Antoin Murphy: This time Morgan Kelly is wrong

I’m a bit puzzled as to why so many people seem to think that Morgan Kelly’s projections are off the wall. Am I wrong in thinking that the IMF team projected debt of 238bn in 2015? Even if I am, Colm McCarthy interpreted their report as being very gloomy about Ireland’s prospects of avoiding default. Their view of the future is a little more positive than Kelly’s but it ain’t cheerful.

So where does this idea come from that Morgan Kelly is some wild outlier? Of course he misuses the word ‘material’, but aside from that quibble I see him as a pessimist, but a perfectly sane one.

So many people, including me think Morgan Kelly’s projections are “off the wall” because they are. No basis was offered to support them and none can be found.

There have been a number of attempts to add certain amounts to the ‘official’ debt projections to get it up to €250 billion but most of it has been nonsense.

Just on the cost of the banks and the €24bn identified in the stress tests. I would have characterised the market reaction as : the stress tests went too far with their mortgage default losses but not far enough with deleveraging or post 2013 loss dynamics.

But we are expecting the stress tests for Anglo and INBS shortly and despite recent noises which suggested existing estimates might be more than adequate, if I am reading the Independent story yesterday correctly then we might have another €5bn or so there (and that is apparently on top of €32bn for Anglo, again if I am reading the article correctly).

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/noonan-to-force-sale-of-euro8bn-in-anglo-us-assets-2647545.html

Truth be told, if the markets did believe we had gotten to the true bottom of the bank losses, wouldn’t our 10-year bond be back down at 6%, wouldn’t the bank share prices be higher than their lows in March and wouldn’t deposits be flying into this country at such a rate that we might have to put capital barriers in place to keep them out.

Think about it, probably the most tested and poked banking system in the world, that reports daily and weekly to the ECB, IMF and God knows, who else, capital buffers which are world class and high deposit rates (certainly higher than Germany or Switzerland) plus extensive State guarantees. So why are we not fighting prospective depositors off with sticks?

As the saying goes, money talks, BS walks.

@Jagdip Singh

As indicated here before Capital Ratios are generally a very poor metric to determine the real underlying value of a banking franchise. Sadly the folks on Dame Street have yet to read that particular message as has their cheerleaders of which I note Dep. Shane Ross has developed into the clear leader in that regard.

We must always remember that Amagerbanken which went bust in the first week of February this year reported as recently as the end of Oct 2010 to the market that their Core Tier 1 ratio was 13.9%!

So expecting the markets to be somehow dazzled by the vitues of significantly larger than required Capital Ratios (as Messrs Honohan and Elderfield have been) is dellusional.

Investors do not work this way. What bank investors would much rather hear at this stage of the cycle is for lower capital ratios to take the pressure off the banks to allow them to grow their book again and start to make some money. The warm comfy feeling of higher captial ratios is fine and nice as a theory but most investors would view this as code for lower than optimal returns on equity and exactly the wrong strategy to pursue at this stage of the cycle.

What would I know sure I’m only a bank investor at the end of day – but God forbid those in power ever ask us what we really require as opposed to what the rule book says we require.

@Eoin,

I don’t know where the €45bn came from, but here’s a stab:

The present figure is €31bn and if the objector/Paddy McKillen loans are absorbed that should rise to €33bn.

Minister Noonan has warned BoI and AIB that unless they come up with credible delevering plans by the end of May 2011, he may force them (after all) to transfer the sub-€20bn loans to NAMA. They total €12bn or €16.6bn with associated lending. Applying the NAMA average haircut so far of 58% and you get €7bn.

That gets you to €40bn. NAMA may advance up to €5bn in development funding and indeed launched programmes to obtain that.

That would get you to €45bn.

I had thought that Antoin had got lost in that ‘black hole’ in the Irish economy that he had famously discovered in pre-lunar crater times.

It’s good that economists are at last willing to challenge each other rather than keeping to the default faux respect mode.

I see elsewhere in the SBP, that David McWilliams is seeking to rise above the ‘bitchfights’ among economists.

Of course he doesn’t also like to be challenged on facts and in the Irish broadcast media the insiders are always assured of an easy ride.

@ Bond. Eoin Bond

It’s extraordinary that even though EU policy when Ireland issued the blanket gurarantee, was contrary to socialisation of private bank losses and for burden sharing, prevailing anti-EU hysteria puts all the blame overseas.

Here is what DMW wrote on his selling job on a blanket guarantee – this is important because the guarantee made the subsequent default slow-motion response to the bankng crisis inevitable: “I told him he simply had to guarantee everything for a limited period to make sure that an illiquid
dilemma didn’t lead to an insolvency catastrophe…I walked him out to his car and he reiterated the fact that his officials would explode if they knew he was
there. I said I wouldn’t tell a soul if he didn’t.

The minister called me the next day and again on Friday, the 19th, when he rang to say they were contemplating a partial guarantee. My view was that such a move would accelerate capital flight, not avert it. From then on, we spoke on a daily basis, but he still wasn’t convinced and, from what I could gather, his officials in the department were dead set against a full guarantee, although they didn’t seem to be coming up with an alternative.”

