14/9/2013: IMHO signs agreement with Alsop Space Ltd

Irish Mortgage Holders Association have signed an agreement with Alsop Space Ltd that ensures that Alsop Space Ltd will not undertake auctions of repossesses Irish primary residences.

Keep an eye out for more details: https://www.mortgageholders.ie/

1/8/2013: Strategic defaults...

This is "I am not drowning puppies for fun" note concerning my view on the problem of 'strategic defaults':

1. I do not allege there are no 'strategic defaults' in Ireland.
2. I do state that at this moment, there is no evidence of these defaults being a systemic problem of specific dimension.
3. Absence of evidence is not in my view evidence of absence.
4. I am aware that some people prioritise payments of unsecured debt over secured debt. This can be for a number of reasons. 
5. However, (4) does not automatically imply that a person doing so is out to 'game the system' to their advantage. They might be prioritising payment of unsecured debt for a number of reasons, other than personal gain, e.g.: (a) their credit cards or small credit union loans fund their day-to-day living expenses and as such they need their credit flowing to survive, or (b) their unsecured creditors exerted more pressure on them and they simply caved in, or (c) they are afraid of losing their last line of credit, etc.
6. I do not allege that doing (4) above (including for the reasons outlined in (5))  is a correct or a good or an acceptable course of action. In fact, in my opinion, it is not.
7. I am aware of at least one instance where an organisation I am working with faced a case of a wilful and strategic default. We advised the bank to pursue all legally available courses of action to stop the person from continuing to engage in such activity.
8. I am aware of the study that used US research (not US data) to extrapolate to Irish case. I find such an approach a good point for a debate, but I do not accept it as a robust evidence to base any policy design or analysis on. It is not an evidence and thus (2) and (3) above continue to apply.
9. I am aware of the statements by media and analysts that the problem of 'strategic defaults' in Ireland is growing and is already significant. 
10. My view is that (9) is an unsubstantiated claim, not backed by any real evidence and as such it has to be treated as just a conjecture. Anyone is free to make a conjecture. Some might even opt to be so kind as to seek evidence to back one up. None have a right to impose their conjecture onto actual solution or policy mechanism.

I hope this explains my position on the issue and ends the nonsensical accusations that I am denying the problem. 

My personal conjecture on the topic (backed by anecdotal evidence, so not different from any conjectures on the topic presented in the media to-date) is that there can be borrowers attempting to game the system. We do not know how many are. We do not know who they are. The correct way f dealing with them is to penalise them at the point of discovery. Before such a point, however, everyone is innocent, until proven guilty.

19/7/2013: Spain's Bad Loans: Heading for the Eurotroit solution?

Spanish banks bad loans ratio of all assets for May 2013:

H/T: Ioan Smith @moved_average

The Eurotroit keeps rolling on... Notice how Spain has by now largely erased the reductions in bad loans driven by assets shifts to 'bad bank' Sareb (EUR50.45bn portfolio, with 76,000 empty housing units, 6,300 rented homes, 14,900 plots of land and 84,300 loans). Spanish bad loans as a percentage of total credit rose from10.5% in March to over 11.2% in May.

And they will continue rising.

That's because in Spain, ultimate level of bad loans is going to be closer to Ireland's, where over 50% of SME loans are non-performing, over 25.8% of all mortgages are non-performing or at risk of default, and as of June 2013, 24.8% of all loans were non-performing, against EuroTanic's average 7.5-7.6% (EUR920bn or so). Irish numbers exclude Nama.

So even with the sunshine and sea, Costa del Concrete is going to cost Spain over 20% in terms of bad loans ratio in the end.

17/7/2013: IMHO statement on Land & Conveyancing Bill

Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation response to the passing of the Land anf Conveyancing Reform Bill, 2013:
https://www.mortgageholders.ie/land-and-conveyancing-reform-bill-2013/

do keep in mind, while reading, that our view recognises fully that in many cases, in dealing with mortgages debt there will be no option other than foreclosure sale (voluntary or enforced).

The key to any economically and socially sustainable system for resolving this crisis is to create a symmetric balance of power and incentives between the banks and the borrowers to achieve a long-term sustainable solution to the debt overhang. This the current system does not allow for. 

4/7/2013: IMHO Letter to Governor Honohan

Updated:

Here's this week's letter to the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland from the IMHO on the topic of Declaration of Last Resort for Family Home Repossessions (you can click on each image to enlarge):

23/6/2013: On Dealing with Mortgages Arrears: Adverts v Process

A reply to @cbolgerr regarding the issue of contacting your bank when experiencing financial pressure in relation to mortgages:

In simple term (omitting some considerations), prior to the crisis people were mis-sold mortgages by the banks. Many mortgages were mis-sold on the basis of poor risk pricing by the banks - the job that the banks are paid to do. There was so much mis-selling that the problem of unsustainable mortgages is now structural.

People who mis-sold them these mortgages are still in the banks and are now the same people working on 'resolving' the problems. There were no involuntary layoffs of banking staff and there was no clearing of the banks lending officers or risk management staff on a systemic basis to match the problems in the lending markets. Hence, these staff members are still there. And accepting that they have no new lending to do, these are now the staff working on resolving the mortgages problems. As such, they have neither ability, nor credibility, nor incentives, nor compassion to do anything to repair the damage they have done.

In this environment, and provided the information and power asymmetries awarded to the banks by the Government & Regulator at the expense of mortgagees, the only thing that mortgagees should do is, simultaneously:
1) continue contributing to servicing their mortgages to the extent feasible,
2) prepare as much relevant financial information as possible in order to be able to file FSS,
3) identify an independent, properly regulated and knowledgeable/experienced representation for their case,
4) treat any engagement with the bank as potentially hostile and detrimental to them.

Their first step should be to seek independent advice and representation in the process. Unfortunately, the PIP system put forward by the state is itself at risk of being biased in favour of the banks. Still, it is better than following through on the banks advertising and contacting them before securing independent representation.

There are very few practitioners who have any relevant experience in dealing with the banks. And fewer still willing to help with advice before securing large payments from the homeowners. Care must be given to how the banks and the PIP system are approached.

