Top Bank of Scotland (Ireland) executive leaves position

More info supporting the word around town that BOSI is soon to be an ex parrot.

I have heard that the question is how rather than whether they pack up their bags.

This is pure speculation of course

Shite, if that’s true then there goes the best current account around.

:open_mouth: … {runs}

SH*TE … my mortgage is with them, and a nice tracker it is too. What happens if they croak?

It is the best - 7.5% interest on your balance up to 2k, and a visa debit card. I hate laser with a passion, nothing more than a ruse to get you to spend on your credit card online or when you are out of the country.

Where is better?

They won’t croak, they will sell their book to Austin Hughes instead

None of the UK (government) owned institutions have any interest in the Irish market any more. They are all in back to basics mode. How this is likely to affect Irish mortgage holders I don’t know.

If they exit the Irish market, there’s a good chance they’ll continue to service their existing loan book.

Last November they issued a 4.3bn rmbs (Wolfhound Funding 2008-1 Limited) which I’m sure the AAA portion resides with the ECB. I’m guessing this is the majority of their Irish mortgage book. If you’re willing to take the risk that the ECB will continue offering the easy repo facitilty, then it’s cheap funding.

Some Wolfhound Funding 2008-1 Limited pool characteristics:

BTL - 18.3%
Interest Only - 49.8% :open_mouth:
ECB Tracker - 79.2% :open_mouth:

Arrears greater than 90 days are at 3%, up from 1.5% in three months.

What are the covenants set at?

What sort of covenants are you talking about?

What terms were BOSI offering on IO. 2,3, or 5 years. I persume that they are not going to be offering rollover terms.

I don’t have access to the transaction documents. So I’m relying on a Moody’s summary. It seems that the 49.8% are IO to maturity.

I’m assuming that it is a covered bond? In which case there are normally two sets of covenants that I’ve seen - a percentage past due (i.e. not paying interest) and a percentage in default. The bank that issued the bond is free to make up the difference, but the bond-holders have to continue to agree from what I can see - from looking at INBS Emerald bonds, otherwise the bank has to take the bond back on its books, restructure it and try and resell it. No?

YM, this is a securitisation.

RE covered bonds - I think the covenant you’re describing relates to the bond not paying the coupon, not the underlying collateral. Otherwise regulators wouldn’t see much risk transfer and should require the issuer to hold capital to offset this (the way you’re descibing it, if the collateral is performing poorly it ends up back on the originators books?).

Ah, my apologies, I didn’t realise they were securitisations (not covered bonds). And I have the name wrong, it is the EBS, not the INBS - see here: viewtopic.php?p=244090#p244090

(I blame the jetlag from Hungary :blush: ).

that triggers a memory. I think emerald were rmbs as well. IIRC the arrears triggered a change in the paydown of notes. I think that initially all notes paid down in parallel but post trigger only the highest rated note paid down. This is distinct from early call options which were exercised for some of the deals.

A simple idea is that these transactions are used to transfer risk. Any feature that reassigns that risk back to the originator at the first sign of trouble wouldn’t be of any value.

Ahem… viewtopic.php?p=244286#p244286

Did they call the first three in the series back to, eh, protect their reputation? Or is there such a thing as a ‘mandatory’ call?

Yes - I’ve tried explain this before. :wink:

This emerald series are securitisations

This is the Offering Circular for Emerald 1:

See page 10 “Optional redemption:” and “Optional redemption for taxation or other reasons:” These are various call options that EBS can exercise. Under the first of these headings, they state a date: “on any Interest Payment Date falling on or after April 2008;”

Given the early call date was decided back in July 2000, I don’t see anything unusual in the transaction being called. Rather than protect their reputation, it’s likely that noteholders indicated a desire to get the deal called and EBS obliged.

So, back to original badly phrased question then, is Wolfhound callable? Can the investors ‘indicate their desire’?