@ CP

the 109bn ECB figure includes the foreign banks. Strip them out and you get c.85bn for the domestic “covered” Irish banks. 55bn on top of that from the ICB and you’re at 140bn.

@ All

But surely the big argument here is that stiffing the ECB for the 140bn odd liquidity it has in the banks won’t actually halve the government debt, indeed it will do nothing to it whatsoever. That’s a pretty clear divergence of opinion isn’t it?

From the article:

“Kelly believes that, by transferring the Irish banks out of the hands of the Irish government to the ECB, the ‘‘Irish government can halve its debt to a survivable €110 billion’’.

But how has he incorporated his estimate of €160 billion (the correct figure is €140 billion) debt of the Irish banks to the ECB into his original estimate of government debt of €250 billion?

The answer is that he has not and therefore cannot, by this sleight-of-hand, reduce the government debt by half.”

@ Eoin Bond
thanks. Now that we only owe 140 b to both institutions we seem to be on the pigs back ( smiley). pity we gave our last bit of cash (20b) to the pillars.

@ Gavin
If you accept that the 140b due by the banks (and we own them)plus about 100 of sovereign paper plus whatever we owe the IMF, EU and UK then the number would appear to be accurate.

@All
Of course Kelly’s numbers are being rubbished. The problem is Kelly’s numbers are more accurate that most of the other stuff.

Specifically Antoin Murphy says:

“Kelly believes that, by transferring the Irish banks out of the hands of the Irish government to the ECB, the ‘‘Irish government can halve its debt to a survivable €110 billion’’….The answer is that he has not and therefore cannot, by this sleight-of-hand, reduce the government debt by half.

Kelly is right. Others are wrong.

GGD from the NAMA note at end Dec 2010= 148.1 billion
Financial Assets from the same NAMA note= 40.6 billion
Net Govt Debt -from the same NAmA note= 116.9billion.

Kelly’s figure is €110 billion. Not much difference there from €116.9

kelly’s solution-no more borrowing leaves Net Govt debt at 116.9.
The promissory notes, committments to banks are consigned to a bonfire.

The error being made by several commentators including Prof Murphy is that they are not taking Kelly’s solutiuon into account. They are all starting from 2014 or 2015.
Kelly is starting from now.
No more borrowing. Ergo the Net Govt debt does not rise.
His analysis is not dependent on the LaLa land of growth that will not happen, the lala land of expenditure that will not reduce, the lala land of upper echelon freeloaders that think they can freeload into eternity, the lala land of no tax increases for high earners.
His solutions are not for the faint hearted.
His analysis of the net debt figure is pretty much spot on.
His figures are based on starting from now.
No more borrowing.
They are correct.

@ Joseph Ryan,

Am I right in thinking that you’re saying that dumping banks, NAMA, etc right now, combined with immediately balancing the budget, would freeze the outstanding debt at around e110bn? So it’s not the case of A being taken away from B (mistakenly), but if we do A, then B follows. Sorry if I’m not expressing this very well.

@JTO

The key point is that all the other economists are willing to debate and engage. Kelly isn’t. Why not?

Morgan Kelly’s uses his own name. I admire him for that to begin with.

@Hogan
Yes cash flow is very important. So why did we put our last few bob into the twin pillars???
Did JCT or DSK insist that we disgorge our safety valve???

@ Joseph Ryan

You give the impression that Morgan Kelly outlined ‘solutions’ on cutting the deficit to zero when what he proposed was an aspiration; apart from a reference to his own excess earnigs, no ‘solutions’ to use your term, have been provided.

Good post from Constantin Gurdgiev

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/05/16052011-debt-restructuring-two.html.

If someone says self fulfilling prophecy I will scream 🙂

PS Antoin mentions the best capitalised banks in the world argument again ……..
But I continue to ask what is the point of well capitalized banks operating in the Irish economic bog when the non-credit money supply in the physical economy is continuing to decline ?

Even banks have to operate in the real economy me thinks – no matter how impressive their capital buffers – these capital buffers are merely artifacts of credit or CB intervention.
The only metric that matters is the tax raising powers withen the juristiction as this is a true refection of the real physical economy and not just money present on banks balance sheets which is a chimera.

The Irish need to own their own local money supply unless the ECB monetizes and devalues the currency or maybe we should just Punt it alone.

If someone says self fulfilling prophecy I will scream.

Can we say model-consistent expectations? 😉

@MH.

The word solution may have been badly chosen. I should have said proposal and indeed there is a difference. Point taken.

We may not agree on the Kelly’s proposals but we could agree on the absolute inertia in reducing government expenditure. An inertia that has greatly benefitted vested interests, mostly higher earners.

The proposal / plan contained in the MOU to run up debt to a figure of €223 billion (I think that is the latest revision) is not simply akin to a lethal injection, it has all the hall marks of population marching in step in a funeral march out to sea.
It defies the natural survival instinct of all but lemmings.