Key issue, however, is that any mortgage holder under stress should continue engaging with servicing the loan to establish 'good will'. The banks are not required to establish any 'good will' toward borrowers, so the system in inherently unfair and asymmetric, but that is the reality of the fundamentally unjust legal framework established by the government and, for now - until challenged and changed - it has to be obeyed. 

30/4/2013: 2012 Was Not a Year of Brilliance for the Central Bank

From the Opening Statement by Governor Patrick Honohan at the publication of the Central Bank of Ireland Annual Report 2012, 30 April 2013


"Two major elements of the Bank’s work during 2012 came to decisive junctures early this year – the liquidation of IBRC and related replacement of the promissory notes with marketable government bonds; and the introduction of an enhanced mortgage arrears resolution framework, which was announced in recent weeks. All of these measures are ultimately concerned with creating the environment for sustainable economic growth and reduction in unemployment."

It is my opinion that 2012 marked the year when the Central Bank has done the least to deliver on any meaningful reforms and change that can create or sustain "the environment for sustainable economic growth and reduction in unemployment". The bases for my opinion are:

1. In 2013, the Central Bank attempted (key word here) to introduce an enhanced mortgage arrears resolution framework. The new framework is 'enhanced' only to the extent that the previous framework was proven to be a complete failure. However, looking forward and setting aside the failures of the very recent past, the new framework is not consistent with the goals for either reducing unemployment or enhancing prospects for economic growth. Some of my criticism of the new framework in the context of these two objectives can be found here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/04/1842013-legalising-modern-version-of.html
2. In 2013, the Irish Government has undertaken a swap of one financial liability (promissory notes) with another (government bonds). This transaction has been deemed by myself, many others, including the IMF, to have near-zero impact on debt sustainability when it comes to the Irish Government debt. The transaction was net positive for cash flow, albeit moderately, and hugely positive for PR. while th CB of Ireland did benefit significantly from improved security underlying the ELA, this benefit came at a cost to the rest of the Irish economy in the form of the conversion of the quasi-sovereign debt (promo note) into long-dated sovereign bonds.
3. Beyond the above two points, there has been very little progress on any tangible reforms in the banking sector in Ireland. We are still pursuing a duopoly model of the domestic banking market,  and there is no effective discussion, let alone effective resolution of the problem of lack of new entrants and lack of restructuring of the existent lenders. We have no new models of banking and lending in the country emerging after six years of this crisis and, if anything, we are now consolidating the strategic space in our banking services to a singular model of low-quality, low-access services supplied at an excessive cost. Both AIB and Bank of Ireland are pursuing this model, leaving customers to pick up the tab for reduced access to services and increased charges on the remaining services. This hardly supports Governor Honohan's claim that the Central Bank is working on creating and sustaining environment for growth.
4. All banking sector performance parameters have been either not improving or deteriorating over 2012 within the directly state-influenced covered group of financial institutions.

Slapping ad hoc targets on the banks to reduce mortgages arrears and then introducing masers to give them power well in excess of that awarded to the borrowers is about as productive of a measure for dealing with mortgages crisis as giving hospitals management targets for reducing the number of trolleys in corridors while removing patients protection from malpractice.

The Central Bank-supplied 'framework' is thus simply not fit for purpose, neither by the criteria of dealing effectively and humanely with the debt crisis (by first removing the unsustainable debt in systemic, transparent and fairly-priced fashion, then by addressing future moral hazard), nor in terms of placing the burden of crisis resolution where the causes of the crisis rest (proportionally with both the banks and the borrowers), nor in respect of the Central Bank claimed objectives of delivering supports for economic recovery.


Updated: Central Bank of Ireland has made a claim of 2012 'profit' of EUR 1.4 billion. But wait, a business makes profit by taking investors' / equity holders' / lenders' or own funds, purchasing inputs into production, producing something and then selling that something to willing customers who pay for these goods from their own funds. Central Bank of Ireland took claims imposed by the Government of Ireland on consumers and taxpayers, gambled these claims on the banks, who were basically compelled to take 'as offered' these Central Bank-supplied 'goods' and then collected from these captive banks pay (which the banks promptly ripped-off their customers - aka consumers and taxpayers). The Central Bank subsequently relabelled these rip-off charges 'profits' and remitted them back (EUR 1.1 billion) to the Exchequer. So can anyone explain to me what Central Bank produced that someone voluntarily was willing to buy with their own cash?

18/4/2013: Legalising Modern Version of Slavery

Insolvency guidelines published today were wholly and fully written by the banks and for the banks.

The core points are that under the new regime, Irish mortgagees will be:

1. Treated as de facto strategic defaulters until they are proven not guilty of such behaviour in a biased process that will see them face fully resourced lenders while having no practical and meaningful means for defending themselves. 'Innocent until proven guilty' principle no longer applies in the Irish State.
2. Permanently branded as defaulters for the rest of their lives as there record of applying for the resolution process will be kept indefinitely, independent of success or failure of the process.
3. Will lose basically any means to sustain real savings, investment, pensions provisions for the duration of up to 6 years or even longer without any guarantee that their engagement with the system will end in resolving the debt overhang at the end of the process.

This means that the Irish economy will continue to struggle with the debt overhang and, materially, the current change in the regime will only serve the purpose of further shifting financial resources from the households to the banks.

There was no real functional process for consultation with the current providers of services to those facing the insolvency. There was no transparency in developing these Guidelines. Give you one example, there is no reference to the protection of consumers, mortgagees or borrowers in the entire text of the document.

Take it from the top: "A debtor should be able to participate in the life of the community, as other citizens do. It should be possible for  the debtor ‘to eat nutritious food …, to have clothes for different weather and situations, to  keep the home clean and tidy, to have furniture and equipment at home for rest and  recreation, to be able to devote some time to leisure activities, and to read books,  newspapers and watch television" according to the Guidelines.

In other words, from get-go, a debtor is not to be allowed to plan or provide for the retirement, to arrange for health cover, to build functional (as opposed to token) precautionary savings, or to have incentives to better their lives. 

