tags: will it go ahead and is it enough


I'm sure there's great reason for the recapitalisation of these institutions and perhaps they're cheap at that but I wouldn't mind knowing if this couldn't be money better spent on other things .. ? Is this in essence a bailout for vanity projects erected when there was demand and now that there's none, these properties which lie around impotently still have to be serviced???

Is this basically another form of looting??

Irish Times today - the article is curiously mingled with the bank recap details and the unions talks last night ..

Quote :

THE CABINET is expected to formally approve a recapitalisation plan tomorrow which will see the Government invest about €8 billion in Bank of Ireland and AIB.

Both banks have been involved in intense discussion with the Department of Finance over the course of the weekend on the details of the deal and the level of funds that will be involved.

They have been on notice since late last week that the injection, which involves much larger sums than the scheme announced last month, will be signed off by the Government tomorrow.

...


The deal will include both an enhanced injection of funds and an insurance scheme whereby the State will underwrite the banks against potential losses on bad property debts.

The new State investment in AIB and Bank of Ireland is likely to be in the order of €8 billion, which is a significantly higher sum than the €2 billion investment by way of preference shares announced in the original recapitalisation plan in December.

One of the major outstanding issues is whether or not the injection of funds will be split evenly between the two banks.

The Government has insisted in its discussions that both should receive in excess of €4 billion in injections. Sources said that AIB has argued against that level of capitalisation.

It is understood the Government wants the larger scheme to go ahead so as to avoid a situation whereby the emergence of bad debts in the future would require a further injection of State equity.

The insurance scheme will cover outstanding loans on development land on part-completed projects. The banks will write off a portion of the bad debts on these speculative property loans, with the State insuring the balance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0202/1232923382455.html

It is a form of looting and it does increase moral hazard. However, we do need abanking system. Whether this is the best way to secure a banking system or not is a matter of debate. But we do need a banking system. With all the compassion in the world for the people down in Waterford, there is absolutely no chance of it surviving unless there is a bank to lend it money.

But do we need a banking system anything like the existing collection of vaults aka robbers caves?

Would a money-free system need banks?

How would a money free system help Waterford Crystal, who presumably export 90%+ of their products to foreign monetary systems.

We probably would be better off with an entirely different system of banking in Ireland. But it would constitute a great leap of faith in the current economic climate to entirely abandon the one we have in favour of some great unknown which is more likely to see us default and in the hands of the IMF.

johnfás wrote:

How would a money free system help Waterford Crystal, who presumably export 90%+ of their products to foreign monetary systems.

We probably would be better off with an entirely different system of banking in Ireland. But it would constitute a great leap of faith in the current economic climate to entirely abandon the one we have in favour of some great unknown which is more likely to see is default and in the hands of the IMF.

Now is a good time to be working out we would do after those two unhappy events. I agree that we have a global system, so any local solutions could only be very temporary until they were adopted across international trade.

Some of these figures may add up to something ...

sorry, I missed 'loans' on the 24 billion line ... Hope finfacts doesn't mind me publishing their page directly here.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015836.shtml

The mistakes of a handful of property developers and bankers who would not have given us the time of day, have been visited on us in full.

People should be on the streets, but won't realise what is happening until they can't buy food.

How much is that per person in the country, Auditor #9 - along with the bailouts already gone without a trace?

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:

How would a money free system help Waterford Crystal, who presumably export 90%+ of their products to foreign monetary systems.

We probably would be better off with an entirely different system of banking in Ireland. But it would constitute a great leap of faith in the current economic climate to entirely abandon the one we have in favour of some great unknown which is more likely to see is default and in the hands of the IMF.

Now is a good time to be working out we would do after those two unhappy events. I agree that we have a global system, so any local solutions could only be very temporary until they were adopted across international trade.

But sure why not try and dig our way back out? If we default and want to create a new system out of the rubble it won't make much of a difference if we're 8 billion more in debt because we won't be using money anyway . May as well try to avoid the situation!

7 billion is about 1,550 euro for every man woman and child assuming a population of 4.5 million. Of course a significant portion of that 4.5 million don't pay much tax (children, etc). We have what 2 million in work? Maybe assume another 750,000 paying tax but not working (pensioners, etc) so based on 2.75 million tax payers it is a burden of about 2,550 euro on each of them.