We cannot at a stroke reduce our debt to €110 billion by “disengaging from the banks”. Excluding any further bank recapialisation the GGD will be €159 billion which as we all know excludes NAMA. By dropping the Promissory Notes we can reduce the GGD by €28 billion as €3 billion have already been paid out. That brings the GGD down to €131 billion. NAMA is not in this figure so abandoning that process cannot bring the figure below €131 billion.

There are few further savings possible by giving the ECB “the keys to the banks”. We cannot ask them to give us back the money we have already poured in. We have €131 billion of debt that cannot be removed by breaking our ties with the banks. €131 billion is still a huge debt level, and with the ongoing deficits, does not fully resolve the sustainability issue.

Of that €131 billion we brough about €47 billion of debt with us into this crisis in 2007. Around €63 billion has gone to fund the 2008-2011 deficits. We have borrowed €12 billion to build up our cash reserves and have borrowed about €9 billion to fund the bank recapitalisations that did not come from the monies built up in the NPRF.

At the most we can bring our debt down to €131 billion for this year. The €173 billion that will be the end-2011 outcome will come about once the €28 billion of outstanding Promissory Notes and ensuing €20 billion of bank recapitalisation are undertaken. Dropping the banks because of the mistaken belief that they will take half out debt with them is the first step to economic ruin. The immediate balancing of the budget because of that step is the second.

Crikey, wouldn’t it be easier to make a simple stacked column chart of “Financial Assets and Liabilities” and at least argue with some clarity?

Trying to read and make sense of this thread is almost impossible…so many numbers flying around.

@Seamus Coffey,

Many thanks for this. You have consistently provided lucid presentations of the data. It would be wonderful if these could be expressed in, how ever rudimentary, pro forma government income statements, funds flow statements and balance sheets for the next 5 years. It would help to frame the debate and might reduce the wild claims that are often made.

I had hoped that something like this might have emerged from the Review of State Assets and Liabilities, but I suspect the ToR, not to mind data deficiencies, prevented this.

@Ceteris Paribus
“Yes cash flow is very important. So why did we put our last few bob into the twin pillars???”
Um, yeah. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Personally, I think the last government tore up the parachute by opening the NPRF vault. Note that the Hungarians haven’t been ‘forced’ to dip into their public pension fund, so I doubt, had the NPRF remained as a pension fund and not suddenly morphed into an SWF, that it would have been emptied. Reserve parachute still intact is a very different proposition…

@ Hogan

well the suggestion is that a 25bn SWF would be an awfully nice fallback for a country considering default at some stage down the line…

@Hugh S

Yes it is a liability – to make cash payments. Where is it in reality in seniority?

Thing is though the debate has focussed og “debt sustainability” aka “can you make the payments?”

The state pensions liability payments are an annual expenditure since their is no fund and the state is not going to buy one with borrowed money.

@Peter, Hugh

Someone needs to invent a way of sharing a matrix incorporating mathematical and logical functions, with other people, in different locations, who might think of something they haven’t.

I suppose everyone would have to be constructive rather than trying to spot an error to harp on about – should the technology ever become available. Imagine the effects on productivity!

All those jumping up about the central bank liquidity should also factor the collateral that has been used by the banks to obtain this funding. Between Promissory Notes, NAMA bonds and sovereign bonds the banks are using around €70 billion of State collateral on this funding.

If all these debts are repaid (as is currently the plan) then the banks will use the money from these instruments to repay the money borrowed from central banks. Half of the funding can be repaid by debts we are promising to repay anyway. It does not make any sense to add this bank funding to the State debt.

In a large part it is just double counting as outlined here. It will require losses above those already accounted for in the banks in order for the liability to become a debt of the State. There is no indication that such losses are in the system. If you think the banks’ central bank liability will become a debt of the State you have to look at the asset side of the banks’ balance sheets. You cannot make a loss on a liability. The loss has to come from the asset side.

@Joseph Ryan

Yes, that is what I am saying and I think Morgan Kelly also.

JTO again:

It is pathetic when other people have to interpret what Kelly means. Why can’t he explain himself what he means, either on here or in the media.

The fact is that (at least) three reputable economists have rubbished Kelly’s figures: Seamus Coffey, Joe Durkan, Antoin Murphy. They’ve all put the debt figure at under 200bn, rather than the 270bn that Kelly claims. Each of them has gone into considerable statistical detail in doing so, and laid their calculations out clearly. Each of them is available for media questioning on their figures, and one of them regularly posts here and is happy to respond when other posters question his figures. But from Kelly, nothing but silence.

If Kelly is of the opinion that all three of these economists have got their calculations wrong, why can’t he post on here showing exactly how they are wrong and how he is right? I assume that he knows how to use a computer. It would only take a couple of minutes. I would be amazed if the organisers of this site hadn’t allready offered him the opportunity to do a guest post, like they did with Daniel Gros. Presumably, with such a big ego, he thinks it is beneath his dignity to post on here. In that case, why won’t he be interviewed in the media about the differences between his figures and those of the others? Coward is too mild a word to describe his behaviour. But, his silence speaks volumes.

@hoganmahew

“Cash- flow is much important for a state than growth.”

