Jekyll and Hyde

Our esteemed Senators have been at it again. Hold onto your hats. Senator Donie Cassidy kicked it off:

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail): Senators Fitzgerald, Coghlan, Quinn and Norris congratulated the Jekyll and Hyde foundation for the wonderful work it is doing. Senator Fitzgerald outlined the huge difference between the cost of the services being provided by the foundation and those provided by the HSE. It is something we must examine—–

Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael): It is the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation.

Dominic Hannigan (Labour): Jekyll and Hyde is something different.

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail): My apologies. It is the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation….

Your tax euros hard at work there.

Tánaiste lies to the Dáil?

In September last year the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector said ‘performance-related’ bonuses should be suspended and pay cuts made on basic salary, Government continuously cited their report in relation to pay cuts. The Review Body did not recommend the ‘bonuses’ be included as salary. The Government, in the Budget, agreed. They stated cuts were to be made in the method detailed in the report – i.e. bonuses suspended and salaries cut. See Martin Wall’s report post-Budget report in The Irish Times here for more.

Then the Government, following lobbying, suddenly decided to change how the cuts would be implemented, but only for a small sector of the public service. That sector includes assistant secretaries and deputy secretaries in the the Civil Service, senior personnel in the Army and An Garda, and positions like Ombudsman and Director of Corporate Enforcement. Each would have been taking home somewhere between €130,000 and €200,000 including bonuses. Harry McGee wrote an explanatory article on the topic in early January. Since then the numbers included have expanded. On the latest count almost 600 people fall into the group (the public sector would have tens of thousands of staff, obviously).

Instead of suspending bonuses and cutting basic salaries it was decided that for this elite group alone the bonuses would be counted as part of their salaries. This, the Government said, was because the vast majority of them received ‘performance-related’ bonuses no matter how they performed, thus the bonuses were, in practical terms, part of their salaries.

The eventual outcome; the group did not have their take home pay slashed due to the suspension of bonuses and further cutting of basic salary, as recommended by the Review Body and supported in the Budget by Government. Now bonuses are being are included in their pre-Budget salary totals and this figure is being cut by between 8 and 12. Therfore their basic pay cut is something around 3 or 4 percent. A clerical officer will be cut 5 percent, there are no bonuses, performance-related or otherwise available at these lower grades. Persepective: A clerical officer’s annual salary would have equaled something close to an assistant secretary’s ‘performance-related’ bonus.

The Government’s change is quite clearly a U-turn. It’s quite clearly disgraceful. It’s quite clearly immoral.

Despite just how clear it is, this week the Tanáiste Mary Coughlan claimed “the review body on higher level pay indicated that the bonus was indicatively part of their salary” in the Dáil.

Considering her Fianna Fáil colleague, Martin Mansergh, had already read the facts into the Dail record when putting the Budget legislation through the House:

The Government has accepted the review body’s recommendation that there be no increases in the pay of the higher public service groups, including any adjustments that might otherwise arise under national agreements, before the end of 2012. It has also accepted the recommendation that performance related award schemes in the public service should be suspended.

… and that this view could only be accepted by anyone of sane mind upon reading the report, any logical person would have to conclude that the Tánaiste has either lied to the Dáil and/or is far out of her depth.

Or is not of sane mind.

George Lee's questions

Dail newbie George Lee has been asking lots of awkward questions. One of his more recent ones has led to a bit of an information dump by the Department of Finance. Mr Lee asked:

Question 205: To ask the Minister for Finance the names and addresses of all nominees to bodies or agencies under the remit of his Department that were appointed since 26 June 1997, detailing by whom they were appointed; when they were appointed; the amount paid by the Exchequer to each nominee each year from 1997 to 2009 broken down into income, expenses, overtime and any other relevant category; the money paid by his Department each year from 1997 to 2009 to cover expenses or incidentals related to the nominees, such as accommodation, travel and so on; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5662/10]

To which Mr Lenihan provided quite an extensive reply. Maurice Ahern and Leonie Reynolds are two names that stand out for me. Comments please with extra info.

Anglo risk reports

I received the results of this request yesterday. I requested:

1. “The titles, dates and authors of all cost-benefit analyses, impact reports or preparatory reports that have been carried out by the Department in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. The date range for this request is January 1, 2008 to December 22, 2009, inclusive.

2. The titles, dates and authors of all cost-benefit analyses, impact reports or preparatory reports that have been carried out by people or companies working on behalf of, or at the request, of the Department, in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. The date range for this request is January 1, 2008 to December 22, 2009, inclusive.”

The results are here.