If they lose 24bn it's 6k for every man woman child isn't it? .... 20k-30k per household. Not as bad as Americans who all have two mortgages each per household, apparently but will that general debt be split equally or equitably????

That doesn't include interest which might come in either as revenue which the article says is half a billion per year.

edit
Not sure whether they mean losses OF 24 billion or some losses on that 24 billion

We have put how much in so far? Anglo Irish nationalisation included.
Plus the insurance costs
We should count the extra costs of borrowing from having lost our credit rating.

Will anyone give us insurance? I'm amazed.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Not sure whether they mean losses OF 24 billion or some losses on that 24 billion

I think they mean there are 24 billion worth of loans which are toxic, or somewhat toxic in nature. The rest being well valued and secured. However, at the same time they say that Seán Dunne's frolic in Ballsbridge has declined in value by 70% so you could be talking up to 17 billion to be written off. Obviously not all the speculative developments, here and abroad, funded by the Irish banks are as bad as Dunne's (some may be worse), but it would not be shocking to see maybe 10 - 12 billion being written off.

At the same time the situation at the moment is a little peculiar. I was speaking to probably the largest insolvency practitioner in Ireland at lunch on Saturday afternoon. She was telling me that now is a great time to be in insolvency because it is busy, but equally it is the worst time. Unlike the company failures of the 80's and early 90's there is no market for selling assets during a receivership or liquidation. This is the problem currently faced by the receiver at Waterford Crystal and is a result of the lack of credit in the market. Consequently, rather than having a firesale and selling the assets against which these loans are secured at a percentage of their initial value thus seeing an immediate monetary loss, it is far more likely that the assets will be seized yet sit vacant for a significant period of time. This makes the situation far more complex but at the same time if things work out and the economy improves it may result in a better outcome in the longterm.

cactus flower wrote:

The mistakes of a handful of property developers and bankers who would not have given us the time of day, have been visited on us in full.

People should be on the streets, but won't realise what is happening until they can't buy food.

How much is that per person in the country, Auditor #9 - along with the bailouts already gone without a trace?

There haven't been any "bailouts", we haven't spent a cent yet, calm yourself down woman.

johnfás wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Not sure whether they mean losses OF 24 billion or some losses on that 24 billion

I think they mean there are 24 billion worth of loans which are toxic, or somewhat toxic in nature. The rest being well valued and secured. However, at the same time they say that Seán Dunne's frolic in Ballsbridge has declined in value by 70% so you could be talking up to 17 billion to be written off. Obviously not all the speculative developments, here and abroad, funded by the Irish banks are as bad as Dunne's (some may be worse), but it would not be shocking to see maybe 10 - 12 billion being written off.

At the same time the situation at the moment is a little peculiar. I was speaking to probably the largest insolvency practitioner in Ireland at lunch on Saturday afternoon. She was telling me that now is a great time to be in insolvency because it is busy, but equally it is the worst time. Unlike the company failures of the 80's and early 90's there is no market for selling assets during a receivership or liquidation. This is the problem currently faced by the receiver at Waterford Crystal and is a result of the lack of credit in the market. Consequently, rather than having a firesale and selling the assets against which these loans are secured at a percentage of their initial value thus seeing an immediate monetary loss, it is far more likely that the assets will be seized yet sit vacant for a significant period of time. This makes the situation far more complex but at the same time if things work out and the economy improves it may result in a better outcome in the longterm.

That 10-12 billion seems to be cropping up again and again instead of the 20 billion.

I think there could be opportunities in this for Ireland if it's managed well. It depends on the winds in the outside world as much as inside, perhaps. Is this a lot of expensive property for Ireland now to have if the world is generally deflationary? It's like being left with a rake of showrooms full of Porsches and Lamborghinis - or more worryingly, Renaults and Citroens which cost the arm and the leg you'd pay for a Porsche or Massaratti ...

tonys

the dough will be donated tomorrow, no? or the terms published at least

Well 20 billion would imply a devaluation in the value of the security to the tune of nearly 85%. I think even in the present climate that is unlikely unless something catastrophic occurs, which of course it may. I think our problem is the banks repossessing assets which they simply cannot sell. As I said though, provided the banks remain solvent this is not the worst scenario because they might manage to defer sale until a better climate. I really don't think anyone can make an accurate prediction in that regard. There will be great retrospective praise for whoever guessed the right answer.

johnfás wrote:

Well 20 billion would imply a devaluation in the value of the security to the tune of nearly 85%.

