Economics 25/8/10: Derivatives time bomb?

An interesting number popped out today from the dark depths of the past (hat tip to Ed).

With my emphasis, quoting from the article published in December 2008 by the Chartered Accountants Ireland (linked here) titled "Financial Derivitives (sic), Villian (sic) or Scapegoat" written by Grellan O'Kelly (who worked at the time in the Policy Section of the Financial Institutions and Funds Authorisation Department of the Financial Regulator):

"...when looking at the outstanding derivative positions (notional values) of our main banks as reported in their annual reports, the amounts are extremely small when compared to the total global amounts. A recent BIS survey2 on global OTC positions shows that global notional amounts come to a staggering $516 trillion. The most recent disclosures from our two main retail banks show that their gross notional exposures amount to €640 billion, only 0.17% of the total. ...noting that access to accurate data on derivative products is not always publicly available."

The article contains the usual caveat that "Any views expressed in this article are made in a personal capacity and are not intended to represent the views of the Financial Regulator." Nonetheless, it would be good to get some comment from the FR on this. After all, €640bn might be a small level of exposure to derivatives from the point of view of global banks, but for BofI and AIB to have such an exposure... is roughly 170% of the total 2009 asset base of all Irish banks combined.

For now, I cannot confirm whether this was a typo or not.

The problem is that unwinding even the straight forward swaps can be extremely costly. Buffet's unwinding of lost contracts against reinsurance claims cost Berkshire some $400mln back in 2008. In the case of interest rates swaps written against property, De Montfort University research in June 2010 has estimated that for a book of £143bn of interest rate swaps in the UK (57% of the total existing UK £250bn book of loans is estimated to be hedged by derivatives - here), the cost of unwinding these positions runs into ca £10bn.

So applying the UK estimate to our potential exposure, the cost of unwinding those €640bn in derivatives can be to the tune of €45bn.

Of course, this is just an estimate, but it gives some perspective to the numbers.

But let's ad some relative comparatives (hat tip to Conor for both):

• Ireland accounted for 0.17% of global estimates of OTC derivatives but only 0.03% of Global GDP (based on CIA fact book and CSO data)
• €640bn is 4.12 times our 2008 Gross Value Added (ca €155bn)
  

I am totally at a loss as to this figure - given its size - so any comment on its validity will be appreciated.

Economics 25/8/10: S&P & the horrific cost of banks bailouts

As you all know, Standard & Poor (S&P) downgraded Irish sovereign debt to AA- from AA with a negative outlook. The downgrade was mainly motivated by the fact that the cost of the Irish banking bailout has increased significantly over previous expectations. S&P now estimate the cost of recapitalising the Irish financial system at €45-50bn, up from €30-35bn.

In my view, this is still behind the news curve in terms of estimated total costs.

My projections for total losses are as follows:

• Nama - net loss of (mid-range) €12bn, rising to €19bn in the worst case scenario (although I have not redone estimates for this scenario for some time and they reflect 55% haircut applied on Tranche 1);
  
• Anglo - €33bn in mid-range case, rising to €38.6bn in the worst case scenario (another update is due once the bank reports its results in the next few weeks);
  
• INBS - €6bn, no range as we have little clarity as to their balance sheets details;
• AIB - €7bn mid-range, assuming successful disposal of M&T and BZBWK, worst case scenario €9bn;
  
• BofI - €2bn.

So the total expected banks losses are €50-55.6bn in my estimates.

Importantly, S&P's negative outlook allows for the possibility that the rating could be cut
further if the Government fails to deliver on promised fiscal stabilization. This can occur either due to significant continued deterioration in underlying economic conditions or due to the failure of the Government to actually implement planned cuts, or both.

S&P's current position rates Ireland at the same level as Fitch and one notch below Moody’s, but both of these are keeping Ireland on a stable outlook.

S&P latest estimate is for Ireland net government debt / gross GDP ratio reaching 113% in 2012. Forever cheerful folks at DofF projected this ratio to be 83.9% in 2012 in their Budget 2010 figures. This shows just how much can change in 8 months time. S&P's estimate for debt implies Ireland is facing greater debt mountain than similar rated Belgium and Spain.

