Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform debate -
Wednesday, 13 May 2015

Overview of the Banking Sector in Ireland (Resumed): Permanent TSB

I welcome Mr. Jeremy Masding, group chief executive officer, Permanent TSB, who is accompanied by Mr. Glen Lucken, group chief financial officer, Mr. Shane O'Sullivan, managing director of the asset management unit, and Mr. Ger Mitchell, mortgage, consumer finance and insurance director. I also welcome the inter-parliamentary group from the Bundestag who are in the Visitors Gallery. I hope they find today's meeting interesting. The format of the meeting is that Mr. Masding will make an opening statement. In advance of the meeting, we collated questions from members and submitted these to Permanent TSB. I thank Mr. Masding and his staff for their responses in writing to these queries, which we received last Monday. The responses have been distributed to members. Together with the input of our witnesses today, I hope all the key topics will be covered. None the less, a question and answer session will follow to clarify any matter that might arise.

I remind members, witnesses and people in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. I advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Mr. Masding to make his opening statement.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to meet with it today. First, may I express my thanks to the committee for allowing us to postpone our scheduled meeting with it last month as we were in the middle of the capital raise exercise. We very much appreciate its understanding at that time.

In my opening remarks, I want to address a number of key areas, following which my colleagues and I will be happy to take any questions. I will first update the committee on some transformational developments on the corporate front. In the first instance, as committee members will have read, the European Commission completed its review of our restructuring plan and signed off on it in April. This plan provides a clear roadmap for the group and while it reflects many of our own plans and ambitions for the coming years, it also sets out clear targets in areas such as the deleveraging of non-core assets which the group is now bound to deliver within a specified timeframe. We believe the plan will support the re-emergence of Permanent TSB as a competitive, profitable and vibrant force focused on the Irish retail banking market and capable of delivering value for both its customers and shareholders.

Approval of this plan paved the way for the second key recent corporate development, namely, the very successful capital raise that we completed last month ahead of the ECB required date of 26 July next. In that exercise, the group raised a total of €525 million through two transactions. We successfully sold just under 90 million new shares at a price of €4.50 each to raise €400 million and in a separate transaction, we raised €125 million through the issuance of AT1 capital at a very competitive coupon of 8.6%. At the same time, the Minister of Finance successfully sold just under 22 million shares raising some €97 million for the taxpayer. This was done to facilitate the re-entry of the group on to the main markets of the Irish and London Stock Exchanges.

As a result of the capital raise and the sale of shares by the Minister, we have substantially transformed our capital position and equity base, have purchased from the Minister the €400 million of contingent convertible notes which formed part of the recapitalisation of the group by the Minister in 2011, have had the group's shares admitted to the main markets of both the Irish and the London Stock Exchanges, brought new international investors on board while preserving a very significant 75% stake in the group for the Minister, on behalf of the taxpayer, and reinforced our capital position, as requested by the ECB, following the rigorous stress tests undertaken on banks across Europe last autumn.

These are very significant developments in terms of the journey that Permanent TSB is undertaking as we try to rebuild our business and return as much money as possible to the Irish taxpayer and we are delighted that they have been so successful. We can assure the committee that given that it was a business with zero equity value post-PCAR 2011, the taxpayer now has an asset of real intrinsic value. I should point out that while the capital raise is now substantially completed, we are technically still in an offer period as smaller investors have a few more days to decide if they wish to buy shares on the same terms offered to larger investors last month. As a result of this, and because we are also now subject to detailed legal and stock exchange-related rules, there may be some areas where we are limited in terms of what it is appropriate for us to say. For example, while we will be happy to answer questions related to current facts and circumstances related to our group, which are all set out in our equity prospectus which is available on our website, speculation about future events and circumstances is generally inappropriate for us now. That said, we will try to be as helpful as possible.

The second area I want to refer to is the issue of standard variable mortgage rates. Clearly, this has become a very contentious issue in recent months. I will take this opportunity to share the position of Permanent TSB for which the following facts are particularly relevant. We must ensure all our variable rate mortgage products make financial sense on their own account. Making financial sense means making a return for shareholders - my primary fiduciary duty – after accounting for various inputs, including the cost of funds, business, risk, regulation, tax and debt-equity capital, all of which remain elevated in Ireland. We do not subsidise our mortgage rates by non-interest charges such as arrangement fees which are common in other markets. We do not fund our mortgages from the ECB with its historic low rates of interest. Around 15% of our funding now comes from the ECB - down from over 55% at the height of the crisis. I wish to place on record that the constant refrain of "low ECB rates" is not a material fact in this debate. When it comes to funding our mortgages, we are much more reliant on relatively expensive retail and corporate deposits paid to customers here in Ireland and on money raised on the international markets, all of which are much more expensive than ECB money. We are impacted by the high volume of mortgage defaults we have in Ireland. It is an unfortunate fact that people who pay their mortgages here have to pay a bit extra to make up for the historically high number of people who cannot or will not pay.

Having said all of this, I do not want to close the door on delivering more customer value through compelling propositions and competitive rates. As I told shareholders at our recent AGM, our goal is to work through the various factors that contribute to the cost of our variable rates and seek to reduce those inputs bit by bit. Some of that is down to us on our own while some of it is down to the country generally. If we can do that, I believe we will be able to move to a situation where we can share some of the benefits with our customers.

The third area I want to refer to is arrears and our asset management unit, AMU. Nothing is of more importance to us than to be able to work with our customers to ensure that they can work through the life of their mortgage without falling into arrears or for those who do fall into arrears, to be able to help them to come to arrangements which are fair to them and realistic for the bank and which avoid, wherever possible, the possibility of them losing their homes or the taxpayer losing a disproportionate level of capital. I am very proud of our performance in this area. Mr. Shane O'Sullivan and his team have done a great job of creating a unit which is best in class and which has helped thousands of customers tackle their problems and restructure their loans on an agreed basis. We have proposed 28,500 sustainable solutions to customers in arrears. We have reduced the number of home loan customers in arrears of over 90 days by over 8,000 - some 38% - over the past year or so and we are now making realistic offers to thousands of customers every month. These and other figures are captured in some graphs we have presented to the committee and which we can discuss later.

That said, some people continue to hold out for a silver bullet that will resolve the arrears or negative equity problems for everyone in one go. Unfortunately, it does not exist. All the experience of similar challenges internationally tells us that these problems are overcome slowly and patiently and not by waving a magic wand about so we are taking the slow and patient approach and it is paying dividends for us and for our customers. When talking about arrears, I believe there has been a disproportionate focus on insolvency and bankruptcy as a solution to this problem. Our view is that both options may work for customers in certain positions but they are never going to be widely utilised solutions.

Finally, I am happy to say that the improvement that we all see beginning to take hold in the wider economy is reflected in our own trading performance. We are seeing good progress in deposit gathering, in growing our current account numbers and in mortgages and other lending. Like other banks in Ireland, Permanent TSB has been through an extraordinarily difficult period. There were long periods during the past number of years when many people understandably questioned whether the group would survive at all yet here we are today with real evidence that our recovery is real and our prospects are good.

That said, we continue to have significant challenges and I hope we remain humble and focused. We still have to manage difficult day-to-day issues, including how to return to sustainable profitability while building long-term rewarding relationships with customers. Additionally, we still have difficult legacy issues to deal with that require a lot of time and resources. Overall, however, we are in a good and an improving position.

I thank the committee for allowing these opening remarks. My colleagues and I are happy to take any questions.

