Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Nov 2014

Overview of Banking Sector: AIB

The joint committee is back in public session for an overview of the banking sector in Ireland and this meeting is open to the public. I welcome to the meeting Mr. David Duffy, chief executive officer of Allied Irish Banks, AIB. Mr. Duffy is accompanied by Mr. Mark Bourke, chief financial officer, Mr. Bernard Byrne, head of personal, business and corporate banking in the Republic of Ireland and Mr. Brendan O'Connor, head of the financial solutions group. The format of the meeting will be that Mr. Duffy will make some opening remarks. In advance of the meeting, we collated questions from members of the committee and submitted these to Allied Irish Banks. I thank Mr. Duffy and his staff for responding in writing to them, particularly promptly I might add. These responses have been distributed to members and together with the input of the witnesses today, I hope that all the key topics will have been covered. Nonetheless, a question and answer session will follow the presentations to clarify any outstanding matters.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery that all mobile telephones must be switched off because they interfere with the broadcasting of proceedings. I note the joint committee also is joined by its secretariat, namely, Kieran Lenihan, Noeleen Kelly and Eoin Hartnett, and I thank them for their work in preparing the documentation for this overview of the Irish banking system. This is the final session in this round of engagements regarding the banking system and I thank the secretariat for its work.

I wish to 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 this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they will be entitled thereafter only to 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 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 or persons outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

After Mr. Duffy has made his statement, the format of the meeting will be that the chief spokespersons initially will be given ten minutes, with five minutes for members and then five minutes for anyone else. I will remind anybody present of this once Mr. Duffy has concluded his opening remarks. Before Mr. Duffy commences and on behalf of the joint committee, I thank him for appearing before members today. I now invite him to make his opening statement.

Mr. David Duffy

I thank the Vice Chairman and members of the joint committee for again giving AIB the time to provide the Oireachtas and the Irish public with a comprehensive update on the bank’s transition from recovery in previous years to growth, as well as an overview of our strategic priorities. I will try to be brisk in my summary to allow as much time as possible for the questions.

As members are aware, AIB is a listed company on the Irish Stock Exchange and consequently, the comments we make today regarding the possible performance of the bank in particular should not be considered as forward guidance nor should they be considered a solicitation to buy shares in the bank. As the Vice Chairman noted, we have submitted responses to the questions sent to the bank by the Oireachtas and have endeavoured to answer the questions as fully as possible within the confines of the disclosure requirements imposed by our listing rules. We also have submitted a short presentation, which summarises the recent financial performance of the bank.

Next month, it will have been three years since I joined the bank as chief executive and this is the fourth occasion since I took up the role that we have had the opportunity to meet the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. We find it to be a most valuable forum in which to explain our performance and, on this occasion, my team and I are presenting a picture that is in sharp and positive contrast to our first meeting with the joint committee back in October 2012. At that meeting, we outlined a three-year strategic plan to restore our stability, achieve sustainable growth and return to profitability. This involved fundamental and major organisational change, restructuring, deleveraging and the introduction of a much-reduced cost base. We were obliged to restructure the balance sheet, overhaul our funding and lending profiles, rebuild credibility with the funding markets, meet restructuring targets and position the bank for prudent loan growth. In 2012, we focused on restructuring the business across all elements of the bank, from the balance sheet size and structure to cost-reduction programmes. In 2013, we focused the energy and direction of the bank on rebuilding our relationships with all our customers and on the external commercial agenda, while seeing improvements in the operating performance of the bank. This year, in 2014, we have been in a position to focus on prudent lending growth and profitability while at the same time accelerating our progress on dealing with customers in arrears.

We are happy to be here today to demonstrate the degree of the bank’s recovery and the benefit this will bring to our customers and to the wider Irish economy. In summary, AIB is now a profitable business that is generating capital, has received European Union approval for our restructuring plan, has passed the European Central Bank, ECB, stress tests without the requirement for additional capital from the State, sees reducing arrears levels and overall levels of impaired loans and is well-positioned from a funding, capital and liquidity perspective to grow prudently the bank’s loan book over time and support economic recovery. To be more specific, this year we returned to profit before tax with €437 million generated in the first half of 2014, which is a €1.3 billion improvement in performance over the first half of 2013. To the end of September, total impaired loans reduced by circa €4.6 billion, which is a 16% drop since December 2013, with the total number of accounts in arrears in the Irish residential mortgage portfolio declining by 11% and arrears for owner-occupier mortgages down by 15%.