Been skimming, but if I read this right you are buying at 15% of original asset value? Fire sale to government of 'tangible toxic' ie property and not the intangible like the various financial 'instruments'. If I have that right that is a sound buy IF you can;
a. finance it.
b. keep the assets and finance the loans until there is once again a market in property.
c. sell on the liabilities to others at a profit.
d. maintain in the interim.

With virtually all property it is almost always better to have occupation, even if the rents are low or discounted and the leases short term.

1) 24 bn in loans, but do not forget, these are secured against property or land. The assets won't be worth 24bn now, but will be worth something and could be sold, or valued as bank assets and held until values pick up again. or maybe the Government could find a use for them!

2) Sean Dunne is with Ulster Bank... hes an SEP (Someone, Else's Problem). Ulster is owned by RBS, which ain't guaranteed by us, or so i understand.

expat girl wrote:

1) 24 bn in loans, but do not forget, these are secured against property or land. The assets won't be worth 24bn now, but will be worth something and could be sold, or valued as bank assets and held until values pick up again. or maybe the Government could find a use for them!

2) Sean Dunne is with Ulster Bank... hes an SEP (Someone, Else's Problem). Ulster is owned by RBS, which ain't guaranteed by us, or so i understand.

Yes those "non performing" assets (some half built) would want to be in demand at some point in the future - wouldn't they? That's a macro question.

The likes of Dunne who lost money with Rabo is interesting because I wonder just how interlinked all these accounts were between ALL the banks ... ?

Quote :

Eamon Quinn
Leading Irish property developers lost €6bn gambling on a handful of Irish stocks using the controversial bets known as Contracts for Difference (CFDs) amid the financial meltdown in the last 18 months, people familiar with the stockmarket wagers have confirmed.

The majority of the losses were made on the tax-free bets on Anglo Irish shares, but significant losses were also made on CFD wagers in cider firm C&C and drugs company Elan.

The CFDs are simple stockmarket bets that allow a speculator, for a small sum of money, to make significant gains, or losses, without directly buying the shares.

Businessman Sean Quinn disclosed last July he lost €900m using CFDs to gamble incorrectly that Anglo Irish shares would continue to rise. Others also lost billions of euro on gambling in Anglo CFDs.

The frenzy in CFD betting was so great that it accounted for almost half of the activity on the Dublin stockmarket just two years ago.

Tribune

And AIB are not too warm on the Recapitalisation - why are we insisting then ?????

These bank bailouts seem ineffective. We're told their essential and the sky will fall in without them, and when credit continues to seize up and the markets are unimpressed, they say it was not enough and put more in. Where exactly is it all going? The Cayman Islands?

They may as well have given us all a few grand each on the condition that we lodged it in the bank and didn't spend it all at once.

cactus flower wrote:

These bank bailouts seem ineffective. We're told their essential and the sky will fall in without them, and when credit continues to seize up and the markets are unimpressed, they say it was not enough and put more in. Where exactly is it all going? The Cayman Islands?

They may as well have given us all a few grand each on the condition that we lodged it in the bank and didn't spend it all at once.

Exactly - where the fkuc is it all going I'd like to know. And AIB DON'T WANT THE MONEY although they'll take it when offered apparently.

What's the story with them? Where's their own money NOT coming from if they need 2 billion each ????

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Trichet seems to be going agin the whole recap thing; I think the volume involved here is our lot deciding they're sick and tired of the lack of confidence internationally and just sticking up a big finger: "we've just REALLY recapitalised our banks, now move on to the next disaster and leave us alone"

I wonder now if our biggest problem might now turn out to be problems with some of the foreign bank subsidiaries.....unguaranteed by us and probably, as others have pointed out, loaded with just as much bad debt. Sean Dunne being the prime example. Some of the senior managers mightn't have known the lay of the land, and its pitfalls, as well as the likes of AIB/BOI.

