Month: September 2010

QNA Release for 2010:Q2

The quarterly national accounts for 2010:Q2 have been released. They show seasonally adjusted GDP declining 1.2% quarter over quarter and seasonally adjusted GNP down 0.3%.  Year over year, real GDP is down 1.8 percent and GNP is down 4.1 percent. Nominal GDP is down 3.6 percent year over year while nominal GNP is down 6.2 percent over the same period.

There were also revisions to the first quarter figures. Seasonally adjusted quarter on quarter growth in GDP was revised down from 2.7 percent to 2.2 percent, while the decline in GNP was revised from 0.5 percent to 1.2 percent.

Anglo Subdebt, Again

It is now pretty clear that the government and Anglo management are shaping up to do a buyback deal on Anglo’s outstanding €2.5 billion in subordinated debt after the original CIFS guarantee expires at the end of the month.

Here’s my question. Given that

(a) The terms of these securities allow for the possibility of them not being paid back if the bank is insolvent (this is why banks get to count these securities as part of their regulatory capital).

(b) None of this debt matures until 2014 at the earliest (see page 56 of Anglo’s interim report).

(c) These bonds will no longer be covered by a state guarantee.

why would we do this? Why not let the bonds sit as an obligation of the Asset Recovery Bank, let it go about its business of recovering value from assets, and then let the next government make a decision in 2014 as to whether we want to put in taxpayer funds to pay off these bonds?

Those of you who want to comment that you think a bond buyback is a good idea might help clarify things a bit by explaining what type of deal you would offer (i.e. how much of our money you’d give the hedge funds and other distressed debt outfits that now own these bonds.)

Exporting Irish Education

The Government has just announced its plan to increase the number of non-Irish students in higher education by 50% between now and 2015, and to increase the “value” of the university sector by one third to 1.2 bln euro. The news bulletin and press release emphasize the targets, but are hazy on the implementation. After some digging, the underlying report can be found too. In this regard at least, education has something to teach to the other departments.

The report has a snappy title and great graphics, but is a bit hazy on the actual plan. It would of course be great if tens of thousands of non-EEA students would flock to Irish universities and pay a hefty fee that would cross-subsidize Irish students. But why would they? Ireland has the advantage that it teaches in English — but so do Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and, indeed, the Netherlands. Parents who wonder where to send little Yuan or precious Sujata may look at one of the university rankings and decide that there are more prestigious universities elsewhere. Ireland could compete on price, but that defies the purpose. Why would the Irish taxpayer subsidize the education of foreigners?

These considerations are not part of the report. In fact, little thought is given to the students or their parents. Two concrete measures are proposed. First, it will be easier to obtain a student visa. Second, there will be a major branding campaign. While branding is largely in your own hands if you sell butter, lager or dance, education is a harder sell. Substance should back up the image. Sending your kid abroad for 3-4 years is a major decision. The potential client is well-informed.

The report has an interesting factlet: Ireland has the highest proportion of students in the EU who study abroad. If our own students have so little confidence in the Irish universities, why would foreign students want to pay for the same?

How Yields are Set in Bond Auctions

We’ve had lots of comments about yesterday’s bond auction, many of them from people confused by headlines about the “heavy demand” for the bonds. If the demand was so heavy, these folks are asking, why couldn’t we have sold the bonds at a lower interest rate? We’ve also had some good responses from people who know the answer but it’s perhaps worth putting the answer on the front page.

Take the €1 billion euro 8-year bond that was issued yesterday. The interest rates that we pay on these bonds are determined in an auction. People submit private bids detailing how much of the debt they want to acquire and what rate they are willing to pay. NTMA want to pay the lowest interest rates possible, so they allocate the bonds to those offering to take the lowest interest rates until they have handed out the full €1 billion of bonds.

Yesterday’s auctions featured €2.9 billion in bids (this is what is meant by the bid-cover ratio being 2.9) and the widely-advertised rate of 6.046% was the highest rate offered that received a full allocation of debt. The business about the “heavy demand” relates to the fact there were €1.9 billion in bids from people who were not allocated bonds. Pretty clearly, however, the existence of these bids can’t lower the rates that we are actually paying since these people weren’t willing to purchase the bonds at lower interest rates.