Members will be aware that at the end of last month, AIB passed the European-wide stress testing exercise conducted by the European Banking Authority and the European Central Bank in conjunction with the Central Bank of Ireland. Under the comprehensive assessment, AIB’s capital buffers were comfortably above minimum requirements under all stress test assessment scenarios. Passing the stress tests was an important event for AIB and the Irish economy. It was not just confirmation of the bank’s current capital position but was an important external validation that the bank is equipped and capitalised to deal with future shocks should they arise. On Monday last, 10 November, AIB’s interim management statement covering the quarter to 30 September 2014 showed a continuation of the company’s half-year results. The statement indicated that the overall operating performance of AIB was ahead of expectations in the year to date. The bank’s profitable trend was maintained, generating additional capital in the third quarter of the year. A copy of this information has been sent to the joint committee.

Lending to customers is of course the true test of our financial health and is critical to our future growth and Ireland’s economic recovery. While there is much conjecture as to the appetite for banks to lend in the economy, I want to be clear that AIB is seeking to increase its lending and has the ability to do so.

Bearing in mind the lessons from the recent past, this does not mean that we will approve all applications but it does mean that we have the appetite to support viable lending opportunities at competitive lending rates which reflect the cost of operating our business, the risk associated with lending in a recovering economy and the need to generate a commercial return for shareholders.

AIB approved lending of approximately €9 billion in the first nine months of 2014 and this is a 39% increase on the same period in the previous year. As such, AIB is on track to exceed its €7 billion to €10 billion lending approvals target for 2014. AIB has leading market shares in Ireland across our personal, small and medium-sized enterprise, SME, and corporate businesses. AIB is the No. 1 bank in Ireland for start-ups, it is the largest lender to the agri-sector and it has numerous active funds to support lending and economic recovery as part of our dedicated sector specialist approach to our customers.

New lending drawdowns of approximately €4 billion in the first nine months of the year represented a 40% increase on the same period in 2013. These figures are reflective not only of the improving economic backdrop in our main markets of Ireland and the UK but also speak to the underlying ability of the bank to lend prudently to our customers. As AIB continues to return to more normalised operations, the leadership team and I are strongly of the view that this should benefit customers whilst striking a balance with ensuring the bank is operating commercially and generating a return for shareholders who are, ultimately, taxpayers. To this end, and as a result of the bank's underlying positive performance and funding cost reductions, AIB, EBS and Haven recently announced a number of reductions to variable and fixed interest rates for owner-occupier mortgages. The move benefits approximately 146,000 existing mortgage account holders. For example, customers with a €200,000 mortgage will save up to €334 per annum, based on a 25-year term.

We remain very conscious of the need to bring debt resolution and certainty to our SME customers in difficulty. We are accelerating activity in this area and are meeting targets for restructuring. Facilitating SME customers to return to more manageable debt levels and moving onto a growth curve requires intensive one-to-one engagement but we are seeing tangible results and this is reflected in our financial results and in the reduction in the level of impaired loans on the bank's balance sheet. Likewise with mortgages in arrears, increased customer engagement is evident and the overall economic upturn means we are now seeing a reduction in mortgage arrears and in the overall levels of impaired loans.

We have engaged in a project with the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO, that offers customers in difficulty an alternative avenue of dealing with the bank. The scheme, announced a year ago, allows customers in difficulty with their mortgage repayments to avail of the independent third party services of the IMHO to advise clients and engage with the bank on their behalf. The initiative is available free of charge to AIB Group customers, including those with EBS and Haven, who are experiencing residential mortgage difficulties. Solutions offered and concluded with our customers, whether through the IMHO or directly through our own arrears management unit, are fundamentally based on the principle of maximum affordability for the customer. Whether regarding SMEs or mortgages, the solutions we are agreeing with our customers in difficulty are based on a principle of maximum affordability and are being concluded on commercial terms.

While the bank has made progress in recent years, we recognise that a number of challenges lie ahead and that overall personal and business debt levels and the number of impaired loans in the economy are still elevated. We will continue to focus on rebuilding the trust and confidence of our customers and improving our customer service levels. Additionally, as a commercial organisation we are focused on generating competitive returns for shareholders over time. It is a core principle of the bank to treat all of our customers, including those in arrears, on an equitable and fair basis, regardless of their circumstances and their position in society. This principle is vital to the long-term sustainability of AIB.