But here comes a tricky part. Remember that our debt is currently yielding in excess of 5.5% for 10 year notes. This implies that in 2012, we can expect to pay out 6.215% of our GDP in interest payments alone, or 7.52% of our domestic economy total income. The bill will be €10,241 million - using DofF forecasts - or 20.5% of the total current expenditure planned by the Government. All in, even by rosy projections from DofF for tax revenue, our interest bill alone will be swallowing every third euro revenue will bring in.

This puts into perspective recent ECB research that concluded that debt levels above 90-100% of GDP are, "on average, harmful for growth" and that porblems could arise at the debt levels of as low as 70% of GDP. ECB currently projects that euroarea-wide average debt levels will reach 88.5% in 2011. Does anyone believe anymore that Ireland can run 2.5-3% annual growth rate in the current conditions as projected by the IMF? Or 4.5-4.3% (2012-2013) real GDP growth as projected by DofF?

Economics 24/8/10: Anglo Tranche 2 goes 'Boom!'

Two weeks ago in a post on Anglo (here) I provided a quick explanation of my forecasts for why the mid range expected capital hit on the entire Anglo book of ca €72bn worth of loans (original face value) will be in the region of €33bn. This estimate referred to the mid-range assumptions.

In the light of today's speculations/reports (here) that the final Tranche 2 haircut on Anglo loans will be 61.93% I am now more confident in my original lower- and mid-range estimates, though adjusting my upper margin loss estimate down a notch.

To repeat my projections are:

• Worst case scenario for Anglo requires €38.6bn (down from €38.9bn)
  
• The mid-range is €33bn in total hit (same as earlier)
  
• The best case scenario is €30bn (same as earlier)
  

Some details: Tranche 2 of Anglo loans was valued at €6.75bn. Combined total amount of loans transferred to Nama in Tranche 2 is €11.9bn on an average discount of 55.6%. Tranches 1 & 2 combined is €27.2bn of the total €81 bn planned with an average discount of 52.3%. If this discount stands, remaining Tranche 3 transfers of €53.7bn to be completed by February 2011 will incur capital hit of RWA-adjusted €28.1bn - to a combined Nama-induced capital loss to all 6 banks of €42.3bn. Nama expects further €12bn to be transferred by the end of September - a highly unlikely deadline, at least if Anglo-INBS stuff were to be included here. Provisions by the

As telling as the haircuts are the assumed LTEVs - in Tranche 1 the implied LTEV was 11 percent. In Tranche 2 this is down to 9 percent. Since Nama marks to November 2009, this change can be explained either by lower quality of loans being taken on board (bad news for Nama, better news for banks) or by Nama aggressive drive into raising cash flow (good news for Nama, bad news for the banks).

Now, to my valuations. Table below summarizes:
Notice, I allow for interest margins of 1.5% pa in my mid-range assumptions. This is rather unlikely. To end of 2009, interest margin on Anglo loans (performing) was roughly 1% and this did not reflect Nama costs. In addition, my mid-range scenario assumes Nama recovering 100% of the principal amount of the loans - something that I believe to be equally unlikely. Either way, mid-range estimate implies that Messr Aynsley and Dukes will be coming in with new demands for cash soon - to the tune of €8.5bn more based on my mid-range scenario.

Economics 23/8/10: ECB & IRL bonds

Per report today: "FRANKFURT, Aug 23 (Reuters) - The ECB said on Monday it bought and settled €338mln worth of bonds last week, the highest amount since early July and bolstering recent market talk it had ramped up purchases of Irish bonds. The amount is well above €10mln of purchases settled the previous week... It follows recent comments by market participants that the ECB bought 60 million euros of 2012 Irish government bonds just over a week ago, after spreads over German Bunds ballooned. The ECB has not given any details of its bond buying."

I speculated after last auction results were announced by the NTMA that extraordinary level of cover (x5.4) on 4 year bonds issue looked strange and that ECB buying might be the case. To remind you - NTMA sold €500mln of 4-year bonds. It now appears that the ECB did indeed engage in potentially substantial buying of Irish bonds. If so, such buying cold have

1. pushed other purchasers out of the shorter term paper into 10 year bonds; and/or
2. pushed yields on both shorter and longer term paper down.

€338mln figure includes trades executed between August 12 and August 14 - the auction of shorter term paper that is known to have involved ECB buying.

All in, we are clearly now in the yields zone where the markets are happy to watch us lean on ECB, the ECB is happy to watch us skip one-legged across budgetary deficit that keeps opening up wider and wider. Clearly, such an equilibrium is unlikely to be stable. Expect some fireworks once markets come back to full swing a week from now.

