ptsb has sold a tranche of restructured mortgages

Discussion in 'Housing and mortgage arrears - policy issues' started by Brendan Burgess, 29 Nov 2018.

  1. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 29 Nov 2018
    MEDIA STATEMENT FROM PERMANENT TSB
    Permanent TSB Completes Second Major Transaction To Reduce Further Its Non-Performing Loan Ratio


    • This transaction involves the sale of a pool of NPLs through a securitisation. The mortgage loans involved are linked to 6,272 borrowing relationships (a borrowing relationship can be a single borrower or two or more joint borrowers). All bar 133 of the borrowing relationships are secured by PDH loans. The securitisation vehicle in this transaction is Glenbeigh
    Securities 2018 – 1 DAC.

    • The mortgage loans have a gross value of c €1.3 billion and a net book value of c €0.91
    billion.
    • The nature of this securitisation, and the transfer of mortgage loans is similar to a loan sale.
    The resultant impact on customers is that, after the transfer date (circa 6 months from now),
    their loan will no longer be serviced or owned by PTSB.
    • The loans will continue to be serviced by Permanent TSB for a period of up to 6 months.
    Permanent TSB will continue to be the contact point for customers during this period.
    • NPLs included in the securitisation are considered non-performing by reference to
    regulatory definitions. These loans have been restructured and, are operating in line with
    restructuring arrangements agreed between PTSB and the relevant account holders.

    • After completion of the transfer, Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (Pepper Ireland) will hold legal title to the loans. In addition, it will act as servicer and administrator handling
    all of the day-to-day management of these loans.

    • All of these customers will continue to be covered by the protections of the Central Bank’s consumer protection codes and regulations.

    • The terms of the existing restructuring arrangements, including alternative repayment arrangements agreed between customers and PTSB, will be unchanged. This will remain the case if customer circumstances do not change.

    • PTSB has received confirmation from Pepper Ireland that post-transfer, when an
    arrangement is up for review, Pepper Ireland will engage with customers to review their individual situations, will work with them to understand if their circumstances have changed (i.e. improved or dis-improved) and, where possible, identify the best long term sustainable solution in a way that is right for their situation.





    upload_2018-11-29_16-34-46.png


    • Citibank is the Arranger and Lead Manager for this transaction.

    Financials



    • The transferred NPL portfolio has a gross balance sheet value of c €1.3 billion and a net book value of c €0.91 billion.

    The NPL portfolio carries a risk weighing of c €0.91 billion.

    In the year to December 2017, the portfolio generated an operating income
    of c €4 million.

    At completion, the Bank will receive a consideration of c €0.89 billion. The proceeds will be used for general corporate purposes.

     
    Last edited: 29 Nov 2018
  2. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
  3. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 29 Nov 2018
    This is really a disgrace.

    permanent tsb which is struggling for profitability is being forced to sell 6,272 profitable loans.

    To make it worse it is getting €890m for a portfolio with a gross value of €1.3 billion - so a haircut of 32%

    All to meet the ECB/CB's stupid definition of "non performing loan"

    As the graphic says

    upload_2018-11-29_17-16-43.png

    Well why should they not produce a steady, consistent payment flow/yield for the taxpayer owned permanent tsb.

    Brendan
     
    Last edited: 29 Nov 2018
  4. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 29 Nov 2018
    And customers will lose out too.

    Many of these borrowers would, in time, have recovered completely and would have been able to take out a remortgage to trade up. Some would be on trackers and would be able to move their trackers to a new home.

    Those on split mortgages may find Pepper less flexible than ptsb when reviewing the split after three years, despite:

    PTSB has received confirmation from Pepper Ireland that post-transfer, when an
    arrangement is up for review, Pepper Ireland will engage with customers to review their individual situations, will work with them to understand if their circumstances have changed (i.e. improved or dis-improved) and, where possible, identify the best long term sustainable solution in a way that is right for their situation.



    Brendan
     
    Last edited: 29 Nov 2018
  5. dublinaam

    dublinaam Registered User

    Posts:
    18
    Brendan,

    Banks have for many years securitised portfolio of loans. This frees up balance sheet to allow more lending. PTSB was a frequent issuer for years securitising performing loans.
     
  6. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Hi Dublin

    Banks have securitised loans in the past and will continue to do so.

    This is completely different.

    This is the complete sale of the loans. They have no further interest in them.

    They have sold them at a 30% discount - most securitisations are at par, I assume.

    Brendan
     
  7. RedOnion

    RedOnion Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,689
    Yes, securitisation is common. But this is different - PTSB has lost control of the loans. They have sold them to an SPV, which has in turn securitised them. Although arranged by PTSB, they are losing control completely to satisfy EBA requirements.
     
  8. GlenML

    GlenML Registered User

    Posts:
    11
    Last edited: 2 Dec 2018
    Hi Brendan ..