In summary, on behalf of the bank, I want to again express thanks to the Chairman and committee members for inviting us here today. We have implemented changes to our approach based on previous Oireachtas sessions and I genuinely view this as an invaluable element of shaping the bank's thinking and strategy. Members will appreciate that, as a public company with a commercial mandate, we have to balance the requirement of generating value for our shareholders, principally Irish taxpayers, with the requirements of our customers who also support the bank. Meanwhile, I reiterate that everyone in the bank, including the board, the leadership team, our workforce and myself, will continue to seek to prudently grow the business commercially for the benefit of our customers, our shareholders and the wider economy.

I thank Mr. Duffy. As I said previously, the chief spokespersons will have ten minutes to ask questions and after that members will have five minutes. Non-members will also have five minutes, once members have concluded.

I thank Mr. Duffy and his colleagues for all the detailed information sent in advance as it is very comprehensive and such information allows us prepare properly for sessions like this. In terms of measurement of the bank's performance, there has been a marked improvement but I am not here to pat the witnesses on the back. We are here to ask hard questions and I am sure they understand this.

I first want to address the ownership and capital structure of the bank. There has been much speculation that the Government will seek to sell a stake in AIB in the market at some point in 2015. I think the State's priority should be to recoup as much as possible of the money it invested in AIB. It amounts to almost €21 billion and, preferably, it should all be recouped. How can the State best achieve this objective? When will AIB start paying dividends to shareholders? Have shareholders been consulted on the future ownership of the bank and the possible sale of a stake?

Mr. David Duffy

I shall address those points in turn. As chief executive, I believe AIB will return the full amount that the State invested. This will take time but we expect to do so. Regarding the sale of a stake in AIB and the timing thereof, we have stated consistently that we must deliver a three-year recovery that ends in 2014. The aim has always been to be able to say by the end of 2014 that AIB is a profitable, well capitalised bank without concerns regarding State funding. We passed the European Commission tests, delivered on the associated targets and are a functioning lender in the economy - all of the elements one expects from a functioning bank. On delivery of our full year's results for 2014 we will be able to say AIB is investable and this is the first and most critical hurdle on entering a sale process.

We engage with investors from an education perspective, rather than a sale perspective, to keep them abreast of the performance of the bank and the economy in concert. We are engaged with the Department in a discussion about two things. First, we must understand the capital structure and how it can be addressed. Second, we must discuss the capital requirement with the European regulator and the domestic regulator. Until these two matters are entirely clear it is impossible to come up with a defined series of actions around them. We expect that during December 2014 there will be further clarity on this capital from the single supervisory mechanism, SSM, and the Central Bank. Once we have clarity we can decide how to treat prefs, cocos and any issuance in the market. Only when such matters are clear, in terms of the balance sheet, will investors be willing to invest. AIB will not determine the exact timing of an investment as the shareholder unit of the Department of Finance will make that decision to obtain maximum value and inform us of same. Our obligation is to be ready upon receipt of instructions from the shareholder unit to execute the mandate. We will be ready as of the first quarter of 2015.

I take it, then, that the bank is in discussion with the Department of Finance about the capital structure of AIB and it is expected there will be an exercise to tidy the capital structure. I presume this is what Mr. Duffy means when he refers to the capital requirement and how the newly shaped bank might look in terms of capital structure. The discussions are under way.

Mr. David Duffy

That is correct. We must determine European capital guidance and then enter a discussion on what the capital should be. After this one can begin to manage components, which is a prerequisite for sale. This is exactly what is happening.

There has not been any discussion with the Department about the possible sale of a stake in the bank.

Mr. David Duffy

No, there has not. Therefore, there has been no discussion on dividends, to answer the last part of the question.

Has the possibility of the European Stability Mechanism taking a stake in AIB through a deal on retroactive bank recapitalisation been discussed with the Department?

Mr. David Duffy

No, it is obviously a matter outside the bank's control. I do not know whether it is within the Department's control but there have not been specific discussions on that transaction.

In a sense, I think Mr. Duffy is saying he is preparing AIB to go before the market in a saleable state.

Mr. David Duffy

Yes. To distil it all down, our mission in life, other than having a functioning bank, is to return the entire value back to the taxpayer of the funds invested. The only way we can do that is by making the bank attractive to investors. Therefore, we must engineer all of our performance to create a profitable and investable bank which also has a clear capital structure. Hence, capital is the main priority for reconstruction.