You couldn’t expand on that a bit, could you?

@ All

Pondering these debt figures makes me see Morgan’s proposal in a different light. Morgan presents to us that the main plank of his solution is stuffing the ECB. He then concedes that the inexorable consequence of such audacity is that we can’t fund our fiscal deficit, therefore it has to be removed.

In fact, the removal of the fiscal deficit is the primary driver of us getting to that manageable €110Bn debt, not merely the consequence of declaring monetary Sinn Fein. And to get to that €110Bn the deficit has to be closed immediately, no 12 month lead in or anythingg like that.

I doubt whether Morgan’s fan club would have been as cheered as they appear to be if he had presented the MAIN thrust of his proposal as the immediate removal of the deficit.

@hoganmahew

This makes sense today but you are forgetting that the very thing that will ensure (or not) that roll overs are not missed is the attitude of the markets to our growth predictions and economic performance in the interim, the time we next go to market. Todays market attitude is largely irrelevant.

The markets view of Ireland could and will, be very different than it is today and the markets will be pricing that debt at rates which may or may not look attractive relative to say Bailout Mark II rates aka ESM.

So when push comes to shove in actual fact its growth or the lack of it that will ultimately determine our ability to raise cash at the time of the roll over (or more likely some time beforehand) – bacause in fact Govt Debt is never really paid off.

Govt debt tends to be rolled over with either more or less debt raised at the time depending on upcoming liabilities and projected Govt revenues.

We shouldn’t be so clever to believe we know exactly how the world will be viewing Ireland in 18 months time. Nobody really has a clue what the markets will be focusing on at that time but history would suggest that stong growth rates are more likely to entice would be bond purchasers more than a stock of cash which will dissolve over time.

@Yields or Bust
Well, there are two interlinked aspects to this:
1. The government’s debt rating.
2. The view of the markets as to the sustainability of the debt load.

I don’t see these improving significantly by next year (when self-financing will be required). Do you?

I see taking a negative view of the debt outlook as only as realistic as taking a rosy view of growth prospects. We have been gambling on growth for the past few years. I am still at a loss where it will come from to the level required.

Professor Kelly is right. We should cut in one go & need to separate sovereign & banking debts. As things stand we will not have any meaningful growth as far as is forecast-able. Our current course of action has no light at the end of the tunnel, merely more gloom.

Mortgage & loan arrears will build up between now fiscal consolidation. In Japan it took 7 years for the arrears to build up to bring down the banking system. We face a similar, second, banking crisis in the coming years. This time we will have fewer options.

Whether we cut in one go or not we must default in a large portion of our banking debt.

I doubt Kelly really believes the 18bn adjustment as policy – merely a way to put forward the argument that deficit reduction should take place sooner rather than later (which many economists including Colm McCarthy have emphasised since it is one of the few policy options under our control).

I personally saw it as a type of bargaining to ensure that the less prevalent view of closing the deficit quicker was reaffirmed in the public conciousness.

eg:

Labour: Lets extend the deficit target to 2015

Morgan Kelly: Lets close the deficit in one year

Consensus: Maybe somehwere in the middle? Closer to the ESRI position?

You can’t help but some of the people proposing extending the deficit reduction are just hoping some of the big decisions can be put off until some magical economic revival takes place.

@hoganmahew

I don’t know is the answer. And quite frankly nobody does.

It seems to me however that if a few of the obvious low hanging fruit options were explored I believe the situation would change very quickly – quick enough to turn the ship around I’m not sure – but I believe worth trying.

In simple terms we need to break rules. No disaster was ever solved by following the rule book which are devised for normal times. We don’t live in normal economic times.

Remember we voted to allow murders etc walk early from jail in 1998 following a Good Friday Agreement. Hardly following the rules – but it worked because fixing problems is about fixing not about fairness or equity its about getting out of a hole. Normal rules need not apply.

Here’s one for starters:

Despite me and others being very much in the dark when the Dork of Cork makes suggestions on these threads – he makes one above which I and others have been suggesting for some time.

For the love of Holy God can we please stop pretending we have have banks which are required to conform with Basel III rules. They’re not. Why?

Because they’re not banks. The rules the Regulator is requiring they comply to are rules that are relevent to normal functioning banks at the top of the economic cycle. We don’t have normal banks and we’re at the bottom of the cycle.

Make the Irish Guaranateed banks Basel III free zones until they normalise themselves. Bad regulation at the bottom of the market is every bit as damaging as bad (or non existant regulation) at the top.

I suggested in previous threads that the empirical evidence for banks holding anything more than 7% core Tier I capital is at best inconclusive yet we seem hell bent on getting that figure to 10%. Why? As far as I can see nobody really has a clue why?

There has not been one piece of economic evidence presented to show that this move will in any way improve our economic well being and yet Groupthink believes it to be sound policy. It’s not and its killing us. Stop it now.

Allow the Irish ‘banks; to hold 1% Core Equity ratios for the forseeable future and take a chance. The bubble has burst the horse is gone the excess capital over and above 1% is for what exactly?

And here’s another:

Implement a Mortgage Debt write down scheme ASAP.