Presumably, Irish social inclusion does not provide an allowance for dental care either. At EUR5 per week in allowed savings, a debtor would have to wait around 140 weeks in agonising pain before they can get a tooth cap. Children braces will take as much if not longer. And you better not dare go to a doctor more than once every two months during your dental affordability waiting period.

Now, let's give it a thought - we are releasing households with children into the wilderness of living without providing a single cent for uncovered (beyond those stipulated by the guidelines) eventualities - e.g. dental emergency or a breakdown of the sole family vehicle. And we give them no capacity to acquire such means by working harder or undertaking different jobs which pay more.

When it comes to access to car, the guidelines do not distinguish between the need to commute to work and to commute to deliver children to schools or childcare facilities. The guidelines also appear to ignore the fact that shopping for a family is not the same as shopping for a single individual when it comes to transportation options allowed. There are no provisions for households that may require two cars. There are no realistic provision for caring for the old-banger vehicle that Guidelines allow for and which cost more in repairs than newer vehicles which the households will be forced to sell.

The real flaw in this approach is that we start from the point of allowed disposable income and work our way back to earned income. This means that a household has absolutely no incentive to earn more, no allowance is provided for them to take up risk and become entrepreneurs, no capacity to fund change in employment. 

This is precisely what wage slavery is all about. And we are now putting people into it.

The Guidelines talk vaguely about the need to incetivise households to engage in economic activity, yet provide a cap on savings of EUR5 per week per adult. None allowed per child. 

In other words, suppose you satisfy the conditions of the Guidelines and you get a new job paying an extra EUR50 per week. You cannot save anything out of this, which means all of the additional income immediately accrues to the banks.

Now, imagine that a new job offer comes with the prospect of better pension down the line, greater promotional opportunities, better life satisfaction and other benefits you might want to have and that can significantly improve your and your family wellbeing, not to mention the economy. Alas, also assume that the new job requires you to commute to work by car while prior to that - with your old job - the Guidelines allowed only for public transportation option. You have no savings to buy the car and no access to new credit. Which means that you will either have to turn down the new job (at a loss to you, employer, the bank and the economy) or to borrower on terms and conditions from the bank with which you have arrangements in place (at a loss to you, as you can't keep the upside of the new job pay). 

This is like taking slave labour and forcing it to consume bank-provided services at prices set by the bank. In the 19th century this was the practice with monopsonist employers and it led to industrial unrest on a massive scale and even revolutions. Welcome to the New Ireland, folks.

Thus, even in theory, the Guidelines are not consistent with one of their intended purposes - that of supporting economic activity and participation in this activity by the households.

In a summary: From the beginning of this crisis I have argued that we need to import UK insolvency regime into Ireland, so as  to allow effective and efficient bankruptcy resolution. 

What we have done instead is put forward a modern-day, democratically legislated slavery in the name of protecting our banks and created an incentive for tens of thousands to convert current bankruptcy tourism into a permanent bankruptcy emigration. 

Welcome to the 21st century model of a Dickensian nightmare grafted onto, as Namawinelake puts it perfectly world's most exemplary Nanny State.


Updated:
Two excellent posts on the Guidelines that are a must read:

Brian Lucey's: http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/pettifogging-nanny-state-gone-mad/

and

Namawinelake's: http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/hey-world-if-you-want-to-see-what-a-true-nanny-state-looks-like-look-at-what-ireland-has-just-done/

10/4/2013: IMHO Submission on the Review of Code of Conduct on Mortgages Arrears

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation Ltd.,
www.mortgageholders.ie
Not for profit organisation.

Submission on the review of code of conduct on mortgage arrears consultation paper CP 63

Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, April 9th 2013.

Attention: Mr. Bernard Sherridan, Central Bank of Ireland.



Dear Mr Sheridan,

We would like to thank you and your team for meeting us recently about issues and concerns we have at the treatment by banks of Mortgage Holders.


We are very concerned by the statements made by Mr. Elderfield at the launch of the “targets” (set by government and the Central Bank) for banks, with respect to dealing with those in arrears as well as comments surrounding the changing of the Code Of Conduct on mortgage arrears to allow banks to take swifter action against mortgage holders.

It is our view that the process of mortgages arrears resolution is being facilitated in an unsupervised and unstructured way, without due regard to the need for transparency and openness which would be consistent with the best practices for arrears resolution and consumer protection. The process – as outlined to-date – leaves the mortgagees fully exposed to banks putting their own objectives and strategies ahead of the needs of the Irish economy, society and borrowers, and provides a large deficit in consumer protection.

We would like to make the following specific points regarding the review of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears notwithstanding the fact that it may already be predetermined as demonstrated by Mr. Elderfield’s comments as referenced above.


Legal standing:

In the first instance and reluctantly we have to raise the issue of the legality of the Code Of Conduct. This issue has been discussed behind closed doors for some time now and it is an issue of the utmost importance as the legal status of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears is by no means certain. We wish to reaffirm our concerns about the legality of the code which we expressed originally in our email to Governor Honohan last month.

A number of recent high court cases refer to this issue including Irish Life and Permanent v Duff where Justice Hogan raised “the somewhat troublesome issue of the precise legal status of the code of conduct”. Justice Hogan followed recent high court precedent in the Fitzell case and warned The question, for example, of what constitutes a “reasonable effort” on the part of the lender does not easily lend itself to judicial analysis by readily recognisable legal criteria. How, for example, are “reasonable efforts” to be measured and ascertained? If, moreover, non-compliance with the Code resulted in the courts declining to make orders for possession to which (as here) the lenders were otherwise apparently justified in seeking and obtaining, there would be a risk that by promulgating the Code and giving it a status that it did not otherwise legally merit, the courts would, in effect, be permitting the Central Bank unconstitutionally to change the law in this fashion’.

The Code itself has no specific legislative status. It is neither a piece of primary legislation in the form of an act of the Oireachtas nor a secondary piece of legislation in the form of a ministerial regulation issued by the Minister for Finance. The Code is not even stated to be admissible in legal proceedings. It is a Code issued under the terms of Section 117 of the Central Bank Act 1989 and therefore lenders who infringe its terms may be subject to the Central Bank’s Administrative Sanctions Procedure. This is an internal process that allows the Bank to control the conduct of and helps to define its regulatory relationship with financial service providers, but it is not one that a consumer as a borrower has any involvement in. This we believe is a matter of extreme urgency that needs addressing.