What is Mr. Duffy's view as to the best way of achieving the maximum return for the State, with a view to getting back the full €21 billion?

Mr. David Duffy

The way we look at it is that there is a market and also an internal objective in terms of the Government monetising value. We must balance the two of these all the time. The most appropriate way to proceed is to make sure we obtain the maximum price and do a number of sales rather than one big bang. We have our advisers and the Department of Finance has its advisers and we try to engage the best knowledge and market understanding from all of those parties, including estimating values if one sells over a period of time. This is all under the umbrella of maximising the return and getting the full amount back. There is no way that one can predict entirely in advance what is right, but there is a logic to selling pieces of the bank over a period of time. I have yet to determine, with the Department of Finance, whether or not that will be the plan.

Does Mr. Duffy see it as desirable to sell a stake in the bank to the markets?

Mr. David Duffy

I see it as desirable that we return €21 billion plus back to the taxpayer. The only way that can be executed is through a sale of the assets of the bank.

Or by paying a dividend over time.

Mr. David Duffy

Yes, but it is a matter for the shareholder to determine what period of recovery is desirable. We are not going to form an opinion on whether we should or should not sell or how the recovery should go. We are going to form a model of the bank that allows the option of a sale at the discretion of the shareholder.

Mr. Duffy said he is confident the State will get all its money back. How long does he think that will take?

Mr. David Duffy

It is impossible to say. I am not obfuscating in making that statement.

Mr. Duffy must have some basis for his confidence that the money will be paid back in full?

Mr. David Duffy

It is a matter of timing. There is a value in the bank in the market at any one point in time. If one looks at that value and sells some of it and there are dividend periods, then depending on the market valuation, the dividends will take more or less time to reconcile to the total. If we are of the view today that there is a value of somewhere around €10 billion in the bank, depending on contingent convertible capital instruments, cocos, and so on, we can say that half the value is evident today and we would then look at dividends reconciled and remainder. It is a mathematical equation. Our job is to ensure we maximise the value on sale of the bank at any point in time. Thereafter, it is a function of calculating the timing on dividends to reconcile the answer.

Is Mr. Duffy confident the State will have all its money back within ten years?

Mr. David Duffy

If I could predict that I probably would not be in this job.

It is a fair question. Mr. Duffy says he is confident the moneys will be repaid but for all we know, that could be in 50 years' time. His confidence must surely be grounded in an assessment of when the money can actually be paid back.

Mr. David Duffy

The fair way to answer is to point out where we have come from in the past three years. We have increased the value of the bank significantly; depending on the market opinion, it is now valued at €10 billion or thereabouts. If we could create that increase in value in the past three years, we can expect to do the same in the coming years. There will be further increases in value of the franchise and dividends in the future. I hope it will be achievable within ten years. As we have all seen, the markets in the past ten years have had different events. One cannot predict markets on a ten-year forward basis. However, as a reasonable person, I would expect to try to achieve that goal.

I very much welcome the announcement of a reduction in the standard variable interest rate. This is a significant move by AIB and makes it a market leader in this regard. I hope it will trigger a round of further cuts by other banks. Does AIB management intend to put some money behind that move in terms of marketing to customers of other banks? Will it try to entice people who have their mortgage with Bank of Ireland, Ulster Bank or Permanent TSB and who are paying a higher interest rate compared with what AIB is now charging?

Mr. David Duffy

We are advertising our products nationally as any competitive franchise would. That takes into account any customer of other banks. I appreciate the Deputy's comments regarding our decision to reduce our standard variable rate. It is important to note, however, that this was one action of a series. We have also put in place a fixed-rate offering, which is very significant but perhaps less well understood in the general environment. The rate for a one-year fixed-rate mortgage is 3.5% and since we introduced it, 40% of all mortgages issued by AIB are at 3.5%. The customer must make the decision in this regard and we cannot dictate. Our objective is to offer broadly competitive rates as cost effectively as we can while bringing in a shareholder return and to do so in a flexible manner. The reality we are looking at today is that although we have reduced the variable rate, we are in a position that 40% of all customers are taking the 3.5% one-year fixed rate. I see that as a very positive development.

We do not intend specifically to target other banks' customers. We will target everybody in the economy.

Senator Paul Coghlan and Deputy Kieran O'Donnell will share time.