    When you say less flexible what do.you mean..I have split but fully compliant and always have been..worried now about what pepper can do when up for review (ie interest rates and term)..even though agreement with TSB clearly states split in place until end of mortgage and full payment to be made then...
    In fact my situation will vastly improve in January and was considering getting rid of split and paying full amount again..which I'd imagine would be better for TSB as they would get full repayment of loan.and all interest due..including all our payments over the last 14 years on top...we where only about 8000 in arrears when split put in place and that was recapitalized at the time so TSB will have lost nothing by the end of our term..but now they've sold us off at a loss.
    Wish I could remortgage but imagine being in a split will hinder that but was hoping to after paying full amount.
    Considering initiating review before hand over so pepper have to hold up decision for 3 years after transfer..or fixing rate on main bulk for 5 years so they can't change that either until it's up..
    Really worried and confused about the future now..we where at the end of this chapter about to get rid of split and move on with our lives and make plans again..we are sick at the timing of this and the utter disrespect and dishonesty of TSB towards anyone who complied fully with their long term solution that they offered us .

    Any advice on what to do next.??
    Regards
    Glen.
     
    Last edited: 2 Dec 2018
  9. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Hi Glen

    If you are able to return to paying your mortgage in full, then you have very little to worry about. By paying your mortgage in full, I mean moving the full amount from the warehouse to the main loan so that it becomes a full capital and interest loan again.

    You should do so as soon as possible and then the clock will start on restoring your ICB record.

    If Pepper jacks up the interest rates then there is a fairly good chance that you could switch to another lender. BoI has been giving mortgages to recent bankrupts so I presume that they would be willing to lend to you.

    Brendan
     
  10. GlenML

    GlenML Registered User

    Posts:
    11
    Last edited: 2 Dec 2018
    Hi Brendan
    Thanks for your reply..
     
    Last edited: 2 Dec 2018
  11. Andy836

    Andy836 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    364
    PTSB are keeping 5% interest. The junior notes being issued.
    Of course it was done at a discount. Most of these are split mortgages so there's a portion not accruing any cash flows (interest or principal repayments).
     
  12. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Hi Andy

    Hard to know what the discount should be:

    On the negative side
    • 2/3rds are split mortgages
    • About half of them are cheap trackers i.e. interest rate of c. 1%
    On the positive side
    • They are all performing in line with their restructure
    • The split mortgages have a review every three years and most could have a substantial amount moved from the warehouse into the active loan
    • Half of them have variable rates of up to 4.5%
    Even a split mortgage where the active half is paying 4.5% has an interest yield of 2.25%.

    ptsb had already made a provision of 30% against these mortgages which seems plenty.

    If they had treated them the way the Central Bank wanted them to, they would have had to provide a further €300k or so.

    Brendan
     
  13. Andy836

    Andy836 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    364
    Brendan,

    The securitization prospectus is available on the CBI website.
    https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/def...tusdoc-2018-11/319623-prospectus.pdf?sfvrsn=4

    While these may be classed as "performing", in reality that is only because they have been so favorably restructured.

    30% may sound like a high provision, but when you look at the underlying assets (the loans) it actually seems light.

    Of the €1.5bn total pool, there's €467mm warehoused while the balloon portion of the part capital & interest is €293mm.
    Both the warehoused portion and the balloon repayment portions are larger than their corresponding "performing" portions.

    The WAC on the split mortgage pool (€907mm in total) is only 1.55% while the WAC on the Part capital & interest (€442mm in total) is only 2.4%.
    So the effective total pool coupon is only 1.83%.
    59% (€791mm) of the total pool by Euro value has an indexed LTV >75%.
    26% (€325mm) of the total pool by Euro value has an indexed LTV >100%.
    56% of the total pool is subject to treatment (either warehoused €467mm or balloon repayment €293mm). That compares with only a 30% provision.
    So you only really have 43% (€584mm) of the total pool balance that could be considered as performing in the traditional sense of the word.

    Overall, the coupon is too light, there is too much with an LTV >100% (do you even want >75% to a Borrower with a bad credit history?), there is a huge portion which is put on the long finger which extends the duration of the notes.
     
    RedOnion likes this.
  14. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Hi Andy
    That is very interesting. Thanks for the link and I will study it later.

    In summary the nominal value is €1.4 billion and they sold it for €0.9 billion. This coincides with the written down value.

    Are you suggesting that it's not worth €0.9m?

    So ptsb got a good price for it?

    Are you allowing for the fact that the split mortgages all have a three year review clause in them?

    ptsb has been too busy to review any of these mortgages, but Pepper will be adequately resourced to do so.

    I am not sure of the relevance of the balloon payment on the capital and interest mortgages? They are charging interest on these mortgages. So on the maturity date, the borrower will either repay the loan or, even better, keep it going and the new owner will continue to collect interest.

    Brendan
     
  15. Andy836

    Andy836 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    364
    I don't see much value in the split mortgages. Or at least I don't seem the same value in them as you do.

    The warehoused portion would (in my mind anyway) be valued in two parts. Effectively a zero coupon bond through the final maturity date with some sort of incremental option value for potential early repayment/trigger to full P&I.
    Starting with the base value - assuming none of it moves to P&I or early repayment. To get a 4% effective yield on a 20 year zero coupon bond requires a purchase price of 45.6 (so a discount to par of 54.4%). I wouldn't place much value in the option value of the 3 tear review trigger/early repayment as these credits are obviously the worst of the bunch as they're not even servicing the interest on the warehoused portion (so they're less credit worthy than the part principal & interest loans). I don't see why Pepper will be any more active or aggressive in managing these credits than PTSB - they will be as aware of the legal hurdles as everyone else.