The FOI contains previously undisclosed names of recent reports carried out in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. The more curious sounding ones are “Project Europe” in December 2009, and “Project Stephen” in May 2009, both carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

I had previously FOId similar information related to NAMA. That FOI also contained previously undisclosed names of reports, such as HSBC’s Project Neo, and Atlas II (Island, Eagle, Able, Canal).

NAMA and conflicts of interest

This post was scheduled to go up at 6pm tonight but it’s on Liveline now, so…

This article from the Limerick Post is worth reading. It tells us a company whose owners owe massive amounts of money to Anglo Irish Bank will be providing legal advice to NAMA.

LIMERICK solicitors Dermot G O’Donovan, three of whose partners are directors of the Fordmount Group, now in receivership, have been appointed by NAMA to provide legal services.

Fordmount is believed to owe in excess of €100m to Anglo Irish Bank.

NAMA will appoint more than 50 firms to sit on a panel of legal advisors. Being on the panel does not necessarily mean a company will be called to provide advice. Indeed the reason NAMA would claim such a large number of advisors is required is – for want of better wording – to dilute any conflicts of interest. Still, if claims of conflicts of interest are raised, it’s worth taking a look at them.

The story is also perhaps illustrative of just how interconnected the various elite facets of Irish society have become in the last ten or so years.

Thanks to the people on Twitter who highlighted the story this morning.

The coming crisis?

It is early February 2010 and it is time again to look at our banking system. If you thought all of the problems had been sorted, then think again. There are really big problems coming down the road, and very few people seem to be talking about them. So let’s look a little closer at the potential fiscal problems Ireland, and our banks, face.

A number of issues have come to the fore in recent weeks, and over the coming weeks and months things could become somewhat – strained.

Yesterday the Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan decided to devolve more functions from the Department of Finance to the National Treasury Management Agency. The Opposition are critical of the move, arguing that Lenihan doesn’t trust his own staff enough. I’m not entirely sure this is the case. One thing that stands out like a sore thumb is the fact that unlike the Department of Finance, the NTMA is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Indeed the Department have said to me several times over the past few months that my requests for information were being delayed because the Department was so busy with NAMA, and with other FOIs. Now, it seems, much of the decision making will be made in secret anyway. And the NTMA is secretive. They are a public body, but we don’t know what the pay levels are.

In the current fiscal crisis we are in, the NTMA is arguably one of the most important public bodies, yet we cannot FOI them. They are the body that issues our bonds, bonds that are keeping this country afloat. The Financial Regulator and Central Bank are also not subject to FOI. The Department of Finance is one of the few bodies in this area we actually can FOI – moving powers to the NTMA will only lead to less accountability for the public.

David McWilliams recently argued that we are facing a debt-fueled crisis, and I agree. There is something going on with our banking system that no one appears to be talking about and things could get very hairy indeed over the coming months.

Let’s take a closer look at the what might be happening in the Irish banking system.

If you’ve read Morgan Kelly’s excellent analysis of the Irish credit bubble you will be aware of the Irish banking system’s over reliance on international money markets for funding. When the financial crisis hit in September 2008, these money markets froze and Irish banks struggled to get day to day funding. This is what ultimately led to the bank guarantee, and to the opening of what’s called the ECB discount window.

Banks all over Europe were struggling with funding, so the ECB essentially enacted emergency measures to help fund the banks. Irish banks were one of the biggest beneficiaries of the discount (the interest rate charged by the ECB is sometimes called the discount or repo rate). Ireland’s banks have effectively been kept on life support by the ECB since 2008, as McWilliams also noted last year. Essentially Irish banks were buying NTMA-issued sovereign bonds with short-term lending, presenting that as collateral to the ECB and then borrowing cheaply from the ECB. Summed up here – 25% of our deficit in most of 2009 was indirectly funded by the ECB.

But these emergency measures will not last forever. And it appears NAMA was part of this methodology. It is entirely possible that in order for banks to be able to fund themselves once the ECB shuts the discount window, and get funding from commercial markets again, the plan is to transfer the crap to the Irish taxpayer in advance. This makes it more likely that banks will be able to fund themselves without the help of the ECB.

In November the ECB announced it would begin the process of winding down the emergency funding. In December the last 12-month repos were sold. We are now approaching the next phase. Next month, the ECB will close the 6-month window. The 3-month and 1-month repos will close after that. McWilliams put it well last week:

We don’t seem to realise that we are now in a phony war situation where our sense of stability is based on the European Central Bank (ECB) injecting soft loans into the banking system. This massive monetary injection was carried out all over Europe to make sure the European banking system survived last year.

The ECB is now unwinding this credit. Let’s just recap on the way the banking system works. If the banks stop lending to each other (as happened in September 2008), the Central Bank, acting as the ‘lender of last resort’, steps in. It says to the banks: ‘‘Give us what you call ‘assets’ on your balance sheets and in return we will give you money so that you don’t run out of money and go bust.”