I propose that speakers will have approximately ten minutes each if that is okay. We will follow the normal pattern.

I welcome Mr. Masding and thank him for his presentation. The opening part of the contribution painted a relatively positive picture of his institution. He spoke about the restructuring plan and the raising of capital, and he indicated that the institution now appears to be on a road towards a vibrant force focused on the Irish retail banking market, capable of delivering value for both customers and shareholders. The presentation is peppered with phrases like "fiduciary duty" and "responsibility" to the shareholder. Does Mr. Masding accept that his recovery is largely based on the backs of the 79,000 standard variable rate mortgage holders? It is based on the fact that the institution is gouging 4.5% interest from these customers at a time when the rates that Permanent TSB is paying for the funds has been reduced.

Mr. Masding profiled where the institution is not getting its funds. We were told in November 2014 that the cost of funds was approximately 1.74% and it is probably less now. The delegation has somehow suggested that the costs of funds is high, disguising to an extent what that is. Will Mr. Masding identify the cost of funds in that regard? It is clear that those 79,000 mortgage holders do not believe they are getting any value from the product they have with Permanent TSB. They would feel rightly frustrated, as taxpayers and shareholders in the company, that they are being disproportionately impacted in comparison with other taxpayers in the State. I cannot understand how the institution can continue to present a position that effectively recapitalises the bank and puts it on a firm footing - leading to eventual selling and trading - when it is done on the backs of people who are being disproportionately affected at this time. I cannot see how the institution can continue to justify charging 4.5%, effectively because it can, while suggesting that it is necessary to do this in order to discharge losses elsewhere. They are unrelated. If there are issues in other elements of the bank, other methodology should be found to deal with that. It should not be done on the backs of those 79,000 mortgage holders.

The delegation spoke of the arrangement it has with the European Commission and that over time the bank will have to reduce or sell off some of the higher-risk loans. I assume that will relate to tracker mortgages in default. Will the witness identify the value of that business? The deadline is 2018 for that sale and it is not clear how much of that tracker book is in default. There was a gross value of approximately €14.9 billion around the end of 2014. How does the bank intend to deal with that default portion? The Springboard Irish sub-prime mortgage book was sold to Mars Capital and is it intended to do something similar here? In the past, there was talk of curing the issue rather than selling loans. Is there a process to this end or will it ultimately come to a sale, as with Springboard? If that ends up being the case, does the witness accept that it would effectively amount to outsourcing repossession rather than curing the issue?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I will take each of the comments in turn. I apologise if I have missed anything, and if the Deputy reminds me, I will answer any other questions. The return to viability of Permanent TSB is a combination of many different complex factors. I suggest that they include but are not limited to arrears management work and, sadly, the cost restructuring we have had to do, including lay-offs and branch closures. There was also some pension decisions that we have had to make. To narrow it to a particular factor would be not quite right. There is a multitude of different factors that have enabled us to create a restructuring plan that has been approved.

With respect to the standard variable rate, I can only repeat what I said in my opening comments. The rate takes account of a number of costs that the bank has to recoup, and cost of funds is only one of those. There is also cost of risk, cost to serve or operating cost and the cost of capital that we must meet. I give the committee my assurance that we are working to reduce those costs, and as those costs decrease, the bank will aim to share the benefit with customers. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do this yet.

Does Mr. Masding accept that the principal fact of costs being higher or out of kilter arises from legacy issues rather than any future funding, risk or general costs? Is it fair to say there is a direct relationship between margin of cost and the legacy issues that the bank is attempting to resolve?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We have made enormous strides in tackling the legacy problems, as the Deputy terms it. I would be spinning a tale if I said we had closed all those legacy issues. They are much reduced and we are getting much closer to an organisation that I can look Deputies in the eye and say is being normalised, if members allow me to use the term. We will continue to keep our rates under review and we will do everything we can to achieve the cost savings. I have a track record of bringing the standard variable rate from way out of kilter into the pack. We will continue, day in and day out, to drive down the various costs that go into a mortgage pricing model. We should then be in a position to share that with customers.

The Deputy's third point is really a cross-subsidisation matter, if I can use my own banking language. I can categorically assure the Deputy that I run a bank where each product must stand on its own feet. I am running those pricing models on a regular basis, including the standard variable rate. As the inputs change, we are getting closer to a position where I believe we can share the benefit. I am not quite sure where I am going to go with this all afternoon. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do that yet.

The Deputy's next comment referred to trackers. We came to an agreement with the European Commission around the size of our balance sheet by the end of 2018. The composition of that balance sheet must change over time and that will include some degree of deleveraging. I am wary about making the balance sheet too small, as we will not have scale to cover the operating cost.

In the next four-year period, my goal, particularly through Mr. O'Sullivan's good efforts, is not to deleverage those through an asset sale, as the Deputy described it. Our aspiration is to cure those trackers in default so that we can continue to have relationships with those customers over time. As such, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what that would look like in 2018 and on what we might do with them. It is right that I place on record that our goal is to maintain relationships with customers, maintain scale and not to have to get into a position where, at the bottom of that waterfall, we end up with a rump of customers we have to sell to a third party. I want to avoid that. I do not know if there is anything Mr. O'Sullivan or Mr. Lucken wish to add.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I think that is correct. The main focus in deleveraging will be on the non-core businesses rather than on the core tracker customer base.

Mr. Masding still talks about Permanent TSB being a profitable and vibrant force focused on the Irish retail banking sector. If he puts on his marketing hat - his customer service hat - and attempts to win new business, while he has 79,000 customers paying well above what the odds might be, it does not suggest he is focused on attracting new business in the way any other business would be. He continues to create an exceptionally bad impression in the minds of that cohort of borrowers who, for one reason or another, are wedded to Permanent TSB. I talk to them on a regular basis as, I am sure, Mr. Masding and some of his staff do. I speak to those in my constituency and beyond and they feel absolutely let down by all concerned that they are expected to carry the can for the issues that have arisen in Mr. Masding's institution because they are in a position to pay. It puts them and their families under extreme pressure on a monthly basis for the short-term - at least as far as the institution is concerned - righting of the business. It is a long-term commitment for them and it is having a detrimental impact on the way they and their families are living their lives. Mr. Masding can use the language of the banking world to explain away how or why he is doing what he is doing, but it sits very awkwardly on the shoulders of those people. I fail to understand how Permanent TSB cannot find a strategy, other than gouging 4.5% from the purses and wallets of these people, that still gets it to where it needs to be.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I thank the Deputy for the question. On new mortgages, we were the first bank to introduce risk-based pricing. As such, we no longer, in the purest sense, have a standard variable rate for new mortgages. Rather, we have something called a managed variable rate, whereby we try to reward the level of equity that our customer can put into a mortgage. I wanted to place on the record that for new customers we have a managed variable rate.

In terms of the back book, I appreciate of course that it might not be clear why a customer who takes out a mortgage today might pay a different rate from someone who took out a loan in the past. Banking is about pricing a new mortgage on the basis of the cost of adding the marginal cost of funds to the balance sheet. For example, if I was to issue a mortgage today for €250,000, I would price it off the money in the market that I could get today. For customers who took out a mortgage in the past, the price was based on the appropriate funding mix to support that mortgage at that moment in time. It is all a point-in-time decision. To the extent that funding costs in the past were higher, which they were across the whole Irish banking sector, the cost of the loan to the customer will be higher than that available to a new customer today. It is important to place that on record, given that Irish banks had to pay a significant market premium - Permanent TSB included - for their liabilities or funding for the last number of years, which premium is now being managed down. As such, the Deputy will understand that lending to new customers might be cheaper than for existing ones. That is the second thing I say. The third is a "however".