    My reason for posting that info was in response to one of your initial posts above where you seemed to suggest PTSB were making a mistake for selling these loans at a 32% discount. A fully performing, never defaulted, acceptable LTV, mortgage loan is worth about par or slightly above par depending on the interest rate. These loans have a history of default, are unable to service the debt, many have elevate LTVs while many have LTVs >100%. There is no way they would be value close to par.
     
    RedOnion likes this.
  16. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
    Hi Andy

    I am not sure that we are in much disagreement here.

    My main point is:

    So I think that 30% is enough. You say:

    The Central Bank classified the entire split mortgages as NPLs because they did not provide in full for the warehoused amount. In my view, this was wrong and forced ptsb to sell them.

    I have uploaded the relevant extracts from the prospectus.

    Brendan
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
  17. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
    So let's first look at the split mortgages

    upload_2018-12-5_8-33-20.png

    Now let's look at the interest rate on them.

    upload_2018-12-5_8-34-21.png

    They are getting 1.55% on €435k or an average rate on the main portion of 3.5%.
    That seems about right. 22% are cheap trackers.

    Now let's look at the Loan to Value of these mortgages. There are two tables in the prospectus. I don't understand the difference, so I will take the worst of them.

    upload_2018-12-5_8-38-29.png

    So 28 % is over 100% LTV.

    The have warehoused 50% of the mortgages. In general, the maximum warehouse was the negative equity, but ptsb may have been more generous that that.

    So most of these borrowers now have main mortgages worth a lot less than the values of their properties. The 22% on trackers are clearing down the capital on their main balances at a rapid rate.

    I appreciate that these are not prime borrowers because they have had to have their mortgages rescheduled in the past. But none is in arrears at present. They have a very valuable restructuring which they could lose if they went into arrears. I suspect that further defaults on these will be low.

    So how much should the provision be?

    As you pointed out, they should not be valued at par.

    So the €466k in the warehouse should be discounted by 54% or €251k.

    Not sure why you want a 4% yield on these? Is that the typical yield on securitised performing mortgages? I doubt it.

    I would place a fair bit of value on the review option. These people now have performing loans. But their ICB record is shot. Most people want to clean up their ICB record. A lot of these people will want to move. Clearly if you have an interest free loan of half your mortgage, you will be slow to volunteer moving it to the main account. But Pepper is well managed compared to ptsb and I suspect that they will begin the process of activating these warehouses over the next few years.

    So, in my view, a €251k provision is conservative.

    Brendan
     
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
  18. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
    Now let's look at the Capital and Interest

    The first thing to realise about these is that they are being charged the full interest on the entire loan. They are just paying back the capital at a slower rate than originally planned. As I have pointed out to the Central Bank and bankers on many occasions, the ideal loan from a lender's point of view is one
    • at market mortgage rates (i.e. not a cheap tracker)
    • At a low Loan to Value
    • Interest only
    A lender should not want the capital repaid on a safe, profitable loan.

    Despite the fact that half of these are trackers, the average interest rate is 2.42% and this is being paid in full.

    Do these restructures have a 3 year review clause? Of course, ptsb should not initiate a review for the non-trackers, as they are extremely profitable. They should initiate a review for the trackers although these tracker holders themselves should be proactive in returning to full capital and interest to start repairing their ICB record.

    upload_2018-12-5_9-7-31.png

    So how risky are they? Only 22% are over 100% LTV

    upload_2018-12-5_9-8-6.png

    Half of these are on cheap trackers. They are paying off the capital quickly, so the LTVs on these are improving quickly.

    The others think that they have a good deal in that they are paying less capital than they would otherwise have expected.

    I suspect the motivation to keep up repayments on these is quite high.

    So what should the provision be?

    upload_2018-12-5_9-12-0.png

    Say 50% of the loans over 150% - €6m
    25% of the loans between 100% and 150% - €20m
    So a total of €30m

    That is too low - let's say €100m in total.



    Brendan
     
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
  19. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    37,055
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
    So now pulling these two together.

    upload_2018-12-5_9-18-12.png

    So, it seems that the provision made is adequate.

    The Central Bank requirement that they treat all split mortgages as NPLs was excessive and forced ptsb to sell loans which it did not want to sell.

    Brendan
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: 5 Dec 2018
  20. Andy836

    Andy836 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    364
    Ok, so we seem to be on the same page that the price is fair.

    So why would PTSB sell them? They're getting close to what they think they're worth but, like all of these disposals, the main drivers would be cleaning up their balance sheet while also incrementally improving their capital ratios.

    There's no getting around it, these are all NPLs and they'll all carry higher capital requirements than regular home loans. Hence PTSB believe the transaction will improve their CET1 (transitional) by 30bps - Davy's puts the fully loaded CET1 improvement at ~20bps. That's a win for PTSB.