Mr. Honohan (the other one) spoke last week on an issue which I believe simply needs to happen. Stop pissing about. We all know that significant portion of the mis pricng error in relation to Residential property resides with the banks – this is not new information.

The IMF capital earmaked for the banks should go directly against the loan accounts of those who were mis sold mortgages over the past 10 years.

Forget the idea that this can’t be done – its simple – and most likely unfair but refer to opening above.

In addition trying to go down the route of relieving those who can’t ‘afford’ is daft. My defintion of ‘affordability’ may be a world away from yours so don’t even go there. Use a rental yield model and move on.

Calculate what yield the house was sold at – versus what is should have been sold at using long run average market yields at 7% and calculate the difference in price deduct what has been paid in the interim and write off the difference. End of. Ireland recovers in 3 months as a result.

These are banking price errors remember – solve the error and stop talking about it.

Otherwise the ship won’t turn and we all go down.

@Ceteris Paribus
“How about reprofiling? I see a Commission member saying that reprofiling is not a default event. If we could push all the existing stuff out 5 years it would help our sustainability argument.”
Yeah, Commission members say lots of things “optimal currency areas don’t matter”, “it doesn’t matter if Germany and France break the S&G pact”, “capital controls are not required”, “the banks will regulate themselves, it is in their own best interest to” and my favourite “shure what do dem feckers at the ISDA know anyroadup?”

It is a guarantee of junk bond status; it is an event of default, even if it is only a small bang and not a big one (knock as the DSK defence, I believe).

But yes, that would certainly help, provided we could push the rest of it out and stick with the coupons on it. If we could do that and cut the deficit quickly, rather than slowly, we wouldn’t need the rest of the bailout, banks or no banks…

Mind you, if all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops…

@Hogan
Your getting very cynical.
Bini Smaghi is saying that extending the maturities only would not be a great help in respect of Greek debt. Could be he is hinting at a rate cut as well.
If we extend and maintain the coupons then the markets would have little to complain of other than distorting the yield curve.

@Yields or bust

Whats complex about what I am saying ?
The only money with any velocity is teachers wages , the dole etc – Goverment debt.
The banks cannot create credit and multiply this – thats a good thing not a bad thing , who the hell wants those bozos to misallocate capital again.

The bank credit investment good and bad is for better or worse in the system – some of the stuff they built is not all bad but to function in the physical economy they need to be cleared and filled at cash price.
Example – A apartment complex in a central area close to areas of work and leisure needs to be filled with workers, not remain vacant.
Housing estates out in the sticks need to become agricultural land again – their remaining occupants can relocate to a logical and more effecient habitation.
BANK BALANCE SHEETS DO NOT REFLECT THE PHYSICAL ECONOMY – its a artifact – but you don’t cut the basic money supply to zero to heal this absurdity !! because you guessed it, its a absurdity.

That would mean demand for logical things like milk and eggs will fall while people kept their home equity fantasy – why do this to peserve a credit illusion ?
Demand will have to be expressed in short term goods for now , not these long term bank malinvestments.

Of our projected €205 billion debt in 2014 we will have:
– brought €44 billion into the crisis with us in 2007
– used about €96 billion to finance the 2008-2014 deficits
– borrowed €12 billion to build up our cash reserve
– seen €53 billion of debt created by the banking disaster
Three-quarters of the debt mountain we are creating has little to do with the bailout of our failed banks.

@Seamus Coffey

On three-quarters – agree; McCarthy has been making this point for yrs now: yet the decison to socialise this debt is the main cause of bond markets not touching Ireland (the quarter that matters); deficit can be done – if sufficient political will as sufficient wealth exists to do so. This re-structuring of Irish economy/society is being successfully finessed/resisted by entrenched upper echelons – as they have done since the early 19th century.

@ S C,

Thanks for those figures. It’s good to get them out here. They make a lot of sense.

Some recent posts relate to the reserve capitalisation or Core Equity of the banks, a theory that it could be reduced drastically. Would you have a figure on much it is – presumably a percentage of
– seen €53 billion of debt created by the banking disaster ?
or perhaps it’s here:
– borrowed €12 billion to build up our cash reserve

Prof Murphy: “[Prof Kelly] initially expects the debt to be €220 billion (the Namawinelake estimate), but then adds an extra unexplained €30 billion, dismissively remarking that the differences between €220 billion and €250 billion ‘‘are immaterial’’.

Can Kelly really maintain that an extra €30 billion on the gross government debt is immaterial?”

Now this is pretty rich from Prof. Murphy. Suddenly Prof. Kelly, who’s arguing that our debts will bury us, is portrayed as the insouciant one. Of course, what Prof. Kelly means is that €220 billion is so freaking enormous an amount of money that whether the true figure is €250 billion is immaterial to the argument.

Oops, that post was probably a bad idea.