In Ireland, the assets on the banks’ balance sheets are our mortgages and all sorts of loans to property. So the banks package all these mortgages into what is called an asset-backed security (ABS).

This product, which could be thousands of performing mortgages, is rated by the rating agencies and then given to the Central Bank in return for cash.

This cash goes into our ATMs and we spend it. The ECB did this all over Europe from September 2008, because every banking system was experiencing problems.

The pathetic spin put out by the government and believed by many is that Ireland has some sort of sweetheart deal with the ECB, whereby the Europeans looked favourably on Ireland.

This is not true. The ECB treated the Irish banks the same as any other banks in Europe. In fact, it could not have legally treated us any differently to any other country. It loosened its rules on what did and did not constitute ‘security’. So banks in Europe that couldn’t get money anywhere else went to the ECB and exchanged ‘assets’ for cash.

In normal times, the ECB will only accept assets with an AAA rating as collateral. In the past two years, it has loosened this and accepted any old trash in return for cash to protect the system. Look at the chart for Europe as a whole, and we see that the ECB provided over €500 billion in this type of financing across the eurozone.

In July, it intends to pull €442 billion out of the system, as it reverts to taking only AAA assets and signals to the rest of Europe that the banking crisis is over. But it’s not over in Ireland.

In the crisis, different countries needed differing amounts of cash, depending on how delinquent the country’s bankers and regulators were during the boom. It will come as no surprise that Ireland is the most badly affected. Today, Irish banks are getting €98 billion from the ECB in this type of ‘cash for trash’ funding. That is 17 per cent of our banking system’s assets, which are about €520 billion.

Nearly as fragile are the Greeks, who are getting €42 billion or 8.8 per cent of total assets. For Italian and French banks, only 0.8 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively of their total requirement comes from the ECB. In other words, when the ECB changes its rules, it will have no effect in Italy and France, a nasty impact in Greece and a catastrophic impact on the amount of money in ATMs here.

The major problem for Ireland is that the ECB will accept only AAA assets from March, but we don’t have any AAA assets.

Our government debt, the least risky (apparently) asset in Ireland is not even AAA any more. The ABS packages of our mortgages are clearly nowhere near AAA and will be further downgraded as mortgage defaults rise.

So where are we going to get €92 billion and how much will our banks have to pay over and above ECB interest rates? Someone will lend to us – but at a huge premium and probably a rationed amount of cash.

The rating issue is important. Our banks were downgraded by S&P last week, which will make it more difficult to sell their own bonds. The assets they hold will also not be sufficient to take advantage of the last of the 6-month repos this month, since the ECB require that the assets they present as collateral for the issues need to be AAA rated by two credit ratings institutions. This is highly unlikely for any of the collateral our banks have – the collateral is essentially junk.

Everyone is talking about Greece right now, but to me Ireland is no different. It is probably worse. So with these deadlines looming, what is happening? Over the past number of weeks you might have noticed various headlines to do with NAMA delays. Why is this important? Could it be that unless the banks can transfer these junk ‘assets’ from their books, they could face funding difficulties on non-ECB markets?

I could well be wrong, or even cynical, but my feeling is that banks are desperate to get this stuff off their books, in order to be better able to fund themselves after the ECB shuts the discount window. If they don’t get them off their books, and onto the backs of the taxpayer, the banks could simply end up going to the wall, or simply being nationalised.

There is another angle to this story that is not getting much coverage. And that’s Anglo’s role in all of this. A number of questions arise and remember Anglo is a public body:

How much exposure does Anglo have to CDOs squared?
65% of Anglo’s loan book is ‘investment lending’, what is this composed of? (Atlas I report)
Who are Anglo’s bondholders, and why were they protected?
How did the S&P downgrade of Irish banking affect Anglo last week?
How much exactly did Sean Quinn own of the bank, and how much did he borrow from the bank? How much of Sean Quinn’s loans were backed using his group of companies, and what other collateral was used for his borrowings?

A number of issues arise. In June, Anglo received a €3.5bn recapitalisation from the State. At the time it said it might need a further €3.5bn. This is money to rebuild the bank’s capital base due to bad loans.

However, these figures are likely much higher. Anglo will likely need up to three times that figure. Combine that with AIB, INBS and Bank of Ireland’s funding needs, and the taxpayer will likely be handing over more than €22bn to our banks over 2010.