Right of Appeal:

Section 49 & 52 as proposed allows for a lender to have 3 senior staff act as an appeals board. This is completely unacceptable and allows for no independent oversight. The appeal process must be fully detached from the banks or banking sector representative institutions and vested with an independent authority acting to protect the interests of all parties involved in a dispute. The process must be made explicitly transparent and any asymmetries in representation during the dispute that may arise due to (a) nature of the processes that lead to the appeal, and (b) resources available to the parties prior to and during the appeal should be removed. In practical terms, this requires provisioning for the independent and fully funded counsel for borrowers who cannot afford such professional help, and an appeals board that is fully operationally and membership-wise independent from both borrowers and lenders.


Moratorium:

The proposed and current code is flawed in not being prescriptive in defining the periods of time over which the moratorium clock is ticking. No time is given for gathering of financial information or indeed an exchange of offers between the lender and the borrower. This will become a significant issue when the legislation is introduced to reverse the Dunne Judgement, which will lead to a significant rise in repossession applications. Lenders can initiate delays in corresponding with borrowers, as they have done on many occasions to-date, and such periods of delays will account for time eaten into a moratorium period. Borrowers, however, are not accorded similar powers. Again in the absence of prescriptive process and recording of times borrowers can be seriously and unfairly disadvantaged by losing time that is taken off them ahead of potential repossession proceedings.

Provision 37 proposes ‘Prior to completing the full assessment of the borrower’s standard financial statement, a lender may put a temporary arrangement in place where a delay in putting an arrangement in place will exacerbate a borrower’s arrears or pre-arrears situation. Such a temporary arrangement should not last for more than three months. Any subsequent arrangement should be based on a full assessment of the standard financial statement’.

This provision should state that the duration of this temporary arrangement does not count for the purposes of the 12 month moratorium on repossession proceedings. Similarly, Provision 57 should state in relation to the twelve month moratorium that ‘the twelve month period does not include any time period where a proposal for an alternative repayment arrangement is being negotiated’.


Unsolicited Contact by Lenders with Borrowers:

The Central Bank “themed inspections” as to the banks adherence to the previous rule of no more that 3 unsolicited contacts in one month was typical of light touch supervision. The lenders seem to have
had significant influence in this proposal and the Central Bank seem to have accepted the industry’s lobby position on this. In addition the Central Bank gave advance notice to banks before their “inspection”.

‘Feedback from industry would indicate that the current requirements, particularly the limit of three successful contacts, are preventing lenders from making contact and engaging with borrowers and are therefore impeding the consideration and resolution of borrower’s cases. The Central Bank does not believe that this is in the best interests of borrowers’.

There are no provisions for the engagement with mortgage holders in this feedback system. Similarly, there are no explicit, transparent and enforceable provisions to ensure that lenders engagements with the borrowers will be “proportionate and not excessive”. There are no data disclosure provisions relating to inspections and any remediation measures applied to institutions violating code of conduct.

The new unlimited contacts must not be “aggressive or intimidating”. Once again, how is it proposed to ensure this will be the case? How will it be proven that all attempts to contact the borrower have been made and that these attempts have been made within the confines of the Code-permitted procedures? The removal of this limited protection of mortgage holders is a significant regressive step in consumer protection and has left the borrowers unprotected against potential abuses by the banks.

Debt collectors acting on behalf of lenders are still unregulated within the existent structure and under the proposed code. How does this code cover their activities or can they adopt any means they deem appropriate to recover monies?

The Central Bank will have failed to provide symmetric protection of the interests of the borrowers and the lenders unless it allows for explicit, enforceable and transparent safeguards to protect many vulnerable people who are in arrears and will be set upon by lenders who have been given a free rein.


Unsustainability: 

Many actions taken by the bank to repossess property are predicated on a decision by a lender that a loan underlying the property is unsustainable. The Code should include prescriptive rules defining what is sustainable and what is not sustainable. This may involve some sort of expenditure guidelines. These rules and guidelines should be transparent, public, enforceable and compulsory for all banks, and applicable to all borrowers.


Trackers:

It is vital that provision 12 (d) is not changed unless there is a clear system for borrowers to seek advice to ensure that any removal off a tracker is of benefit to the borrower. Such advice should be delivered on a professional basis and borrowers in need of funding for procuring such advice should have access to such funding. Page 4 of the consultation paper suggests that the removal off a tracker might have merit if in the interest of the borrower. This determination cannot be solely in the remit of the lender nor can it be left subject to the appeal system that incorporates explicit conflict of interest between the appeals process and the bank interests per note above.


Engagement:

Our experience, confirmed by the experience of other organisations working on behalf of the borrowers in distress, is that lenders do not respond in a timely manner to borrowers proposals or engagements, which is unacceptable. What happens to a lender who does not engage, who does the borrower appeal or complain to, other than the bank, which is alleged to engage in the abuse of the system?

Engagement by lenders with borrowers can be painfully slow, tedious and difficult leaving the borrower exhausted, their financial resources significantly reduced and without a resolution. There needs to be a clear code of conduct enforcement by the central bank on lenders for their behaviour and engagement and such enforcement should be transparent, effective, verifiable and not based on an ad hoc system of inspections, criteria and judgements.


Borrower representation and advice:

Even in normally functioning bankruptcy regimes around the world, those in debt are at a significant disadvantage compared to the might of creditors. They face corporate strength and power that can crush any debtor financially, emotionally, socially and psychologically. Observed by passive regulators, as in Ireland, compounded by the insolvency regime that is both under the current statutes and in its ‘reformed’ reincarnation nothing short of draconian, leaves the debtor in great peril.

When this financial crisis happened it was the citizen who suffered where the regulated entities and regulators enjoyed protected pay, conditions and functionality. Now, the very same citizen is facing the immense power of the state backing the already significant powers of the banks when it comes to the personal debts.

