘is warranted’ per Roubini, God help us.
   

In the mean time, ISME survey (2,000 firms participating) last week showed new rounds of wage cuts unfolding in Irish SMEs. main highlights are:

• 94% of SMEs have introduced pay cuts / freeze since the start of the year, 45% have introduced a pay cut, with 49% implementing pay freezes. Only 6% paid some wage increases;
  
• 50% of the companies cut working hours;
  
• Average pay cut was so far 13%;
• 26% of companies are still planning fresh redundancies in the next 3 months (August-October).

Summary tables (both courtesy of ISME):
Jack O'Connor of SIPTU was not available for a comment on these.

Economics 02/08/2009: An idiot's guide to tax policy

Remember that senile reply that the Irish Times has published to my conjecture that higher taxes in Irish airports will hurt Irish tourism and ultimately will cost the Exchequer? Feel free to refresh this case here and here - the original piece that caused the Irish Times editorial page implosion).

Well, don't take my word for it, or CSO's figures - these are not sufficient for our wise ex-IMF Directors. Here are the hard jobs...

"Ryanair, the World’s favourite airline, today (30 July 09) announced 20% flight cuts at its Dublin base for the coming winter schedule (09/10). Compared to winter 2008/09, when Ryanair based 18 aircraft, and operated 1,200 weekly flights, Ryanair’s Dublin schedule this winter will be cut by 22% to 14 based aircraft with 20% fewer flights at less than 1,000 each week. Ryanair estimates that its Dublin traffic this winter will decline by a further 250,000 passengers compared to last winter’s figures, as Dublin Airport loses over 2m passengers overall in 2009.

Ryanair’s decision to cut based aircraft flights at Dublin Airport is for the following reasons:
a) Dublin is one of Ryanair’s two most expensive base airports (Stansted is the other).
b) Costs at the DAA monopoly continue to increase at above inflation rates.
c) The Aviation Regulator continues to rubber stamp unjustified Dublin Airport cost increases while costs at most other UK and European airports are falling.
d) The Irish Govts €10 tourist tax makes Ireland an uncompetitive tourist destination at a time when other European Governments have scrapped their tourist taxes.
e) Traffic at Dublin airport is collapsing (down 11% or 1m fewer pax in the first half of 2009) under the weight of these high airport fees and this stupid tourist tax.

The fact that the DAA monopoly are proposing further price increases at a time when most other UK and European airports are reducing their prices, highlights the damage being done to Irish aviation and tourism by this high cost, inefficient, badly run airport monopoly. Ryanair has repeatedly called on the Government to scrap the €10 tourist tax which has had an equally devastating impact on Irish tourism. Ireland cannot grow tourism by taxing tourists. The Belgian and Dutch Governments have recently scrapped their tourist taxes, and the Spanish and Greek Governments have reduced their airport fees in some cases to zero this winter in order to reverse traffic declines.

Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary said: “...The high and rising costs at Dublin Airport, combined with an insanely stupid €10 tourist tax, are devastating tourism here in Ireland. These cuts come just one day after Ryanair announced 39 new routes to the Canaries this Winter where the Spanish Government has reduced airport fees to zero. Last week Ryanair announced 11 new routes to Oslo airports this winter where again airport fees have been substantially reduced. The response of the Government owned DAA monopoly to this 11% traffic collapse is to seek yet further price increases! The incompetent Irish Aviation Regulator has already proposed that Dublin airport charges for 2010 onwards will be “18% higher” than they would be if the DAA’s traffic was not declining. Sadly the DAA gets rewarded by the regulator with price increases for its abject failure to grow and stimulate traffic."

So how much revenue to the economy and the Irish Exchequer is being lost? May be Michael O'Leary can sum it up.

I have nothing to add, other than perhaps to ask the Irish Times editorial team to filter economically illiterate arguments out of its pages in the future - just because someone writing an article signed 'ex-director of IMF and career ex-civil servant from Ireland' doesn't mean that they actually have much to say that is valid. Quite likely, it means the opposite...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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