When you combine the shutting of the discount window, with the delays in NAMA transfers and ultimately our own State borrowing (indeed we have already borrowed €6.5bn so far this year – 33% of our bond issuance for this year was done in January) and with the likely writedowns of not 30% but 50% on the loanbooks, we are facing a serious crisis. And of course the other factor is the ECB raising interest rates at a time we need them to stay low.

My questions is this: how are we going to pay for all of this?

Oireachtas Comm meeting on electoral reform – Tue Feb 2

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Constitution is meeting in Trinity College tomorrow (Tuesday February 2) . It will, I believe, be thefirst time an Oireachtas body has sat outside the Houses of the Oireachtas. They will take submissions written by members of the public over the last number of months firstly. After the meeting is completed a discussion moderated by John Bowman will begin.

The panel for the post-meeting debate will include Noel Dempsey, Minister for Transport, Professor Ken Benoit, head of the Department of Political Science, Senator Ivana Bacik, Trinity Fellow, Seán Ardagh, Chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, Jim O’Keeffe, Vice Chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, The Hon. Mr. Justice Frank Clarke.

More details on PoliticalReform.ie

Myself and Gavin will be in attendence, as will Suzy. We hope to run a live-chat on this website during the post-meeting debate. The topic will be electoral reform, unsurprisingly. For those unaccustomed with liveblogs/livechats; there will be a box on this site which you will be able to sign into and post messages, we’ll be reading those messages and comments and hoping to put a few of them to the panel. Participants will also be able to chat amongst themselves. It’s a way to add virtual participators to a physical meeting, and focus an online discussion on a single topic, I suppose.

The meeting starts at 7pm, it will go on for circa 80 minutes, the debate will then run for approximately 60 minutes. If you’re online you might consider participating. All welcome – though the discussion will be moderated and idiocy/vitriol will not be tolorated. If you’re willing to contribute, pop along around 8pm (though the chat will – hopefully – be running earlier, I’ll stick it up here around 6pm).

FYI:Trinity will be running the livestream and we’ll probably by relying on their Wifi system. So don’t blame us if this goes belly-up.

Papal Nuncio FOI

Back in December, Allan Cavanagh of Caricatures Ireland contacted us in relation to his interest in the Papal Nuncio, and their involvment or communications concerning the Murphy Report. At the time there were calls for the Papal Nuncio to be expelled, over their apparent failure to cooperate properly with the Murphy investigation. We helped him draft an FOI concerning this issue.

Allan sent us a copy of the result, and we have OCRd and uploaded it for public consumption.



The documents do not contain much interesting information, as we expected Section 24 (Security, Defence and International Relations) was broadly applied. But even exemptions can contains valuable information.

What I am unhappy with in terms of the reply received is this. Allan sought:

All records, including but not limited to, notes of meetings, telephone calls,
emails and internal memoranda relating to communications between the
Department and representatives of the Vatican, the Catholic Church, the
Dublin Diocese or any other representatives of the Church or Church bodies,
in the time following the publication of the Murphy Report up to the date of
receipt of the request.

The Deciding Officer said:

Your request, which was received on 10 December 2009, is one of three requests
received for access to similar records. As there is a considerable degree of overlap
between the three requests, I have taken the decision to consider the requests together.
My response may therefore include some records which do not fall directly within the
scope of your individual request.

The schedule of documents does not list any communications from “the Dublin Diocese or any other representatives of the Church or Church bodies”. I cannot see how any Section 24 exemption would apply to such a communication. It could be argued by the Department that such communication would “contain information communicated in confidence to any person in or outside the State from any person in or outside the State and relation to a matter referred to in subsection (1) [including “the international relations of the State”]…and expressed by the latter person to be confidential or communicated in confidence”. This would not necessarily be the case in relation to communications from the Diocese, since it may not have related to inter-State communications.

But the reply does not appear to deal with this part of the request at all.

Cowen to face inquiry questions in public?

You would have to wonder whether you could call the proposal for a bank inquiry an ‘inquiry’ at all. It certainly does not appear to have much in the way of grilling the people who caused the mess, or of dealing with the decisions post September 2008, all of which were the critical ones.

I made the point earlier to Senator Dan Boyle (who is said to have offered his resignation over the inquiry). I tweeted to him: “…forgive my cynicism then. Will I see TV pictures of our leaders for the past 12 years being held to account for their decisions?”

To which he replied:

boyle

Brian Cowen, at least, is a start. But Bertie Ahern, being the Taoiseach who oversaw the entire period would be another must see. And Messrs McCreevy (Finance), Cullen, Dempsey, Roche and Gormley (Environment) would be others. As I said to Mr Boyle, accountability behind closed doors is not accountability. Accountability must be seen to be done, a bit like justice. Getting a report at the end of a process is not enough.

But then accountability seems to be a rather novel concept to most of our politicians.