Bankers have a Banking Federation that represents them. Bankers are also availing of the weaknesses in the Irish competition laws to sustain and even consolidate their market powers at the expense of the taxpayers. They discuss issues and present their views publicly and to the government rather effectively and are assisted by a receptive media. They tend to be in sync with government announcements and findings and have direct access to the Social Partnership process and all other avenues of policy formation.

Debtors lack any statutory or institutional power. They need assistance and protection, care and support. This is best achieved by a coming together of advocates and organisations that provide services and assistance to debtors. Organisations and bodies such as MABS, The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, Flac, Phoenix Project and others are providing exceptionally effective and professional services to debtors usually on the basis of voluntary engagement of experts and ordinary citizens, and in the majority of cases, with no cost to the state. These and other organisations have a combined knowledge, experience and passion of their volunteers to help those is debt.

Mabs has been effectively assisting debtors for the last few decades and they have experience and a national foot print from where services and supports could be head quartered.

Yet, even with these organisations behind them, Irish debtors do not have the resources needed to deal with aggressive and disruptive creditors. With many commentators and practitioners expressing concerns and uncertainty as to how the new personal insolvency act will work there is a need to address the imbalance that exists today between debtors and lenders, as well as prevent the exacerbation of this imbalance threatened by the new legislation.

The new Insolvency regime will add additional hurdles for debtors, allowing vultures prey on the hundreds of thousands of households saddled with excessive debts, while providing little certainty to the debtor or any chances for a renewal to the economy.

Successive governments have chosen to ignore the one constant support debtors have had which is Mabs, in favour of diluting their effectiveness and giving banks and creditors a strengthened hand. Successive governments have also opted to ignore all other organisations currently working on the frontlines of the debt crisis. Despite the governments’ best efforts these organisations continued to offer a better balance and chance for debtors to be represented and protected effectively. These organisations deserve to be recognised as the de facto debtors’ representatives and be allowed to fund professional provision of services to debtors by linking arrears and insolvency resolution savings delivered to the economy at large via their efforts to the resources available to them to achieve such savings.

The insolvency bill raises a serious question of how those deeply in debt will be able to afford professional representation to assist them deal with their debt in favour of those with cash flow who can avail of professional services. This will promote a two tiered system leaving the most vulnerable to fend for themselves in unchartered waters full of predatory creditors and commercial service providers.

What would be helpful to debtors in the years ahead would be a number of organisations that compete to provide a full suite of services to debtors including legal, financial, negotiation, mental health, conveyancing and creditor payment services. These organisations should be modelled around Mabs, with Mabs established on a stand alone basis with an independent Board filled with experienced directors. A Board with a strategic plan that addresses the needs of debtors in the years to come.

Mabs is currently funded from the department of social protection to the tune of EUR18,5 million per annum. This funding could be directed towards the new organisation and additional funding could be raised by charging creditors as is done in many other jurisdictions. Many consumer credit counselling services agree voluntary payment arrangements with creditors on behalf of debtors and facilitate the cash transactions for a fee. A truly independent and well-resourced Mabs can act as a coordinator and supervisor over other organisations that compete with each other for representation of debtors in the
process of developing systemic resolution to the debtor arrears or insolvency.

Given the disproportionate powers granted to the banks by the new legislation, existent debtors’- representing organisations will undoubtedly try their best to help but they are not adequately funded to achieve significant scale and scope of their operations to fully function as representatives of families and people in difficulty. Indeed, majority of them are not funded at all. There is an urgent need to consolidate these organisations’ efforts, provide them with proper supervision and supports, and allow them to raise resources to deliver meaningful and effective change.


Yours sincerely,
David Hall
Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev
Directors
Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation.
Dublin, Ireland
April 9, 2013

THE IRISH MORTGAGE HOLDERS ORGANISATION LIMITED is Registered in Ireland No: 517549 Directors: Arthur Mullan, David Hall, Lucy Cronin, Tracy Mullan, Constantin Gurdgiev

22/3/2013: Sunday Times, 17/03/2013

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from March 17.


Economics is an art of contention. In so far as economics body of knowledge is concerned, the world is largely composed of an infinite number of things that are either uncertain, or open to interpretation. One of the very few near-certainties that economists do hold across the ideological and philosophical divisions is that an economy undergoing deleveraging of household debt is likely to experience a lengthy period of below-trend growth. The greater the debt pile to be deleveraged, the faster was the period of debt accumulation, the longer such a recession or stagnation will last.

Another near-certainty is that in a debt crisis, economy is unlikely to recover on foot of either monetary or fiscal stimuli. Monetary easing can help the deleveraging process if and only if low policy rates translate into cheaper mortgages on the ground. This requires a functioning banking system, in addition to monetary policy independence. Fiscal stimulus can only help to the extent to which it can temporarily stimulate growth, and even then the impact on more indebted households is unlikely to be any stronger than on less-indebted ones. Longer-term effects of a significant debt-financed fiscal stimulus in an economy already struggling with government and household debt, are more likely to be detrimental to the overall process of deleveraging. Higher debt today necessary to fund economic stimulus translates into higher burden of that debt in the future.

Meanwhile, deleveraging of the households in and by itself, even absent banking and other crises, is a process associated with dramatically reduced economic activity and growth.

Households struggling with a debt overhang are effectively removed from being active participants in the economy. Indebted households do not save, thus depleting their future pensions provisions and reducing overall levels of investment in the economy. Indebted households tend to cut back their consumption, both in terms of large-ticket durable goods and in terms of everyday items. They also reduce consumption of higher-quality higher-cost goods, adversely impacting domestic producers in higher-cost economies, like Ireland, favoring more competitively priced imports.

With banks beating on their doors, indebted households abstain from entrepreneurship and engage less actively in seeking improved employment opportunities. The latter means that indebted households, fearing even a short-term spell in unemployment, do not seek to better align their skills and talents, as well as future prospects for promotion with jobs offers. This, in turn, implies loss of productivity for the economy at large. The former means slower rate and more risk-averse entrepreneurship resulting in further reduction in future growth potential for the economy.

Last, but not least, household debt overhang results in increased rates of psychological and even psychiatric disorders, incidences of self-harm, suicide, stress and social dislocations. These effects have a direct and adverse impact on public services, the economy and the society at large.