I also would say, as an experienced banker, that I expect the situation to change. As the funding environment returns to a more normalised level, the imbalance between historic and current costs should right itself. That means the cost of funding historic mortgages and the marginal cost of new mortgages will get closer to each other. As the market normalises, banks will have a greater ability to develop propositions that meet the needs of both existing and new customers. Of course, I am acutely conscious - and the Deputy will not hear me counter anything he says in this regard - that SVR customers might seek to get a lower rate by switching to another lender whose lending criteria they can meet. Of course, with my marketing hat on, this represents an opportunity for us to win business and, if we are not competitive, it is an opportunity for other lenders to win business from me. What I am trying to do is strike a balance between earning a return for our shareholders and ensuring we remain competitive. As such, the final thing I would say is the following. The Deputy uses the word "strategy," and I agree with him 100% that it is important that this organisation has a mortgage strategy that is understandable, clear, coherent and simple for customers. That is my goal.

I welcome Mr. Masding and his colleagues and thank them for the presentation. I thank them also for the progress they have made in terms of the bank's financial stability, which is important to the State. I welcome the progress Permanent TSB has made with the Commission on its capital reserves. That has been reflected in external credit agencies - I think it was Moody's - upgrading the bank's credit rating. Mr. Masding might elaborate on the following. The impact of improved credit ratings from the agencies surely manifests in terms of the bank's ability to go to the market and access funds. I appreciate that a complex matrix of issues is at stake here. Given that improved credit rating and, equally, given the fact that by its own admission the bank gets 15% of its funding from the ECB, which is five times what AIB receives, at 3%, should it not be in a position to pass on some reduction to its customers across the range of businesses, particularly in the context of the standard variable rate?

Mr. Masding referred a moment ago to funding costs returning to a normalised situation, but we are at historically low rates for funding costs for any borrower, including the State and the banks on international markets. Notwithstanding the losses Permanent TSB is suffering and its progress in dealing with those, a simplistic analysis suggests that there are a number of significant issues moving in the bank's favour. If the bank had a different balance of objectives, acknowledging that it must be profitable and meet its capital reserves, it should be in a position to deliver something back to its customers, particularly its standard variable rate customers, given all the factors that are moving in the right direction.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I bid the Deputy good afternoon and thank him for his questions. He raised a number of different points. First, regarding the upgrade by the external credit rating agencies, I ask the Deputy not to forget that it is from an enormously low base. We are still trying to get up the curve to a place where the rating represents what the Deputy would call a low cost of funds in the capital market. Our rating is still very low.

Even if I were able to go out to the market for, in very simple language, an unsecured credit line, our credit rating would mean that the price for that would be a lot higher than the Deputy might think it is. Our credit rating is very low.

If we move to other sources of funding, I cannot comment on AIB's funding mix or pricing. It would be inappropriate of me to do so. I remind the committee that we were criticised regularly, and I suspect openly if I recall correctly, by the troika for the funding gap that this organisation had post-PCAR and for the level of life support that we were relying on from the European Central Bank. To get that down over a couple of years from 55% to 15% suggests that my chief financial officer and treasurer did a great job. That is the next bit of the funding mix.

If we then move to the next level of the balance sheet, which we can call retail and corporate deposits, the price we pay for retail and corporate deposits still remains elevated versus what one might expect. That is something we will have to manage, and by "we" I mean the Irish banking community and not just Permanent TSB, over the coming months.

By doing all of those things - I am focusing particularly on Permanent TSB - I want to be in a position where we can share some of that benefit with the asset side of the balance sheet. However, it would be irresponsible of me to put the asset side of the balance sheet before the liability side. That is not how I run a bank. I want to get my cost of imports right because that makes the bank stable. Then I will pass the benefits on to the asset side of the balance sheet. That is what we are committed to doing.

Retail and corporate deposits are a significant element of the bank's funding. Given the historically low levels of deposits, what is the flight risk? In other words, what is the risk given that people would say that only a marginal differential is available? It does not seem to me that anyone is chasing a yield on deposits any more. The bank is actually losing money. Is Mr. Masding overstating the risk? Is the bank overpaying on deposits? In terms of the two issues, if the bank were in a position to pay significantly less for corporate or retail deposits, would there be a trade-off in terms of what the bank could charge its standard variable rate mortgage holder?

In terms of the constituents we meet, I would much prefer to meet someone who has money on deposit who is getting less than someone who is on a standard variable rate and is in danger of losing his or her house. It is a no-brainer.

In terms of the mix of issues and cost of funds, if retail and corporate deposits are a significant part and given that, in banking terms, there is not really a lot of places for that fund to seek a home which has a significant return because most money on deposit is actually, in real terms, losing value, I would much prefer to see the bank cutting the rate it is paying to people who have money on deposit if it meant the bank could have a pro rata reduction in the standard variable rate.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Deputy Creed mentioned in his original remarks the phrase "balanced objectives". A chief executive officer of a bank tries to get the right balance between the funding side of the balance sheet, which is the lifeblood of the business, and the assets side of the balance sheet, which is made up of bank customers who the bank is trying to help with life events, which is in our case mortgages. We are trying to find the right balance, particularly on the deposit side of the balance sheet. It takes time for us to reduce the cost of funds because not all deposits are on-call, as we would call it, or on over-night. Some of the deposits have got term periods against them. It is important that we are sensitive to those who entrust their savings with us. At the same time, we must be equally sensitive to those who are borrowing from us at a certain rate. My answer would be that I believe that over time we can find that balance. Have we found it yet? No, we have not.

How many of the bank's standard variable rate mortgage holders for principal private dwellings - family homes - are fully compliant and making their repayments on a monthly basis? What is the total number of mortgage holders? I am sure the information was provided but I have not seen that figure. Does the bank have that figure?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We do not have that figure.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I will talk about the weather for five minutes while the lads try to find those data.

The reason I am asking that question is that in the health insurance market and other areas we have seen the big switch. The bank's premium customers are causing the bank no hassle and paying every month but they may feel aggrieved. If they felt there was a competitor which would offer them a significant reduction in their standard variable rate and that it was of such a magnitude that it would be worth their while switching, is the bank not vulnerable to losing its premium clients if it does not move on the standard variable rate?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The Deputy's colleague - is that the word we use here?

I would go with that word.

We are all colleagues here.

Some are more collegiate than others.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The Deputy's colleague made a good point about mortgage strategy. Does part of that include retention? To cover the point Deputy Creed made, it does absolutely. Do we have work to do in that space? Yes, we do.

Does the bank have a contingency plan for those compliant mortgage holders in the event of a big switch initiative? If the bank was in danger of losing 50,000 compliant mortgage holders in the morning, I am sure Mr. Masding would sit up and take notice.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We are spending a lot of time reflecting on this issue and we need to develop a strategy that works for both front and back door customers.

Mr. Masding might give me the number of compliant mortgage holders on standard variable rates when he gets a chance.

