Not paying interest would be a default event surely. I’m sure they’ve thought that through carefully.
Anglo being set up as a business-lending-only bank is possibly the best way to get something positive out of this unholy mess.
Credit Anstaldt? I wonder (as I’ve wondered for a good while now) who wrote protection on Anglo’s debt? Or who took out unasseted CDS? (Who gambled).
From the interim statement
Lending asset quality
31 March 30 September
2009 2008
€m €m
Grading analysis
Good quality 39,287 59,905
Satisfactory quality 4,078 6,004
Lower quality but not past due nor impaired 5,274 2,535
______ ______
Total neither past due nor impaired 48,639 68,444
Past due but not impaired 12,906 1,649
Impaired loans 10,706 883
______ ______
72,251 70,976
Provisions for impairment (4,868) (872)
______ ______
Total 67,383 70,104
Shit.
Sometime I wonder is this all just a very bad dream.
Is that 22bn past due and impaired i see there. 
I need a 
Ah Better 
Wow.
2008 €2.5bn in “Impaired” and “Past due but not impaired” with a €0.87bn provision
2009 €23.5bn in “Impaired” and “Past due but not impaired” with a €4.87bn provision
Fuck me, I don’t think €4bn from the government will be enough.
We’re gonna need a bigger boat…
(Edit - Beaten to the punch I see 
)
Friday of a bank holiday weekend 
Picked up this comment on rte
Since January? pull the other one, go on, pull it. So when lula-lenny announces NAMA will acquire “good” loans to pay bond coupons* how can he be sure how “good” they’ll be after three months?
*I’ll come back on this one later and why it’s likely to land us in deeper trouble.
So he’s saying the infamous PWC Report (which cost how much?) was a POS?
I believe you are correct that it was very much a Point Of Sale document.
Jesus wept this is horrific. I know I’m naturally inclined to expect the worst but Anglo just keep on giving don’t they. The next obvious question is how these figures will affect the bottom lines with our other banks who have … ahem … made provision for bad loans on a much smaller scale. Are their financial reports truly believeable in the light of this considering they were all chasing Anglo and making wilder and stupider moves to pull business from Anglo ?
Just asking
Note the trading loss of 389 mn (p.29 of full report, adobe p.31). This is a loss on derivatives, as far as I can see.
Not sure how they can book their derivative book as a profitable asset, though, (the asset value exceeds the liability value).
Where’s George Lee when you need him?
angloirishbank.com/Investors/Reports/Interim_Reports_2009/Interim_Report_2009.pdf pg28.
If you consider the interest cost of debt securities benefits from the government support and 667m of “assumed” interest included as income, this outfit is unlikely to even have a positive Net Interest Income. 
(cheapest bail-out, who said that?)
Nosey P - I’ll assume the P in POS refers to ‘pile’ not ‘piece’
lead item on Radio 1 news at lunch.
p.54 Directors’ loans account:
33 mn written off in the year? Other movements… or do they move to the standard loan category? The notes are unclear from a quick scan.
31 mn provision for impairment.
That’s right. You and me, Joe ‘too stupid for words’ taxpayer are going to be paying the impairments on Seanie and Lar’s loans…
Yogan,
Are you telling us that we are paying back the monies that SEanie and co loaned to themselves before fn off into the sunset?
If this be true, I can really see a citzen taking an uzi to them and there ilk. I would not condone such action in any way but there comes a point when everyone breaks. There are plenty of nutters out there that would do it. I am actually suprised that it hasnt happened already.
I see mass social unrest in the near future as this issue and similar ones come to the fore. 
can we ever expect some justice for seanie or am I being naive?
More detailed split of the impairments
[code] Business Other
Commercial Residential Banking Lending Total
Good quality 28,539 3,622 5,808 1,318 39,287
Satisfactory quality 2,566 614 342 556 4,078
Lower quality but not past due nor impaired 3,402 1,138 606 128 5,274
______________________________________________
Total neither past due nor impaired 34,507 5,374 6,756 2,002 48,639
Past due but not impaired 8,274 2,476 737 1,419 12,906
Impaired loans 5,549 3,388 512 1,257 10,706
______________________________________________
48330 11238 8005 4678 72251
Provisions for impairment -2196 -1,556 -298 -818 -4,868
______________________________________________
46,134 9,682 7,707 3,860 67,383
Less:
Lending to policyholders in respect of
investment contracts (note 23) -745
Total 66,638
Provisions as % of category total -4.5% -13.8% -3.7% -17.5% -6.7%[/code]
That commerical seems light. The other lending includes the provision for 300M against the share loans.
Well, there is a provision being taken against directors loans of 31 mn. There is no breakdown of what loans that is against. Anglo will need to be recapitalised. By waaaay more than its current or likely future value. My guess is that the losses at Anglo will amount to close to 20 bn, excluding special items (derivatives and the like).
The shareholder equity of 4,132 mn has been wiped out to 101 mn by the current loss. There’s nearly 5 bn in subordinate debt, which could also be wiped out (it is not covered by the guarantee), which would leave the state having to stump up something up to 11 bn. Of course, wiping out subordinate debt will be unpopular. Perpetual preference shares have juicy interest rates so the great and the good invested in them.
Anyway. Given we are going to recapitalise Anglo way beyond its worth, then yes. We are going to be paying back to depositors and bondholders the losses that have been made on directors’ loans. (PS I’m assuming a fair bit of the 31 mn is rolled-up interest… while Anglo say that the loans were made on commercial terms, charging commercial interest rates, they don’t say that the directors were paying that interest…).
Jeepers, how could I forget that the taxpayer will also be paying for the maple syrup losses. I must be getting forgetful in my old age. That Brian Lenihan is a lovely chap, though, isn’t he?
Yeah, I think the commercial is way light. I expect the provisions to reach 14-15%, with the losses about 12% and the development to get up to 20% (both as a minimum).