In Irish context, the effects of household debt overhang (most acutely expressed in mortgages arrears) are likely to be significantly larger than in normal debt crises episodes and last longer.

Consider the sheer magnitude of the problem. In an average debt crisis, household debt arrears peak at around 7-10% of the total debt outstanding. Per latest data from the Central of Bank of Ireland, at the end of 2012, 143,851 private residential mortgages accounts and 37,995 buy-to-let accounts were in arrears. Total number of mortgages in arrears represented 19% of all mortgages outstanding.  Total balance of mortgages in arrears amounted to EUR35.4 billion, or 25% of the entire mortgages-related debt. Mortgages at risk of default or defaulted (defined as all currently in arrears, relating to properties with repossession orders and mortgages restructured during the crisis, but currently not in arrears) amounted to 238,663 accounts and EUR45.3 billion of the outstanding debt, or 25.3% and 31.9% of the respective totals.

Given expected losses from the above mortgages in the case of repossessions and/or insolvency, and inclusive of the interest costs due on this unproductive debt, over the next 3 years Irish economy is likely to face direct losses from this mortgages crisis to the tune of EUR20 billion. This will reduce our current level of gross fixed capital formation in the economy by 40 percent in every year through 2015.

In indirect costs, the crisis currently is impacting some 650,000-700,000 individuals living in the households with mortgages at risk, as well as countless others either in the negative equity or arrears on unsecured debt (credit cards, credit unions’ loans, utility bills etc).  Using basic cost of health insurance coverage, the relationship between health insurance spend in Ireland and cost of public healthcare, and assuming that annual cost of higher stress associated with debt overhang amount to just 10% of the total annual insurance costs, direct health costs alone from the debt crisis can add up to EUR400-500 million per annum. Factoring productivity losses due to stress, the total social, psychological and psychiatric costs of the mortgages arrears can run over a billion.

Costs of foregone entrepreneurship are even harder to quantify, but can be gauged from the overall decline in investment. In 2012 the shortfall in aggregate domestic investment activity compared to 1999-2003 annual average (taking the period before the rapid acceleration in property bubble) was running at ca EUR6.9-7.0 billion. This shortfall is roughly comparable to the above estimated annualized cost of servicing defaulting and at risk mortgages. Gross investment in Ireland is now running at a rate not seen since 1997.  Meanwhile, net expenditure by the local and central Government on current goods and services is running above 2005 levels, same as personal consumption of goods and services. This suggests that our current rates of domestic investment and associated entrepreneurship are down more significantly than personal and Government spending.

In some sectors, things are even worse.  Construction sector is clearly seeing no turnaround with new residential construction permits down 88% in 2012 on the peak, heading for historical low of estimated full-year 14,022 permits based on data through Q3 2012. Extending mortgage arrears crisis or deepening the households’ already significant debt overhang through the means of forcing them into repaying the unsustainable loans will only exacerbate the crisis in Irish construction sector and in all sectors of domestic economy.

In years to come, the mortgages crisis today is likely to cost Irish economy around 10% of our GNP.

And it is unlikely to ease significantly any time soon, since the above costs exclude the effects of likely acceleration in mortgages defaults in months and years to come due to the adverse policy and economic headwinds.

Firstly, ongoing fiscal consolidation is shifting more burden of paying for our State onto the shoulders of Irish households, including those subsumed by the debt crisis. This process is not going to end with Budget 2014.

Secondly, reform of the personal insolvency regime will add fuel to the fire by giving banks disproportional powers over the households in structuring long-term solutions to the mortgages distress. Changes to the Central Bank code of conduct for the banks in dealing with borrowers, along with the accelerated targets for restructuring non-performing mortgages announced this week are likely to push the banks to more aggressively deal with the borrowers. These factors will amplify the rate of mortgages arrears build up, driving more households into temporary relief measures. These measures will structured by the banks in absence of transparent and efficient consumer protection to suit banks’ objectives of extracting all resources out of households for as long as possible before forcing the households into bankruptcy in the end.

Finally, mortgages arrears will continue to rise on foot of weak economic growth and continued re-orientation of the Irish economy away from domestic activity toward MNCs. This headwind closes the loop from the household debt overhang to depressed domestic investment to higher unemployment and lower domestic growth to an even greater debt overhang.

In order to deal with the mortgages crisis, we need a prescriptive approach to long-term solutions based on principles of borrower protection, standardization and transparency.

All lenders operating in Ireland should be required to publish a full list of solutions offered to the distressed borrowers which complies with the minimum standards set out by the Central Bank and a borrowers’ protection watchdog, such as reformed and independent Mabs. The financial criteria and conditions that qualify borrowers for such solutions should be disclosed. The process of finalizing the details of solutions should involve borrowers supported by an adviser, fully resourced to deal with the lender and independent from the lender and the state.

Only by matching borrower and lender powers and resources in a transparent and strictly supervised manner can we achieve a resolution to this crisis. Until then, this economy will continue operating well below its potential rate of growth, condemning generations of Irish people to debt slavery. The status quo of the state granting ever increasing powers to the banks in dealing with mortgages arrears is not sustainable and is likely to lead to both economic misery, continued emigration, and in the long run to political and social discontent. Sixth year into the mortgages crisis of extremely acute nature, we can not afford another round of half-measures and fake solutions.

Box-out:

This week auction of Irish bonds put to some test the theory of yields divergence with the euro area periphery. Compared to Italian Government bonds auction carried out on the same day, Irish 10 year bonds were greeted by the markets with a cheer.  While supportive of the analysts’ consensus view that Ireland is decoupling from the peripheral states, such as Italy, Portugal and Spain, the results of the auction were at least in part driven by factors outside the Irish Government control. This was the first 10 year bond issuance for Ireland in 3 years and the issue came without much of the adverse newsflow surrounding the economy. Complete absence of 10 year bonds in the secondary market prior to the auction assured some of the demand. For Italy, this was the first auction following Fitch downgrade of the sovereign to Baa1 rating – fresh in the memory of the markets. Italian newsflow has also been disappointing recently with elections outcome unnerving the markets and with GDP figures (Italy has reported its 2012 full year growth almost a month ahead of Ireland, which is still to post results for Q4 2012).