@Yields or Bust
“I suggested in previous threads that the empirical evidence for banks holding anything more than 7% core Tier I capital is at best inconclusive yet we seem hell bent on getting that figure to 10%. Why? As far as I can see nobody really has a clue why? ”
I’ll tell you why – because nobody believes their loan loss projections, but at least with 10% core they can take a lot more loss than with 7%. This is still all about losses. It is all about property prices and how far they will fall. The market doesn’t believe the sugar-plum fairies at S&P who reckon that the decline is over. Why? Because they’re talking nonsense, that’s why.

Until the banks have positive net worth at the end of a proper worst case loss scenario (which the last stress test comes close to), they are going to be in trouble. As it is, they are probably dead ducks and no amount of capital will make them attractive. Renaming the Drusilla and Griselda might make more sense than leaving them be as AIBoI.

@ R,

I think … our … SC gives a good break down of, probably, very sound figures.

Presumably the country and perhaps the world will be over flowing with economists from the uni of life after this – and they might do better than the other variety have done.

Though I’m afraid that still only one of two holes in the bucket are being addressed – the unattended one being the potential for rapid trade liberalisation to undermine our economies thoroughly.

@JTO
re: Yes, that is what I am saying and I think Morgan Kelly also.

I can’t answer for Kelly. All three economists that you mention are probably excellent economists, I claim neither economic expertise nor excellence. Maybe their final debt figures are of €200 -€ 220 billion are accurate. I note from a comment above that the IMF is now forecasting €232 billion by 2016.

The hard numbers say (or at least did say at the end of 2010) that no more borrowing would leave net govt debt at approx 116 billion.
Seamus Coffey’s later post puts this figure currently at €131 billion. I accept his figure on that. But he also says that a continuation of the current strategy will see us in the hole for €173 billion by the end of this year.
In other words by the end of this year the debate is over. We will have blown it. The damage will have been done.

That is the choice.
The govt, the country and indeed many economists appear to back the strategy of loading on the bank debt, loading on the deficit debt, loading on the interest debt, loading on the cost of all excess State expenditure, loading on the cost of AIB staff (2,000) executives leaving what are now State companies with barrowfuls of money.

Meanwhile statutory redundancy is your lot in the private sector. And if you are unemployed be you 25 or 55, your choice is to hunker down in poverty or emigrate.

I simply don’t back that strategy. Not only will it not work, it doesn’t deserve to work.

I note from some of your more sane comments, you put a lot of store in Ireland running a current surplus this year, if that is what it is called.

Not being an economist, let me tell you purely from intuition, what I think this means. It means that more wealth is accruing to the citizens and companies etc of this country this year. Ergo, the “country” as defined by some model is getting richer. And maybe this is true.
But if it is true then Kelly’s argument for cutting the deficit is all the stronger. And if it is true, by virtue of the fact that huge numbers are getting poorer, the income/wealth distribution gap is not just widening, it is shearing apart.
As I said above, I simply don’t back that strategy. Not only will it not work, it doesn’t deserve to work.

… that should be: repeat for “my” …

@Hoganmahew
After this epic misallocation of capital ? – capital inflow – labour inflow –
boom/waste – capital strike – labour retreat – bust/waste – chaos.

Who pays for the externalities baby ?

The real question is will corporatism be cemented into the governmental structures if when private institutions continue to have free call on worlds resourses while individuals become more and more restricted in their use of their private capital and sale of labour value.
When the second half of the equation is complete its game over.

I have to laugh at the middle and upper middle class in this country – you have embracced the liberal bullshit as long as it kept the price of a restaurant meal low but when the logic of the situation creeps up into collage campuses and civil servent nests things suddenly become different.

Obviously it has not reached out and touched you yet – but give it time , give it time.

I guess at 12.41am probably not…..

@ Seamus Coffey

“Three-quarters of the debt mountain we are creating has little to do with the bailout of our failed banks.”

In a narrow sense, maybe yes. But the State’s loss of control of its finances 2002 – present has everything to do with the actions of the banks.

Or another way, the €53bn (and counting) is only the direct cost to the state of restructuring the banks, as a part of the larger consequences of a financial sector disaster.

Without rehashing too much: this does not take responsibility away from political/governance decisions either.

If the state ever gets round to sending a bill to the banking sector for the mess, it should be considerably larger than €53bn.

@ Hogan & Yields

Thanks for discussion above.

@ Joseph Ryan
I have to say i think your comments on this topic have been spot on. As someone also left of centre like you I find this whole episode horrible but i completely agree that Kellys solution is probably the least worst for for the people on the margins and would force those with most to share in the burden.

Do you think much of the argument against it is simply a mixture of fear and self preservation as I do?

Do you think that if we just keep going on the path we are on that the ECB will be forced to use QE to allow us off the hook?
Do you think that labour’s current strategy can be defended on the basis that they believe that europe will not allow us go under?

Where there is no temptation, there is no sin.
Now there apparently is temptation.
Recall the W. Churhillian: “…this was their finest hour” – on this day.

@ Eamonn

The IMF did not forecast a figure €236 billion. Their original forecast was €225 billion but as I said above.