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis na bhfinnéithe as ucht a gcur i láthair. In their reply to the committee, they mentioned the fact that the Central Bank had written to the bank on 17 February with regard to the pricing of mortgages. In that respect, the witnesses were more forthcoming with that information than some of the other banks. Can the witnesses tell us what was the general content of that letter? Was it a request for action in any way?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Would Mr. Mitchell like to answer that question or shall I give a quick overview?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

On the CPI letter? The date of our submission was 8 December and the Central Bank on 9 February issued its determination on CP87. The Permanent TSB position supported the objectives set out in CP87 and it was supportive of the fact that it attempted to increase the resilience of the banking in the household sector to the property market. We were also cognisant of the fact that it wanted to re-enforce the suite of credit risk mitigation tools that were currently in play. We had two main concerns. One was the potential for this to cause an obstacle to home ownership.

The letter from the Central Bank to Permanent TSB was on the price of mortgages - mortgage interest.

Mr. Ger Mitchell

Is the Deputy talking about CP87?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Is the question relating to a letter in February?

The information I have received was that it was dated 17 February and was on mortgage pricing.

Mr. Ger Mitchell

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I thought he was referring to the February CPI regulations letter.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Shall we start again? I will answer the question. Deputy Tóibín is factually correct. I received a letter, as did my peer CEOs, from the Governor of the Central Bank asking us to express our views on how we price variable rate mortgages.

As to the letter in response, the conversation we have had in the past 20 minutes was essentially-----

There was no call to action by the Central Bank on the price.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

No.

The Minister is a 99% shareholder in Ms. Masding's bank. Has he raised the issue of interest rates?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

He is no longer a 99% shareholder.

Okay, but he is a shareholder.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It is not that I am not delighted he is still a shareholder; of course I am.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The Department of Finance does not involve itself in the commercial decisions of my organisation.

He has never asked for a reduction?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

No, he has not.

If he were to, what would the bank's response be?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

"I would prefer that you did not ask me questions, Minister, about the commercial running of my organisation."

Would Mr. Masding refuse him?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The Minister?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Yes, but not bluntly.

That is interesting.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Would I refuse him? We have a relationship with the State. In it, the Minister has clear blue water vis-à-vis commercial decisions of the bank. Before I get myself in hot water - the Deputy asked me that question and it will be tomorrow's newspaper headline - let me answer in a more mature fashion. I do not believe that the Minister would ever ask that question.

If he were to ask. He is seeking to have a discussion with the banks on this issue. The Taoiseach stated that it was necessary for the banks to offer some level of relief. I understand that-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It would be inappropriate of me to comment on what questions the Minister may or may not ask. I do not believe he would ask that question.

Right. Some 7,500 families have been in arrears with Mr. Masding's bank for more than 720 days. Based on his previous experience, how many of those will end in repossession?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Would Mr. O'Sullivan like to discuss this story and answer the Deputy's question?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes. It is difficult to be specific in terms of a figure.

A trend that can be mapped.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The number of people in arrears for more than 720 days, or approximately two years, is decreasing, as is the case for all of the other terms for which people have been in arrears. The greater-than-720-days figure peaked this time last year and has been decreasing since. We do not set targets for repossessions. It is quite the opposite, in that we set targets for restructures.

I am not asking for a target. If the trend to date was mapped into the future, what would be the expected level of repossessions?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Last year, there were 37 repossessions, some 0.02% of our entire mortgage book. Were one to extrapolate from that, the figure would be small. This reflects the fact that we are working to put restructures in place for customers.

I thank Mr. O'Sullivan. How many voluntary repossessions would be encompassed by that figure?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Last year, approximately 160 properties were returned voluntarily by our customers.

Regarding write-downs and management of the bank's clients, my office regularly deals with approximately 100 cases of mortgage distress. I do not say this lightly or take any pleasure in doing so, but some of PTSB's clients have had a difficult call centre experience. A client might be dealt with by six or seven staff members who do not know the details of the case and instead have short briefing notes on their computers before the client rings them. Often, those members of staff give incorrect and contradictory information. I know of one such case involving pensioners. After they went to the Financial Services Ombudsman's office, the PTSB immediately started legal proceedings that prevented that office from investigating the matter further. In my general experience with the banks, some of the most difficult situations have involved PTSB. There are good staff and good examples as well, but I wanted to give the witnesses this feedback.

Regarding write-downs and residual debt, the bank is known to be particularly harsh. An interesting question was put to Bank of Ireland last week. If a homeless person gave a house back to the bank, would he or she be chased by the bank for the residual debt?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I might take the first point.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Actually, I will take the first point, and Mr. O'Sullivan can take the second. As we have stated each time we have appeared before the committee, if the Deputy writes to me directly with the names of dissatisfied customers who have been through our organisation, I give him my word that we will look into their cases and respond in a timely fashion.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We are working closely with customers who are in difficulties. Where they co-operate with us and we reach the point at which both sides concede that no affordability or sustainability is in place and the properties need to be sold, as per the example, we will always reach an upfront agreement with the customers regarding the shortfall. We are on this committee's record as having given some details of the policy that we follow in this scenario. Where the engagement is in place, the property is sold and there is a residual debt, and if our customer commits to repaying 20% or more of that debt over a period of up to ten years, albeit a shorter period if they can repay sooner, the bank is willing to write off up to 80%.

That is better news than I had. Regarding the Insolvency Service of Ireland, ISI, I understand that, in general, its proposals are successful approximately 74% of the time. What are PTSB's figures?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I will mention a couple of issues. We see a great deal of sense in the ISI. We follow two principles. We will always vote "Yes" for a proposal once it is equitable in the context of our responsibility to our shareholders. We will vote "No" where that equity is not present.

PTSB's level of agreement is much lower than the industry average.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The Deputy is referring to a survey from the fourth quarter of last year that related to 17 cases. It is worth pointing out that if two people were associated with a case, it was counted as two cases rather than one. The 17 becomes 11 when counted on a case basis. Three of those loans were associated with a mortgage book that we had sold, so the votes were not ours. That brings us down to eight cases. The results to which the Deputy refers were on the back of a small sample.

Of course, but a small number of people are going through the process compared with the global figures.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That is true. We hope - and all of the indications are - that that will improve, but it is important to put the set of eight cases in the context of the 28,500 restructures that our bank has put in place for our customers.

Is it legally possible to remove the veto? What would be necessary to do so?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

There have been many ideas recently. By and large, they are good. The insolvency regime is about working to make insolvent people solvent and to keep roofs over their heads. From our bank's perspective, there should be more discussion of reducing some of the terms within the insolvency arrangement, such as the debt relief notice, DRN, and the debt settlement arrangement, DSA, so that the debts owed in those scenarios can be disposed of more quickly and people can concentrate on the personal insolvency arrangement, PIA, which focuses on keeping roofs over people's heads. We hope to see a reduction in the terms of those non-judicial settlements, as it would be helpful.

Bankruptcy is different. It is about liquidating a property. In 70% of bankruptcy cases, the properties are disposed of. As such, we are cautious about the focus on bankruptcy and believe that more could be done on the insolvency side.

In some cases, especially for young couples, debt has got so bad that even when their house is taken into consideration - I am thinking of a particular case - the bankruptcy and the loss of the house can still considered a good solution for them.

Mr. Masding has mentioned that there are no plans to sell the loan books of the core residential-type assets. Is that correct? Are there enough safeguards with regard to the selling of loan books within banks? I hear anecdotally from the market that a particular bank might be selling loan books to a brand new company, which would be populated with staff from that bank. They are being sold for less than the amount the mortgage holders would be willing to pay to resolve the loan. I understand some of them are wrapped up in books and therefore there might be efficiencies with regard to the amounts that are sold. However, it is wrong that a bank can sell a debt for 15% of the value to former staff when the person who took out the loan was willing to pay 30% of the value. Are there enough safeguards to prevent, literally, insider trading or dealing in that regard?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I cannot comment on the individual circumstances the Deputy mentioned.