Just how much of this week’s result for Ireland can be accounted for by the factors unrelated to the Government policies or real economic performance is impossible to determine. Nonetheless, Minister Noonan’s cheerful references to the auction as ‘extraordinary’ in nature sounds more like a political PR opportunism than of financial realism.

23/3/2013: Sunday Times 10/03/2013

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from March 10.


Some two years ago in these very pages, I have described the prospects for the Irish economy as following a flatline trend with occasional volatility. In other words, back in the beginning of 2010, the economy’s prospects for the near-term future were consistent with an L-shaped recovery: stabilization followed by near-zero growth.

Taking the first three quarters of 2012, in headline terms, the above prediction has translated into 2009 to 2012 GDP growth of just 0.22% per annum, GNP decline of  0.16% per annum and domestic demand drop of 4.81% per annum. Again, let’s take a look at the above numbers from a different angle. Compared to the pre-crisis levels, the latest GDP data shows that over 2011-2012, Irish economy was able to close just 22% of the gap between GDP peak and the Great Recession trough, implying that it will take Ireland through the end of 2014 before we get our GDP back to the half-point of the Great Recession. At the same time, Domestic demand continued to hit crisis period lows in 2012 and all international projections show that 2013 will be another post-2007 low for these data series.

With these rather depressing statistics in mind, one is warranted to take with a grain of salt ever-more frequent and boisterous pronouncements from the Government that Irish economy has ‘turned the corner’. Ditto for the ever-more saccharine messages from the EU policymakers to the ‘best pupil’ in their austerity policies ‘class’.

And the most recent data – through Q4 2012 and January-February 2013 – is offering no signs of any statistically significant improvements in the economy compared to the rather abysmal 2012.

Mortgages arrears were once again up in the last quarter of 2012. While the rate of increases was markedly slower than in previous quarters, number of accounts currently in arrears 21.4% year on year. As of the end of 2012, some 186,785 private residencies-related mortgages are either in arrears, in temporary restructuring or in the process of repossessions – almost 25% of all accounts outstanding  if we were to use as the base total accounts numbers comparable across the 2009-2012 horizon.  All in, some 650,000-700,000 Irish residents are currently under water when it comes to paying on their original mortgages. Some turnaround in the economy to witness.

Data for January-February 2013 on new cars registrations shows that not only the motor trade is continuing to suffer from on-going collapse in sales, but that there is no indication of any substantial improvement in either the Irish households or the Irish SMEs outlook for the future. New private cars registrations are down 20% year-on-year over the first two months of 2013, while new goods vehicles registrations are down 21.4%. This shows clearly that Irish consumers are not engaged in purchasing large-ticket items and, supported by the declines in durable goods consumption evident in the retail sales data, signals that consumers have little real credence in the ‘green shoots’ theory espoused by our Government officials and business leaders. Lack of demand uplift in goods vehicles, on the other hand, shows that when it comes to capital investment, Irish businesses are also refusing to buy the hype of economic turnaround. In any cyclical recovery, capital expenditure, especially on rapidly depreciating items such as vehicles used in transporting goods for wholesale and retail trade, logistics and transportation services, is one of the leading indicators of improving economic conditions. Data for the first two months of this year shows no such uplift.

Core retail sales, once stripping out motor sales, are showing a slightly more upbeat activity. While all retail business activity has declined on average over 3 months through January 2013 compared to year ago, some encouraging signs of uplift were present in the Department Stores sales, and sales of electrical goods when it comes to volume and value of sales. Nonetheless, two factors continue to characterize Irish domestic consumption: extremely low activity from which any increases might take place, and exceptionally anemic trend in any rises we do record.

On the investment front, gross domestic capital investment remained basically unchanged in the first 3 quarters of 2012 compared to 2011,ann there are currently no signs that this situation has changed since the end of Q3 2012. We are now into the fourth consecutive year of gross investment failing to cover amortisation and depreciation of the capital stock accumulated over the years of the Celtic Tiger. Recalling that our growth success over 1992-1998 was predicated on a rapid catching up in capital stock and quality relative to our, at the time more prosperous European partners, this means that the ongoing crisis is effectively erasing any capital gains achieved post 1999.

In short, domestic side of the economy shows no green shoots of any harvestable variety. And the potential headwinds we are likely to face in the near-term future are still severe.

In property markets and when it comes to mortgages arrears, we face a long list of risks that are yet to play out.  Impacts of property taxes introduced in the Budget 2013, the upcoming lifting of the banking guarantees,  and the saga of the Personal Insolvency regime reforms all represent distinct threats to the fragile stabilisations achieved in these areas of the economy.

On business investment front risks are also mounting, rather than abating. Continued lack of bank credit and strong indications that in the near term Irish banks are likely to follow their other Euro area counterparts in dramatically hiking the retail interest rates for both existent and new loans.

When it comes to consumers’ appetite for spending, latest consumer confidence data shows significant deterioration in confidence in February, compared to January 2013 and to 2012 average. If anything, when it comes to consumers’ reported outlook for 2013, things are getting worse relative to 2012, rather than better.

Which leaves us with the Government’s old favorite signal of the recovery: Irish exports.  The hype about Irish external trade prowess is such, that even a usually somber IMF has recently waded in with a lengthy paper outlining how Ireland is likely to turn back to Celtic Tiger era prosperity on foot of booming exports.  In summary, the IMF missive, titled Boosting Competitiveness to Grow Out of Debt – Can Ireland Find a Way Back to Its Future concluded that “Ireland is poised to return to its path of strong growth and low imbalances” on foot of “enhanced competitiveness”.

The idea that ‘exports-led recovery’ is Ireland’s only salvation from the systemic and structural crises we face is not new. Previous Government put as much credence into this proposition as the current one. Alas, this idea – as I have pointed out repeatedly – is simply not reflected in the reality of the Irish economy for a number of reasons.

It is true that Irish exports growth has improved significantly during 2009-2012 period, rising from negative 3.75% in 2009 to a positive 6.25% in 2010 and 5% in 2011. In the first three quarters of 2012, exports of goods and services were up 6.8% on the same period of 2011.