“The IMF ‘forecast’ that the 2015 GGD would be €225 billion last December. However, this was based on the full €35 billion set aside for the banks as part of the EU/IMF deal being used. This will actually be €18 to €20 billion. Once you subtract the difference that will not be borrowed for the banks, and the accumulated interest that would have been incurred on this between now and 2015, it is clear the IMF projection for 2015 is probably in the €205 to €210 billion range and comparable to most other reasoned estimates.”

Any figure close to €250 billion has little relation to reality.

As to whether the decceleration of the debt accumulation is possible it is very likely that it will be possible. The €24 billion increase in the debt this year includes a €10 billion non-recurring payment for the bank recapitalisation process. If all else was equal in 2012 the increase would drop to €14 billion so it is best to start from there. Even by 2015 the general government balance is expected to be €5 billion so it is not expected that the deficit will fall as fast as the rate of increase in the debt.

How can we have a GGB of around €5 billion yet see the GGD rise by only €1.5 billion? This is only possible if we maintain the €16 billion of cash we had on deposit at end-2010. The NTMA has stated that it expects the end-2011 cash balance to be something similar and they believe that “[t]hese balances provide a significant potential offset to Gross Government debt in the future and give the State some financial flexibility.

To achieve the targets laid out we have to reduce the GGB from €15 billion this year to €5 billion by 2015 and see no more money used for bank recapitalisation than that already committed. There is doubt about either of these but they are far from improbable.

@ Seamus Coffee
Lets say that there are not any more calls on the NPRF Money in the meantime and lets say the GGB is 5 billion (are you including promissory notes payment of 3 billion in that?) and another 1.5 billion of debt as forecasted. Its gone in 2 years. Long term we will have (200bn (using conservative figures) x 5% in interest) 10 billion interest payments per year. By what year do you think we will be taking in 10 billion more than we are spending? It is only then we can stop increasing the over all debt figure. This is not sustainable.
But it doesn’t matter your guys have won this argument within both FG and Labour. The comments from Enda Kenny, Eamonn Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte have been explicit. No Default will happen in Ireland! They are obviously using the best available advise. They are it seems relying on the kindness of strangers. Perhaps they will help us for their own sakes?

@ hogan
I would imagine some countries have gotten out of dangerous national debt situations quicker than they expected before but any that didnt have a currency to devalue?
I too would be interested in previous cases.

@Eamonn Moran

Do you think that if we just keep going on the path we are on that the ECB will be forced to use QE to allow us off the hook?
Do you think that labour’s current strategy can be defended on the basis that they believe that europe will not allow us go under?

I have no knowledge of the ECB, except to say that I remain deeply suspicious of any organization that has campaigned for and succeeded in pushing private banking losses down the throats of citizens that had not hand act or part in incurring those losses.
We can expect nothing but more moralising from the ECB.

The current and previous government stance is to load the debt on until it becomes fully apparant that the donkey’s back is completely broken. There appears to be a nod-nod, wink-wink approach that Europe will ride to rescue, everybody will breathe a sigh of relief and continue to avoid making the decisions necessary to live within our means as a sovereign nation.

To think that in its current mindset, Europe (the EZ piece) dominated largely by a combination hard currency and neocon philosophy will not allow Ireland to go under, lacks an appreciation of how Europe has changed over the past 15 years. From a positive social democratic idea to a liberals paradise.

As for labour, they seem to believe that the salary of a Secretary General or Chief Justice is as sacrosanct as that of a poorly paid janitor.
Labour they may be. left thay are not.

PS. I see on todays irish Independent that Ireland has applied for permission to continue the unlimited guarantee (€150Billion) on the banks for a further six months.
I had to read it three times to make sure that it was not some kind of joke.

A bankrupt State applying for permission to extend a guarantee it cannot afford, to benefit private financiers who took risks, at the expense of the destruction of the country, in particular its youth.

Well done to Laura Noonan of that paper, for being able to write that and refrain from inserting a paragraph asking which banana republic she was living in.

I am not saying that Morgan Kelly is 100% right, but it must be pretty obvious to many many people, including many of the contributors to this site, that the debt laden donkey plan will not work.

@ Joseph Ryan

You couldn’t post a link to the article about the guarantee? That sounds extraordinary.

@Gavin.

The MOU document has certain conditions attached.
I am not clear if it is an explicit condition that we continue to guarantee all or almost all the bank liabilities by the State. I don’t remember seeing it while scanning the document.

I would welcome some comment on this by those who monitor such things.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/state-applies-to-extend-bank-guarantee-scheme-2648464.html

Look lets the various against Morgan Kelly one by one and see how valid they are. You come to the general conclusion that Mr. Kelly is right and we are facing defacto default in 2014 if we don’t turn the boat. At that stage Spain will probably have needed a bailout cleaning out the cupboard and we will just be let sink. This is the inevitable result of going on the way the are. Most of the critics of Morgan can be summarised in to a number of groups and valid arguments can be made against all these groups. The arguments can be summarised as follows 1.

1. Morgan got his sums wrong
After careful analysis of Morgans numbers they find that he is out by 10 or 20 bn in his key numbers on debt 2014 therefore QED his whole thesis is wrong. These are the same people who thought houses would keep going up and flying PIGs. My moneys on Morgan as these people always add another 5 bn on the bank losses every month.