I appreciate that.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

What are the safeguards? First, we have an independent procurement team. It sets the standards in terms of how we go about the process. The CFO and I stay one step removed from it. We are on a group that reviews the team's views of who should buy it. We then have to go to our board. If all that is put together, I would argue that there are more than sufficient safeguards in Permanent TSB for how we go about disposing of books.

Is there a statutory extra body outside of Permanent TSB? For example, does the Central Bank provide an oversight of the process? Are loans regularly sold for less than is likely to be negotiated with the original mortgage holder?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

There is no regulatory oversight per se because internationally it is a normal banking practice and there are international standards. We apply those standards.

In response to the Deputy's second question, certainly in our case, we are obliged to deleverage our non-core assets because it is in our restructuring plan. We make a judgment as to whether the process and the price represent the optimum deal for the taxpayer. I can-----

However, on an individual loan case, there could be cases where loans are sold for-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It is very difficult to do that because buyers are after books.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is important to point out about the protection side. The buyers of these books would generally sign up to the CCMA while they are pending application for their own regulation or legislation which is due from Government. By and large and certainly in the case of the loan book mentioned earlier that we sold, the buyer is fully committed to adhering to the consumer protection code and the CCMA.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

As the CEO, I can assure the Deputy that I am comfortable with the assurance processes in my organisation.

I wish to follow up on what Deputy Tóibín mentioned about arrears. I had also noticed that Permanent TSB exercised its veto over insolvency arrangement proposals in what I estimated to be one third of all cases. I was struck by the opening remarks that the insolvency process was being given too much attention. As everyone in the room is aware, a proposal has gone to Cabinet to attempt to change how mortgage arrears are being dealt with.

Two things struck me about the figures for arrears. If my maths are correct, Permanent TSB seems to have issued legal proceedings in approximately 40% of the buy-to-let mortgages that were in arrears for more than 90 days. Similarly the bank seems to have initiated legal proceedings in approximately one third to 40% of home loans in arrears of more than 90 days. We all know the historical figures are very low and we know the reasons for them being so low. It is because organisations, not necessarily Permanent TSB, do not wish to take hits at a particular moment of time historically. In my experience in dealing with mortgage arrears cases, there is no willingness whatsoever to engage with clients. Looking at the arrears figures, there seems to be much more interest in engaging with clients now and particularly bringing them towards court proceedings.

I was also under the impression that the position of Permanent TSB on debt forgiveness was that it did not write down the residual portion of an outstanding debt. There is a proposal on the table to reduce the bankruptcy period from three years to one year. Knowing that in one third of cases the bank will not agree to a proposal that is being made and that they would have residual debt attached to them for the foreseeable future - I would regard 20 years or even ten years as a lifetime commitment in terms of outstanding debt - why would someone not go down the road of bankruptcy?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

There are a number of things I would say. As context, I provided a supplemental pack that gives a sense of the performance of our bank in terms of arrears management versus the sector. If the Vice Chairman has time to look at it, it will show that our performance is fine. Essentially the key message is that our performance is better than that of the sector. By better, I mean we have a lower percentage of arrears in home loans and buy-to-let loans.

When one looks at the decisions we have made with regard to the accounts, we offer a solution or a restructure in a higher percentage of cases than those that take the court route. That is an important context to the first part of the Vice Chairman's question.

Second, we can look at the legal cases specifically. The Vice Chairman mentioned buy-to-let loans. She is correct that we have 1,100 cases relating to buy-to-let loans before the courts at the moment. The reality is that if we cannot find a restructure solution for customers - it must be remembered that we found more restructures and solutions for customers than other banks - unfortunately we have found it is necessary to commence the legal process to get further engagement. Our statistics show that when that legal process is commenced, something in excess of 20% of customers who would not speak to us, answer the phone or respond to the letter, actually will engage. For those customers, more often than not we will find solutions.

On the numbers the Vice Chairman mentioned, she should not extrapolate the numbers where a legal letter is issued through to repossessions. As I mentioned earlier, last year our bank across buy-to-let and home loans had just 37 court-led repossessions, which represents 0.02% of our mortgage book. That is quite extraordinary when that figure is compared with any other jurisdiction, considering the incredibly high levels of arrears Irish banks have.

We have no problem with bankruptcy and we have in fact supported hundreds of bankruptcies. Last year alone it was in the region of 300. If bankruptcy is the right answer, it is the right answer. However, a person cannot elect to be a bankrupt or insolvent without actually being insolvent or being a bankrupt.

By that I mean, some of the cases that we veto are because the applicant - the customer - actually is not insolvent. Insolvent is not being able to repay one's debts as they fall due and there is no likelihood of that situation changing over the next five years.

In a large proportion of the small number of cases that we have vetoed, we can find a mortgage assistance relief strategies, MARS, treatment. We can find a sustainable solution like a split mortgage or some of the other options that we have offered to 28,500 customers. That is why we will veto a case, typically, or it is due to fees. The average PIP fee has been €12,000 in the insolvencies that we have seen. Often, that is more than the bank and the other creditors are actually going to get. The sum of €12,000 is a very significant figure and it would make one question whether it is equitable to agree a scenario like that. Where there is insolvency, and the customer is insolvent, but there is not a MARS solution, then our door is open to say "Yes".

We have listened to a number of financial institutions that have come before us. There seems to be a similar narrative and almost, to some extent, a similar percentage. There are a very high number of the bank's arrears that are over 90 days where it has not issued letters advising of legal action, rather where it has initiated court proceedings. That are a lot of cases where court proceedings have been initiated. Mr. O'Sullivan seems to be suggesting that the bank initiates court proceedings to bring people kicking and screaming to the table.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We have to be careful of labelling. I can see how it can be ambiguous but court proceedings initiated include an instruction to a solicitor who is outside of the court process. If one looks at the generation of a civil bill, which is later in the process, then all those numbers decrease significantly.

What are those numbers? How many Circuit Court actions has the bank initiated in regard to its 2,803 buy-to-let mortgages with arrears of over 90 days and, similarly, for the approximately 13,000 cases of home loan arrears?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Right now in the courts we have, live and active, in terms of home loan and buy-to-let, about 2,300 cases.

Is that in the Circuit Court?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

They are in the Circuit Court where a civil bill has been raised. That means it is civil bill or beyond, it is home loan and buy-to-let cases and it is live. It is not a case where we have got engagement and we have paused it or it is about to fall out of the court process.

That is about 10% of cases.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We should not look at a particular set of statistics in isolation. In 2012, when we first started together, there was no arrears management process in Permanent TSB. I would venture to suggest there are similar stories across the Irish banking system. I am confident now that, at the front end, we engage with customers and we are seeing more cash coming into the arrears department, which is a good thing. We are putting in place lots of long-term treatments and we have a very clear set of decision rules. When we cannot put a treatment in place, it is only then that we go into the next stage of the journey. I am wary of statistics being used in isolation and of circuit numbers being referenced against, let us call it, 30,000 treatments that we have put in place, which is statistically significant. It shows that we have treatments and an attitude around trying to find a solution that is sustainable and affordable for customers. I would defend my organisation to the hilt in terms of-----

I am not going to pursue the matter. I am sure the delegation understands that a certain perception exists. It is not my perception because it is my personal experience that the courts are now being used in a way that they have not been historically by lending institutions. There is more than a feeling that now that the market has improved and house prices have risen, people who were previously unable to get someone at the end of a phone are finding themselves getting letters informing them that court proceedings are being initiated. That is just my comment.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I reject that comment from a Permanent TSB perspective. I am confident we have a process. We do everything we can to put in place an affordable and sustainable treatment for our customers. I encourage customers to continue to engage with us because this man seated beside me and his team do everything they possibly can to avoid the outcome mentioned by the Vice Chairman.