I'm also wondering; what about the smaller banks here?? Are the Government just concentrating on the two that they think they can get to lend?? What happens to the others if they run into trouble?? Or are they mostly just mortgage lenders, with little exposure to big developers and their sins??

expat girl wrote:

Trichet seems to be going agin the whole recap thing; I think the volume involved here is our lot deciding they're sick and tired of the lack of confidence internationally and just sticking up a big finger: "we've just REALLY recapitalised our banks, now move on to the next disaster and leave us alone"

I wonder now if our biggest problem might now turn out to be problems with some of the foreign bank subsidiaries.....unguaranteed by us and probably, as others have pointed out, loaded with just as much bad debt. Sean Dunne being the prime example. Some of the senior managers mightn't have known the lay of the land, and its pitfalls, as well as the likes of AIB/BOI.

I'm also wondering; what about the smaller banks here?? Are the Government just concentrating on the two that they think they can get to lend?? What happens to the others if they run into trouble?? Or are they mostly just mortgage lenders, with little exposure to big developers and their sins??

It's just us and the UK who are 'recapitalising' (paying the debts), is it?

On that stuff in bold - UK banks are exposed to a lot more toxic than ours, isn't that supposed to be right? That doesn't mean the lads who owe to the banks here don't have large risks with those other exposed banks, as you say .

Auditor #9 wrote:

It's just us and the UK who are 'recapitalising' (paying the debts), is it?

On that stuff in bold - UK banks are exposed to a lot more toxic than ours, isn't that supposed to be right? That doesn't mean the lads who owe to the banks here don't have large risks with those other exposed banks, as you say .

I don't know, re the first. Neither ourselves nor the UK are the only ones who have bailed out banks... that's happened all over. However, it may be that placing more capital in in exchange for preference shares (Gord's big idea last autumn) is something that ourselves and the UK have a monopoly on?? I don't know, I watch RTE and C4/BBC preferentially, so off of these islands, I'm less well informed. The German Govt bailed out a few of their banks, as did the Netherlands and Belgium/France with respect to Fortis and ING. I don't know the mechanism by which they did it. I do know that recapitalisation gave a return to the scandinavians after the early 90s crisis, but whether that will work a few years after a global depression, is anyone's guess. Recap is probably better than bailout... that's just free money with no return, innit?

UK banks are exposed to US mortgage bonds, including subprime (presumably written off by now)but also Alt-A, and according to Panorama tonight, their Jersey securitisation subsidiaries are a minefield (they made an example of Northern Rock and Granite and implied there might be more out there, without actually saying that, they just said Jersey wasn't transparent). They are also exposed to developers loans (but not to the same extent as ourselves) and mortgage and commercial property loans (similar to us; huge boom followed by bust). I do not know if their exposures are better or worse than ours (I am guessing worse for all sorts of reasons....I judged them guilty of sharper practice as a customer of banks on both sides of the Irish sea...and go read City Boy!!). I can however, confidently state that their books as a total are a greater proportion of UK GDP than our banks are of ours (FT). Hardly surprising, given the size of the City as an international financial sector, anyway. However, they may have made better bets.... but I doubt it. That is, however, only my opinion, and frankly, nobody knows. Which is the crux of the international problem, really.

However, there are a few things worrying me about the foreign banks; I don't know enough about the Dutch and Danish economies or governments to comment on Danske (NIB, Denmark) or Rabobank (Netherlands), but surely, any deflation in Sterling (or the Danish currency??) would have an effect on the relative size of bad Irish debt?? There's also the loan syndication thing... how many of the banks, both domestic and foreign, have spread risk by sharing loans with other banks?? What sorts of creative accounting are being employed to dump such bad debt with other banks and would there be uneven transfer based on national guarantees??

Any answers?? Because I don't know them!!!

I'll soak up that jargon and see if I can make any sense of it tomorrow, like Brian Cowen. All I really know about banks is money goes in, money goes out - often. But now it's stuck somehow. Money is going in but none is coming out ....

On a positive note, the American bailout money is included in their '08 GDP would you believe it
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/gdp-goosed-by-tarp/

Could we not add the 8bn bankers bailout we'll bestow tomorrow onto our GDP??

Ah why not

the joys of creative accounting.....