Alas, the composition of our exports has shifted dramatically toward more services exports, as opposed to goods exports. In addition to reducing the overall level of real economic activity and employment associated with every euro worth of exports, this shift also has meant a number of changes that further divorce our external trade activity from economy. Firstly, most of employment creation in the exports-oriented services sectors, such as International Finance and ICT services, is oriented toward specialist, highly educated foreign employees, instead of domestic unemployed or underemployed individuals. Secondly, services exports are associated with greater cost (or imports) intensities as they require higher payments for patents and intellectual property, which are neither taxed in Ireland, nor are developed here. This means that while exports of services generate high revenues, much of these revenues is not captured within our economy. Thirdly, exports of services, as opposed to exports of goods, are more concentrated in a handful of giant MNCs. This fact, known as the ‘Google effect’ drives up the cost of hiring skilled workers for Irish SMEs, reduces margins at Irish enterprises, lowers investment into Irish SMEs, and actually undermines our competitiveness, rather than improving it.

In short, booming exports along the current trend can actually cost this economy its ability to sustain indigenous entrepreneurship and investment in the long run. Instead of supporting growth and recovery, the green shoots of some of our exporting activities can turn out to be super-strong weeds of the economy suffering from a classical Dutch disease where resources flow to an increasingly inefficient use in specialist sectors, exposing the society and the economy at large to future adverse shocks.

Lastly, as with other indicators, the latest data, covering only goods exports, shows that our external trade is suffering from a significant slowdown in global demand and the pharmaceutical sector patent cliff. Once again, I warned about both of these factors more than a year ago.

At the same time, on the more positive note, the ongoing US and global economic recovery should provide some support for goods exports from Ireland, especially in the areas relating to capital investment goods and equipment in months ahead.

In short, the miracle of the ‘exports-led recovery’ is simply nowhere to be seen at this point in time, despite the fact that exporting activity continues to expand and despite the fact that this activity represents the only bright spot on our economic horizon.

After five years of the greatest economic crisis in the modern history of this nation, it is time to ask our political leaders a question: at what point in time does one’s rhetoric of economic turnarounds becomes an unbearable burden to one’s political and social reputation? For the previous Government it took just under 3 years to face the music of its own making. For this Government, the clock is ticking on.

Box-out:

Having achieved a relatively underwhelming progress on restructuring the Promissory Notes of the IBRC, the Government has turned its attention in recent weeks on attempting to restructure our debts to the European sides of the Troika. However, the issue of the Promissory Notes is still an open topic. Last week at a conference in Brussels I had a chance to speak to some senior decision makers from the European Parliament and the EU Commission who unanimously voiced their concern over the potential for the ECB to alter the terms and conditions of the Irish Promissory Notes restructuring deal. ECB has two material powers to do so. Firstly, it can simply alter by a majority decision the technical aspects of the deal. Secondly, the ECB has the ultimate power to determine the overall schedule of the sales of the long-term bonds issued to replace the Promissory Notes to the private investors. This latter power is very significant. Under the current arrangement, the Central Bank of Ireland has committed to an annual schedule of minimum disposals of bonds. Based on this schedule, the cumulative long-term benefit of the deal to Ireland can be estimated in the range of Euro 4.5-6.3 billion over the 40 years horizon. Accelerating the rate of disposals by a third on average over the deal horizon can see the net gains to the Exchequer declining by more than a quarter. Hardly a confidence-inspiring outcome for the Government that put so much hype behind the deal.

13/3/2013: IMHO press release on CBofI Mortgages Plan

Here is the IMHO press release on today's Central Bank announcement relating to mortgages arrears resolution. This sums up my views and views I agree with.

Press release

March 13th, 2013

Government and Central Bank mortgage plan throws borrowers to the wolves, says Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation

Today’s announcement that the Central Bank of Ireland will set targets for six major banks in relation to restructuring of mortgages in arrears is a sad extension of the failed policies of the past that have allowed Irish mortgages crisis to spin out of control and have resulted in total mortgages arrears of unprecedented proportions.

The latest plan lacks any prescriptive solutions and allows banks to determine the nature, the extent and the application of all solutions while setting the terms and conditions with out any supervision. The plan delivers no improvement in transparency of solutions to be offered to borrowers by the lenders and provides no protection for borrowers against potential abuses by the lenders of their powers.

While the review of the code of conduct is to be welcomed the review fails to deliver a meaningful improvement to the previous practices and does not allow for an effective protections for borrowers.

Mr Elderfield's statement claiming that the regulator intends to remove the current cap on number of times a bank is allowed to contact or call or visit a borrower ahead of the review of the code of conduct is very concerning. In our view, the central bank is underestimating the extent to which the banks are willing to go to pressure borrowers. It also pre-empts the actual review of the code of conduct for mortgage arrears..

The borrower is exposed and has been afforded no protection in this plan. The lenders are incentivized to maximize the rate of extraction of savings and income from the already distressed borrowers prior to completion of any long-term forbearance or restructuring agreements, thus reducing the effective relief that can be accorded the borrower in the end.

The net effect of this plan will be additional stress on mortgage holders and more power to banks without an appropriate safety net or independent arbitration for mortgage holders.

The Irish mortgages crisis, now into its sixth year, is still raging beyond any control of the authorities. Per latest figures from the Central Bank of Ireland, 186,785 mortgages (including BTL) in Ireland are at risk (in arrears, restructured or in repossession), accounting for an unprecedented 25.3% of all mortgage accounts still outstanding. The balance of mortgages at risk,  relative to the total balance of all mortgages outstanding has reached a catastrophic figure of 31.9%. With some 650,000-750,000 estimated people residing in the households with the principal residence in mortgages difficulties, we are witnessing a wholesale destruction of savings, pensions and wealth of several generations of Irish people.

State response to this crisis to-date has been woefully inadequate and erring on the side of the financial institutions. Today’s announcement offers no hope for any meaningful change in the ways Irish authorities treat ordinary borrowers in distress.

For further information contact:

David Hall

or

Constantin Gurdgiev

IMHO