I want to reply but I will wait until other speakers have had an opportunity to comment on the introduction of the StepChange debt charity initiative.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes.

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

I thank Mr. Masding and his team for the information and for participating in the meeting. I will pursue the same theme of mortgage arrears as I am dealing with people in that situation. Will the delegation remind me, because one gets dizzy from the number of banks that have come in here to outline different policies-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We are Permanent TSB.

I know what bank it is. I know who you are, Comrade Masding.

Let us hope the issue does not become permanent.

Permanent TSB does not do write-downs of the residual after people have given back their home. Is that right?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

No. We are referring to where we have a customer who is engaging and co-operating, it is clear to the customer and ourselves that the situation is unsustainable and that the only way to materially reduce the debt that is owed is to sell the property. In those situations, because the customer has engaged with us, we will reach an agreement upfront for the sale of the property with regard to any shortfall that might arise post the sale. We are on record as saying we are happy to write-off up to 80% of the shortfall once the customer provides us with 20% or more of the shortfall post the sale of the property.

I am dealing with a case which involves a customer of the bank. The young couple are both working but earn low incomes. They have been hit by all the stuff that everyone has been hit by so they had to sell their house. They are renting, are on a council housing list, their second child is on the way, rents are increasing rapidly and they are struggling. They had to give back their house to the bank but it is still chasing them for the residual. They have had to give up their home and deserve the right to be able to get back on their feet. Even if the bank writes off the money they owe, the couple will continue to struggle. With the bank chasing them for the money, they are really struggling and are very worried and anxious. Can the bank not draw a line at that point and say, "These people are on a housing list, they have a low income, they are struggling and they have lost their home so we will leave it at that"? Why would the bank not just do so?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We will not get into a case-by-case discussion here.

I presume there are quite a few such cases.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes. My commitment, as it has been here every time, is that I am more than happy to speak to the Deputy offline or directly with his constituents on a case-by-case basis. In a more general sense, we said at the outset that when we talk about fairness, we have an obligation to a great many customers and a great number of stakeholders. At the very core is an obligation on customers who have debt to repay the debt. For us to forgive any of that debt goes to the corner of moral hazard. I must have a balance of fairness when I think of, for example, constituents of the Deputy who have worked during very difficult times to repay their mortgage. I have to be mindful of the sacrifices and commitments they have made versus other situations where people have not been able to make that same commitment. I also have to be mindful of contagion or the problem of strategic default that if debts are being written off for certain cohorts of customers, it might encourage other customers who have struggled or who do not struggle and can repay their mortgage not to do so. We believe we have struck a fair balance.

I do not mean to rush Mr. O'Sullivan. I understand he is trying to answer my question but I have a limited time to ask questions.

Let us look at the scenario in which a family has filled out all of the financial statements and given up their home, which is a pretty big sacrifice. The bank knows that their income is very low and that they do not have anything to spare; they are in the private rental market now, with rents going through the roof, and they are on the council waiting list for housing. I do not see how the banks can justify chasing such people for the residual debt. If the bank thought that they were trying to pull a fast one and had evidence to that effect, that is a different matter, but I do not see the moral hazard involved in such cases. Surely they have paid their due in terms of-----

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The Deputy is right. We are actually in agreement here. In all of these situations, post the sale of the property, we will ask our customers to complete a standard financial statement. In cases in which there really is no affordability or sustainability, we are pragmatic, and we will not chase money that is not there. However, my point at a policy level is that I have set out what we will do in situations in which customers engage, and post the sale of the property, we will sit down and look at affordability. That satisfies us. If there is affordability we look for it, but where it does not exist, we will not be anything other than pragmatic.

I have heard that answer and I will follow up on the individual case. I would hope that such a reasonable approach is being pursued.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

That is the phrase, Deputy: "a reasonable approach". The Deputy will understand that I have to tell Mr. O'Sullivan that I want to set up parameters - and he has articulated those parameters - on a case-by-case basis. I use the word "parameter" rather than "rule". The parameters-----

I wish to shift tack slightly now. The term "moral hazard" was deployed by both the Government and the banks when the mortgage crisis was at fever pitch a few years ago. At that time, some of us were saying that there should be an across the board write-down to market values and so on, but moral hazard was the argument deployed to counter that. Is the same principle applied when it comes to corporate loans and write-downs on big debts in the corporate sector? I ask the witnesses to tell us a little about that area because they will be fully aware that-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We are only a retail bank. We do not have a corporate banking business.

Fair enough. I should have known that. Mr. Masding cannot really comment on that issue.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

No.

That is fine. We will be dealing with that matter later. I wish to turn now to the cost of funding. The witnesses said that most of the funding for Permanent TSB comes from deposits, if I understood correctly. They said that 60% of its funding is from deposits and they cited that as one of the reasons for their difficulty in reducing the variable interest rate. Obviously, the witnesses cannot talk about individuals, but can they tell me how many deposit customers the bank has and what portion of those customers have big deposits of, say, more than €100,000, up to €1,000,000? I am curious about that, and it follows on from what Deputy Creed was saying-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It would be inappropriate for me to answer that because, as the Deputy will understand, such information is quite commercially sensitive. I will say, however, that Permanent TSB does not have a private banking arm. It does not have a wealth management arm, an asset management business or a premier banking business. In comparison with our peer banks, we have a higher proportion of customers who fall under the terms of the deposit guarantee scheme - that is, with deposits of less than €100,000. That is as much as I can say on that issue.

What is the average interest rate for deposits?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Average and deposits are not really linked. There is a curve covering overnight through to five-year money. The average cost of deposits, though, as per our audited accounts at year-end 2014, was about 170 basis points, or 1.7%.

The bank's average interest rate on variable mortgages is 4.36%. Is that correct?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

It is 4.5%. Is the Deputy asking about the rate for new business or the average variable rate?

The rate for a variable interest rate mortgage.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Our back book is a standard variable rate, a single price of 4.5%. Since we started working together, our new mortgages are done on a rate-for-risk basis. The more equity a customer gives, the better the price. The average price that we are charging is 4.36%.

There is quite a big gap there in the context of the cost of mortgage interest-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

If I may go back to my original point - I am not able to give the Deputy detailed information because it is commercially sensitive - the cost of funds is only one element. There is also the cost of running the business, the cost of risk, regulation, taxes and the return I am obliged to pay to debt holders and equity holders. All of that eats into the top figure. The Deputy is talking about the gap between 4.5% and 1.7%, but I must also pay other costs. I refer the Deputy back to my original comments - each of my products needs to wash its own face. Does it yet? We need to manage down those inputs such that we can share some of the benefits with our customers. At the moment-----

The point is that some of the products are washing two faces. They are washing the face of a tracker mortgage as well as their own face.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Each of them has its own individual input. As those inputs change, it is up to us to find compelling propositions.

That is fair enough. I do not have time to drill into that further, but it still seems to me to be a significant gap. One could be forgiven for thinking there is a profiteering element to it, but we will look into that further at some future date.