Also, we don’t know how serious all of these unsuccessful participants were. For all we know, some could have submitted bids at 10%: NTMA don’t release information about the nature of the unsuccessful bids. In the absence of this information, I’d recommend not reading too much into bid-cover ratios.

(Note, for those who want to be picky, I’m deliberately not getting into technicalities about Dutch and non-Dutch auctions and the like but informed commenters can fire away on this stuff if they wish.)

Implied Default Rates

Today’s bond auction has attracted a lot of media attention. However, quite a lot of the comment has been a bit confused. Let me set out the usual framework that economists use to think about bond yields. Our more financially sophisticated readers know this stuff anyway but it’s still worth briefly spelling out.

Consider an investor who has two options for their investment.

Option A is to purchase a risk-free bond which carries an interest rate of RF.

Option B is to purchase a bond with potential default risk. This bond delivers two possible outcomes. The first outcome occurs with probability p and in this case, the bond is defaulted on and the investor only recovers a percentage c of their original investment. The second outcome B occurs with probability 1-p and in this case the bond delivers the promised interest rate of RR and also repays the principal.

(Weighted) averaging over these two outcomes, the expected return from option B is

p(c-1) + (1-p) RR

Now assume that investors are risk-neutral, meaning they will pick the bond with the highest average return (and won’t shy away from option B just because it carries some uncertainty).

In this case, for investors to be willing to purchase both bonds, they must have the same average expected return. Setting the above return for option B equal to RF and re-arranging, this determines the interest rate on the risky bond as

RR = RF / (1-p) + p (1-c)

If one knows what the “recovery rate” parameter c is, then one can also back out the implied probability of default as

p = (RR – RF ) / (1 –c + RR)

Now to our current situation. As of this evening, the FT is reporting yields on ten-year Irish bond at annualised rates were 6.3% while the comparable German bond was yielding 2.46%. Let’s use 0.5 as the implied recovery rate should Ireland default. Now plug in RR = .063, RF = .0246, C = 0.5

p = (0.0630 – 0.0246) / .563 = .0682

When considering ten-year bond yields, this tells us the implied probability that the bond will not default over the 10 years is (1-.0682)^10 = 0.493.

In other words, this simplified calculation would suggest that investors are pricing in that a default is more likely than not at some point in the next ten years.

So, when one hears a Fianna Fail TD say on Prime Time say that if international investors didn’t have confidence in Ireland, they wouldn’t be willing to invest in the country (i.e. purchase sovereign bonds) it needs to be kept in mind that the rates on longer-dated sovereign bonds suggest that these investors believe that it’s as likely as not that the country will default over the next ten years. Not much of a vote of confidence.

Now, of course, the framework above is very basic. One can assume that investors are not risk-neutral which would mean there would be a risk premium in addition to the one related to default probability. This would lower the estimated default probability but it wouldn’t change the damage that perception of the possibility of default is doing.

Also, the 50% figure for recovery rate might be kind of low. A recovery rate of two-thirds would give a higher implied default probability of also about two-thirds from the above framework.

The other line I heard going round today was how we shouldn’t be surprised that the auction was successful because the rates being offered were “very attractive.” This is wrong on two counts. First, the rates were determined in an auction—the NTMA didn’t set a high minimum rate that they were willing to pay to attract interest. Second, once we know the market is factoring in default risk, there’s no point in judging bond yields as being “attractive” just because they are high. The high rates are compensation for the possibility that you might lose a lot of money if things go badly.

A key point to keep in mind is one that has been stressed recently by Willem Buiter. When perceived default probabilities rise there can be two possible self-confirming equilibria. In the good one, the government calms the nerves of the markets, borrowing rates decline and the day is saved. In the bad one, the high yields due to high default probabilities start to make fiscal stabilisation seem more difficult, which further raises estimated default probabilities until borrowing from the bond market becomes unfeasibly expensive or else simply impossible.