2. We are all going bankrupt help
The Leo Vadracker argument that there will be so many bankruptcies that the country will sink under a blanket of high court repossessions. The answer to this is to change the bankruptcy law to UK. one year without credit cards. Do you think the ECB owned banks are going to throw everybody out on the street . They will they take what they can get. Houses will be virtually unsellable in Ireland for a decade whatever happens. Think about it

3. We cant cut the deficit to zero without cutting judges pay and closing Hospitals
This the general government argument that they cant cut the deficit to zero in one year. However Daniel Gros has shown that, because of the high savings rate in Ireland during the balloon they don’t need to. They could for example start a decent property tax, decide to to introduce a minimum tax of 30% on salaries over 75,000 (most people on Ireland on salaries of 100,000k plus in ireland pay 1 or 2% income tax due to the huge range of property based, artist, BES, patent exemptions etc. on income tax). The is also uniquely in Ireland the virtually no tax on pension pots, however big.

They could also very simply OVERNIGHT get 10 bn of the 14 bn deficit. How by giving the pension industry 1% ten bonds for the 10% of the pension pot. Why pay 6% to the IMF when you get 1% interest to your own citizens.

The answer is the current administration with their apologists Antion Murphy and JTO etc. would rather an Argentian Default in 2014 as the wealthy and the pensioners moved all their remaining assets aboard leaving an unsustainable tax on the ordinary PAYE sector to pay the ECB and the bondholders.

Why not the Icelandic solution, no sovereign default and a government determined to look after its citizens. Why not tell the banks to get lost and save our reputation and our economy

4. Are the banks sovereign are they not dance.
The argument made by Antion Murphy that the banks are not sovereign. Isnt that what Lenny did, make the banks sovereign and what Morgan Kelly want to reverse by handing the banking sector over to its biggest creditors. Are they sovereign or are they not. If they are not sovereign as Mr. Murphy suggests then we don’t have to formally hand them over. The ECB as the biggest creditor can run them as they see fit with no more taxpayers cash. This is just a ridiculous circular argument which could only be answered by a judical enquiry lasting for 5 year and costing 1 bn. Better just giving the ECB the share certificates as Morgan suggested.

5. OH no no credit (isn’t it credit that caused the problem in the first place)
The no credit argument. If the government is generally worried about credit to business set a small business bank with some of the proceeds the pension raid. Credit caused the problem. As for consumer credit do you think the ECB owned banks are going to cut all domestic credit-card and loans when if they make a mess in Ireland and dont get some of their 130 bn back they risk bankrupting themselves. I don’t think so. In any event if the ECB banks don’t loan vulture banks from the UK and elsewhere will quickly descend to offer high margin safe credit as they were before and during the bubble.

@ Jules

were you drunk when you wrote that? That “most people earning over 100k pay 1-2% tax” was only the start of your idiocy, there was plenty of other inane rambling involved there.

@ Hog

Jules was referring to people earning 100,000K plus i.e. 100M plus. He is probably correct that this person does not pay much tax. Why are you picking on poor Jules?

This is great – healthy debate!! Bring it on. We are growing up!
Morgan Kelly is half right and half wrong.
We are fubbard but the rest of the world is fubbard too. Our biggest problem is energy. If we could secure some form of decent energy supply we’d be the best country in the world

@ Jules

“For example Anglos Drumm only paid 2% legitimatially on an income of 1 million plus and that is one of the only returns that has surfaced for legal reasons.”

Eh, you’re referring to the Irish Times report which they subsequently had to print a full and grovelling retraction of?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0304/1224291283159.html

@ Jules

1. you claimed people earning over 100k were paying 1-2% effective tax rates. We called bullsh1t and cited the real figures.
2. You claimed people earning over 100k weren’t included in the PAYE figures, and you seemed to imply that they were all receiving mainly royalty and patent income. We all scratched our heads, because thats one of the most bizarre suggestions that any of us have heard.
3. You claimed David Drumm only paid 1-2% in tax, and i commented that you were basing that suggestion solely on an Irish Times article which was retracted 12 hours after it was published.
4. You blathered on about “not cutting judges salaries” was the reason we couldn’t cut the deficit to zero – please show where anyone has every suggested that as a reason why we can’t cut the deficit to zero??
5. You basically want to seize 10% of all private pensions in order to cut the deficit to zero. Are you going to do that every year??
6. To increase the effective rate on “the wealthy” by 10%, wouldn’t you have to raise marginal rate by more like 15-20% on all people earning over 75k? Seriously, to 70% or so??

At no stage have you admitted that all of your comments have basically been made up in your own mind and are completely insane. Why on earth should anyone listen to a word you have to say?

In today’s Irish Times, UL’s Anthony Leddin and Brendan Walsh from UCD, have their go at trying to work out how Morgan Kelly’s €250 billion debt figure could come about.

Clarity needed when figuring out Government debt

Like Antoin Murphy’s piece that set this thread rolling, they cannot find the evidence to support the claim which can only be reached by double counting the bank recapitalisation funds.