I wish to go back to the issue of arrears, if I may. Quite a high proportion of arrears solutions in banks have been in the area of arrears capitalisation. I have heard a few complaints from people who said they were being put under huge pressure to opt for arrears capitalisation when it did not really make any sense for them to do so. While the individuals would no longer be in arrears, the repayments would be even higher. Given that they had difficulty repaying lower amounts, the prospect of their being able to pay a larger amount on capitalised arrears seems crazy, but they are being put under pressure by financial institutions. I am not referring specifically to Permanent TSB here. Does Mr. Masding have any comment to make on that issue?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Mr. O'Sullivan will have a smile on his face. I absolutely abhor capitalisation as a treatment because, at its most simple, it can mask a bank's true performance. It allows a bank to say that something is performing when really it is not. The rules that I put in place - I stress the "I" here - governing Mr O'Sullivan's ability to capitalise arrears are extraordinarily stringent. We generally only allow arrears to be capitalised if the underlying treatment has had 12 months of performance. If Mr. O'Sullivan can show me that a customer has had 12 months of performance, I will then capitalise the arrears. Capitalisation in itself, as a treatment, is extraordinarily dangerous for both the customer and the bank. Mr. O'Sullivan might like to comment on this.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is a legitimate treatment, but the controls must be very tight. Just for the record, the performance period is six months.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It is six months. Shane changed it from 12 months and never told me.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Essentially, we will not provide capitalisation unless a customer visits one of our staff members in a branch and completed the standard financial statement. When the situation has been fully assessed, the customer is then trialled for six months in respect of being able to make and being comfortable with repayment. Only then is the capitalisation put in place.

Will Mr. Masding say a word about where he sees the bank in the medium to longer term? One argument on the standard variable mortgages and other issues is that there is a lack of competition now in the marketplace. How does Mr. Masding see the bank down the road? I will put a separate question as well. How would he like to see it?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The question gets to the heart of the equity story that we have shared with investors in the past six months. At its heart, the story says that we believe it is important for Ireland that there is a challenger retail bank in the country that is alive, vibrant and that brings compelling propositions to customers. If asked to summarise where I want the bank to go, the answer is encapsulated in that statement.

What do we have to do to get there? In the non-core businesses we have made considerable progress in deleveraging at an economic rate that is good for the taxpayer. We will continue to do that because we have to get back to being a retail bank. Through a financial lens, as I have said repeatedly this afternoon, we need to get our input costs right in the retail bank in order that on the lending side of the balance sheet, we can keep Bank of Ireland and AIB honest by offering compelling propositions.

In terms of other areas, we will continue to invest in digital technology. We have right-sized our branch network. I am privileged to have a wonderful set of people who work for me and who are extraordinarily committed to Permanent TSB. By 2018 this will be a vibrant, focused Irish domestic retail bank doing really good things for customers. That is the story.

Before we conclude I want to ask you about the StepChange initiative. What will your relationship be with StepChange? Why did you go down the route of working with a separate body rather than some of the existing bodies, such as, for example, the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation? Can you tell us briefly what the funding model will be for StepChange?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The concept came about in recent years when the Central Bank led a multi-debt pilot, as it was called. Essentially, it was attempting to provide some hope and backup for people who had arrears on multiple accounts, whether mortgages, current accounts or car loans with different banks. It is difficult enough to work through one arrears account with one bank, never mind multiple accounts with multiple banks.

The model exists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The purpose of the pilot was to see how it could work in Ireland. I am not too familiar to the exact details of the tendering process but Irish parties would have participated in the tender process along with StepChange, which is a UK debt charity. In the heel of the hunt, StepChange was the winner of the tender or other parties withdrew - I cannot remember the detail exactly but it arose through an objective tendering process, as far as I am aware.

The good news is that it will provide an independent service to Irish customers who are multi-debted. The Irish banks are making a contribution to the funding of the model. The company, StepChange, is a charity, a not-for-profit enterprise. It is a welcome development. The more we can put such tools and services in place, the better for all.

Are there any other questions?

Deputy Boyd Barrett can go ahead. He is a member of the committee.

Deputy Boyd Barrett, I will let Deputy McNamara go first if you do not mind and then come back to you.

My question does not really relate to mortgage lending but it is an obvious corollary. As a mortgage lender, I presume Permanent TSB has to seize properties occasionally, appoint examiners and sell properties. I have received a complaint from a constituent and I wonder how typical it is. The constituent might or might not have eventually become customer of Permanent TSB. They put a bid on a property that was accepted by the vendor, which was Permanent TSB or examiners acting on its behalf. They put a deposit down in February 2015 and engaged all of the various professionals, as people do when they are hoping to move home. They were looking forward to moving, arranging a mortgage, etc. Then, only one week ago, they were informed that the vendor was pulling out of the sale. They were not told why this was happening. A solicitor requested the information but no information materialised. They were of the view that the bank simply decided to pull out because there has been an increase in house prices beyond Dublin. In other words, there has been an increase in Clare and other parts of the country and the bank effectively engaged in something similar to gazumping with the view that it could get a little more if it put the house back on the market now. Is that normal practice for the bank?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Not at all. This is a property that had been in possession. Is that correct?

It was for sale by Permanent TSB.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

No-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

You should leave it as "No".

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

No.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I will give Deputy McNamara my card or Shane will give him his card straight after the meeting and he should let us know the details of the case. Just as we have committed to all of Deputy McNamara's colleagues, we will look into that case.

I am aware of a number of cases in Clare - the place I know best - where Permanent TSB has pursued mortgage holders who are engaging fully and are even paying their mortgage fully. Two or three years ago for a period of 12 months or two years these people were not in a position to pay the mortgage. However, they subsequently re-engaged, got a job and started paying their mortgage in full. Now, they find themselves with legal debts on top of everything else. How on earth does it make sense to clog up the courts and waste the bank's time? No county registrar is going to give the bank an order in a case where people are engaging and paying a mortgage in full. What is Permanent TSB doing?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I am happy to talk to Deputy McNamara on a case-by-case basis, but that would not make sense.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Is that a generic comment or a comment for Permanent TSB?

I know of a couple of specific instances where this has happened.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Deputy McNamara should share those cases with us because that does not resonate with the way we run our asset management unit. Is that not correct, Shane?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That is correct. It would not make sense to be anything other than pragmatic. If customers are engaging with us, we will engage as well. The courts are clearly not going to entertain anything other than that. I am happy to talk on a case-by-case basis with Deputy McNamara.

I propose ending the public session at 4 p.m. because we have a good deal of private business. I will restrict any other questioning to five minutes, if that is okay with Deputy Murphy. I know Deputy Boyd Barrett wants to come in again but am not sure whether Deputy Donnelly does. Deputy Murphy, you have five minutes.

I will be brief. My first question relates to deferred tax assets. Can the Permanent TSB deputation tell me how much or what asset is on the balance sheet of deferred tax?

Mr. Glen Lucken

It is just south of €0.4 billion.

When is it expected that Permanent TSB will be able to begin to utilise that through having profits?

Mr. Glen Lucken

Our last expectation is that it will endure for approximately 25 years.

When is the bank's expected return to profitability, whereby the bank can at least begin to get the benefit of not paying corporation tax?

Mr. Glen Lucken

That will not be until 2017 or 2018, when we get to sustainable profitability. Of course, there are one-off events that could happen between now and then which could accelerate that.

The bank anticipates returning to profitability in 2017 and then beginning to utilise the deferred tax assets over a period of 25 years.