Economics 23/8/10: Is ECB contradiciting itself on banks stability?

Updated below

Here is a note of the day, to be followed by a question of the day:

ECB's Axel Weber (a 'hawk' in his pre-crisis life) is proposing in the FT today that the ECB should extended unlimited refinancing operations for Eurozone banks up to three months until at least early 2011.

This call, if followed upon, would

1. make it harder for the ECB to execute any serious QE exit strategy,
2. shows that the situation in the EU banking sector remains critical;
3. indicates that forward looking central bankers, like Weber don't really believe that the funding markets are ready to properly price the risks of European (including, of course, German) banks, even in the short run (under 1 year);
4. shows clearly that despite statements to the contrary, ECB governors (at least some) don;t really buy into the idea that Euro area banks will be able to unwind, absent ECB help, the €1.3 trillion in debt coming due in the next 2 years.

Now, question of the day: If the EU stress tests were anything better than a shambolic PR exercise (I don't think they were, but let's entertain the idea), why would ECB need to worry about the banking sector funding situation? After all, the tests, allegedly, have shown that Eurozone banks are well capitalized and present no systemic risk.

So either the tests were useless (in which case Weber is right in his call) or ECB has no business continuing priming the liquidity pump (in which case Weber is wrong in his call).


And a couple of hours after my question of the day note above, Bloomberg weighed in with a mighty crack at the ECB's position (here).

Economics 22/8/10: Fundamentals of investing in IRL Inc - IV

This is the last post in the series of four that presents fundamentals comparatives between Ireland, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The first post (here) covered analysis of current account dynamics, the second post (here) dealt with General Government balance, third post (here) highlighted differences in GDP and income. This post deal with residual fundamentals such as inflation, unemployment and population.

In terms of inflation we are not doing too well. Since 2000 Ireland remains expensive. More expensive than Switzerland, despite our massive bout of deflation. This, of course, does not account for the fact that Swiss residents get much better quality public sector services than we do, for less money spent. But that's a matter of a different comparison that I touched upon earlier (here, here and here).

So Chart 12 shows our inflation performance.

Chart 12:

You wouldn't be picking Ireland for your investment if you were concerned with real returns or with effects of inflation on economy's ability to carry debt.

If population growth is really a longer term dividend, we should expect Ireland Inc to overtake Switzerland by now in terms of prosperity (Chart 13). After all, our 1980s and 1970s'-born cohorts are currently at the peak of their productivity. But recall per capita GDP... so far, there isn't really any evidence that growth in population leads to higher growth in GDP once scale effects are taken out of equation.

Chart 13:

Would you have invested in Ireland's debt if you were thinking about Ireland's ability to repay on the basis of lower costs of unemployment and greater proportion of labour force at work? Take a look at Chart 14.

Chart 14:

Well, not really. Swiss and Lux make for a much more compelling case here and not just in the current crisis environment.

So here's our real problem that is not a function of cyclical dynamics, but a structural one. Our employed are carrying much greater burden of providing for the rest of our population than Switzerland (Chart 15).

Chart 15:

Factor in that Irish public sector is larger, in relative-to-population terms than Swiss... and you have an even greater discrepancy in terms of the true earning capacity of the Irish economy.

Which brings us to the issue of productivity and back to the topic of exporters carrying the burden of the entire economy out of the recession. Apart from the construction boom, economy-wide income per person working is lower in Ireland than in either Switzerland or Lux since the 1980s. Even at the peak of the largest real estate bubble known to any other European country in modern history, our 2008 GDP per person employed was still not that much greater than that of Switzerland (Chart 16).

Chart 16:

May be, just may be it was because our wealthy developers all wanted a fine Swiss watch, while no Swiss investors wanted our bungalows in Drogheda or apartments in Tallaght? which is the same as to say - the Swiss are productive to the point of the rest of the world wanting their goods and services. We are productive only to the extent of the rest of the world wanting goods and services produced by MNCs and few indigenous exporters based here. But their productivity is high in gross terms and low in net terms (recall current account analysis in the first post). Unless we can dramatically increase the number of exporters while simultaneously upping the net value added in their operations to Swiss levels, there's no chance external trade can carry this economy out of the recession.