Mr. Glen Lucken

That is the way the code is written.

Is it the plan for PTSB to be fully back in private ownership in 2017?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

That will depend on the Minister's judgment.

He has indicated that PTSB is heading back to full private ownership and that getting rid of the contingency capital notes is a part of that process.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Yes. Before the Deputy came in, I made the mistake of putting myself in the place of the Minister, and I would prefer not to do that again, so we will leave that to his decision.

I will make the supposition that by the time the deferred tax asset begins to be used and PTSB does not pay any corporation tax for 25 years, PTSB will be in private hands. Does it strike the representatives as somewhat obscene that after a massive loss by PTSB and a subsequent massive bailout by the State - the taxpayer - that then counts as an asset and, as a result of those losses, there is almost a second bailout, whereby the bank in private ownership does not pay any corporation tax for two and a half decades?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I will make two comments. One of the key things I have learned since I started appearing at the Oireachtas is to try to avoid judgments. I am not going to make any judgment. The second point is that we work within excessive codes and rules that obviously we cannot avoid or influence. I do not make any judgment on the word "obscene," and we work within the rules that we operate in.

Obviously people work within the rules. The rules were changed in the last budget by the Minister for Finance, so that where banks that had been bailed out could previously only use up half of the deferred tax excesses on a yearly basis, they now get the full benefit on a yearly basis. Did PTSB make any representations for that change in the code to take place?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

No, not to my knowledge.

I will move on to another issue. So far as I understand it, contingency capital notes are somewhere between debt and equity. In effect, the Government had €400 million worth of contingency capital notes, and they have been bought back by PTSB through the selling of shares to raise money. From the point of view of the State, from the representatives' analysis, would it not have been better for the State to hold on to those and either replace them with new contingency capital notes or let them be converted into shares in 2016?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Perhaps Mr. Lucken will respond.

Mr. Glen Lucken

My only comment would be similar to that made by Mr. Masding earlier that it is not our decision. That is a decision for the Minister to make.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We failed the stress test by a gross €855 million. We submitted a capital plan with management actions which were accepted by the ECB at €330 million, so we had a capital shortfall of €525 million. It was agreed that the best solution to meet that gap of €525 million would be to raise equity on additional tier 1 bonds, as we did, and to use some of those proceeds to directly repay the taxpayer €400 million plus, including interest. I would argue - of course I would - that that was a good deal for the taxpayer.

I will move on to Deputy Peadar Tóibín, who had his intervention request in for a quite a while. He understands that we have time constraints.

I understand. When does PTSB expect to cure its impaired tracker loans? Is there a timescale laid out? The Minister for Finance indicated those predetermined timelines for the curing of impaired tracker loans.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

In our restructuring package agreed with the European Commission, we have an obligation to manage that cohort of loans by the end of 2018. I think it goes back to the original question asked at the start of this session. Again, as I said on the record, we do not want to get into a position whereby we are selling those loans, so our aspiration is to continue to work hard to try to court customers into treatments, or as many of those as we possibly can.

The language used in the report included the term "market opening measures". Does that mean to sell within the market?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

That is a different dimension. It is standard language in a restructuring plan - it is a commitment, let us say. It essentially means that one will not use one's position to restrict competition. In our case, the Deputy can imagine that is perhaps not the most important criterion I would be looking at in my searching.

Go raibh maith agat.

I call Deputy Donnelly and remind him of the time constraints.

I thank the Chairman. I will be brief. I thank the representatives for appearing before the committee. My two questions are not specific to Permanent TSB, but I would like their views as to the running of the bigger banks. The first matter on which I would like to hear their view is on reducing the bankruptcy period, at least for a limited period, and the second is on the cost of borrowing. I and other Members of the Oireachtas would like to reduce the bankruptcy period from three years to one year, at least until the debt overhang is through. Does the Permanent TSB see any major difficulties for the bank were that to be done?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

No, not really. The only thing we would add to it is that we do not think there has been enough debate around reducing some elements of the insolvency judicial treatment - the debt relief notice and the debt settlement arrangement, the former of which runs for three years while the latter runs for five years. We would be very supportive of a dramatic reduction in those terms, because the insolvency regime is in place to keep a roof over people's heads. To the extent that those terms could be reduced and the unsecured debt written off quicker than is currently the case, that would enable people to focus on the mortgaged portion and maintaining the property. We feel there should be more discussion in that area, whereas with bankruptcy it is about liquidating the property, so it is about taking the property and selling it. We have no particular issue with reducing the period from three years to one, but it is not about keeping a roof over one's head. Insolvency and bankruptcy are different. One is in a very particular corner, unfortunately, in a bankruptcy situation. I understand the distinction, but we would like more talk about reducing the terms for the other two solutions.

I thank Mr. O'Sullivan for that. Certainly, when the then Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, brought it through, he was very clear that they were not meant to be target times. They were set in the legislation as maximum times and, as was predicted at the time, unfortunately, they became a default.

The second issue is the cost of borrowing. We know that the Irish banks' blended cost of borrowing is significantly higher than for their European counterparts. If we could get the standard variable rate, which is 4% to 4.5%, down to more European norms - around 2.5% - this would result in a massive benefit for households, for the economy, for job creation, for everything. With quantitative easing kicking in, as of March, €60 billion per month is being pumped in, so the ECB rate falls. I appreciate that PTSB is only 15% funded by the ECB, but in the capital markets generally, money is becoming cheaper, so we would expect to see interest rates falling across the board. Is there anything the Oireachtas could do to help reduce the blended cost of borrowing for the Irish banks? It appears, from what we are hearing from the Central Bank in its initial report, that there is not profiteering or rent-seeking going on in the Irish banks in terms of the higher rate, but it is two percentage points higher, nearly twice some of the European rates. Is there anything the Oireachtas or the Government can do to make it cheaper for the Irish banks to borrow money, which then could be passed on to the Irish people?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I do not think so, because I think we are all aligned in wanting to do that. As the Deputy rightly said - it is important to keep emphasising this - a bank can only change the price of its lending if it changes the price of its funding. The one has to come before the other.

We are committed to driving down all our input costs and then sharing the benefits with our customers. To be crude, the only time the Oireachtas might intervene is if the chief executives of the banks sat here and said they disagreed and would not do anything. We are committed to doing it.

I wish to comment on Deputy Donnelly's other point. We are not comparing like with like when we talk about the 2.5% standard variable rate in other countries versus 4.5%.standard variable rate in Ireland. In most countries I have worked in where I have led banks, arrangement fees are part of the cost of borrowing. While 2.5% might be the notional amount of the mortgage, certainly from my experience in most cases there is an arrangement fee as well. We need to be slightly careful that we are not comparing apples with pears. If Deputy Donnelly is asking me whether I am committed in principle to driving down the cost of inputs, I have to maintain a return for my shareholder and we in the bank are committed to sharing anything over and above that.

That is not the question I am asking - I am taking that at face value. I am asking whether Members of the Oireachtas can do anything to help drive down those costs.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I do not think so as we are committed to doing it.

I am going to take that as the final word. There is nothing we can do, which is not a bad way to end the session.

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank all the witnesses from Permanent TSB for participating in the meeting and for the material they supplied to the committee. We look forward to seeing them again. Is it agreed that we make all the material available on the website? Agreed.

I propose we suspend the sitting to allow the witnesses to leave before resuming in private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 4.01 p.m., resumed in private session at 4.06 p.m. and adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 May 2015.
Top
Share