Thank you, Vice Chairman. Mr. Duffy and his colleagues are very welcome. In sharing time with Deputy O'Donnell, we might take a good cop, bad cop approach. I am the good cop, obviously. I congratulate the delegates on the huge improvement in AIB's position. When one considers what the situation was when they first appeared before the committee, the progress is astounding. I have every confidence that the bank will make a full return to the taxpayer in due course. I acknowledge Mr. Duffy's point that it cannot be timed exactly. AIB had a very successful half year and I have no doubt that will continue. I wish the delegates well in their continuing efforts.

Can Mr. Duffy confirm whether he expects AIB to beat €1 billion or thereabouts in a full year? That might tell people something about what will happen in due course and the type of timing we can expect.

Mr. David Duffy

I am restricted from giving numbers due to our listing requirements, but I can answer the Senator's question in a different way. Has the momentum on both revenues and costs, our dealing with arrears and our lending, continued at the same levels as in the first part of the year? Absolutely. As such, I am very confident there will be a very positive outcome for the full year.

I am very confident the bank will beat €1 billion. I will now hand over to Deputy O'Donnell to ask all the hard questions.

Senator Coghlan seems to be saying I am a bad cop. I welcome Mr. Duffy and his colleagues. The big issue in the media in regard to AIB is the question of getting back taxpayers' €21 billion. It is difficult to lose sight of the sheer magnitude of that sum. To give it some context, the budget of the Department of Education and Skills is €8 billion while that of the Department of Justice and Equality is €4 billion or so. It is an incredible sum which, if it were available to the Exchequer, could be used to great benefit for ordinary people. The board of directors must have discussed the approach it would like to pursue to get that money back. Has consideration been given to appointing investment advisers or anything like that in anticipation of going to the market? I would like to hear where the board stands on this.

Mr. David Duffy

The board discussion is a macro, high-level one which talks about, first, meeting our European Commission objectives. That has been the substance of the conversation to date. That takes us to half-time in the match, so to speak. The second half is to do with the question of how we can remain sustainable and competitive and generate value in the future. There have been intensive discussions around how we position ourselves. We have reduced our head count from a high of 25,000 to in and around 11,000, while costs have been reduced by €350 million in the past three years. That has been the nature of the discussion. With regard to the sale, the discussion has been about those two elements creating a valuation at the maximum potential for the shareholder.

To put it in context, what was AIB's market valuation at peak?

Mr. David Duffy

I was not there at that time, but my colleagues are giving me the answer.

It was over €20 billion or €22 billion.

It is worth half of that value currently. The figure of €23 billion is effectively equivalent to the amount of money the taxpayer has in AIB. Through the Minister for Finance, we control approximately 99% of AIB's stocks. Am I correct?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes.

We need a proper banking system. No one denies that. I welcome the fact that the witnesses have brought the bank back to profitability, but the balance is our getting a return on our money. The bank is worth half its peak value, although peak values were out of control at every level. Like any institution, the bank probably has projections for the next five years. How does AIB project that it will perform and how will its market valuation progress over that period? The witnesses referred to capital structures and the European Investment Bank, EIB. The third element is how AIB will do in future. It is a question of timing. Clearly, the bank does not want the taxpayer getting less of a return on the investment in two or three years' time were the bank allowed to proceed to trade. Mr. Duffy is in the hot seat and has access to information within the bank. Where will AIB go in the next five years?

Mr. David Duffy

That is a good question, the kernel of which is ensuring the taxpayer derives maximum value from the improvement.

There may be a case for us not jumping our fences too early or, rather, jumping a couple of small fences first. We cannot make that judgment until we see AIB's projected performance.

Mr. David Duffy

That is fair. According to the comment that we have made and the ongoing discussion with the board, we do not believe that question can be answered today. The economy's recovery is in its early stages and we still carry a large number of non-performing loans. We have articulated our view to the board that we should see a further 12 months of the full execution of the plan in trends every quarter before beginning to estimate the value. We look to the best-in-class performance and what our peers are doing across Europe and are setting our targets accordingly. We ask whether we can compete in the top quartile and try to do that. We consider our arrears, provisions and all of the other elements of the balance sheet and try to form a view of what we believe the value will be. It has not been determined yet.

When does Mr. Duffy anticipate AIB will be able to see the horizon on this issue?

Mr. David Duffy

We estimate that, by the middle or third quarter of next year, we will have a much better feel because we will be two cycles into the execution. At that point, we will seek to give guidance. Just as investors or advisers say when talking to us, let us see it run a little bit longer.

AIB anticipates that it will not reach calmer waters and be able to see into the distance until the third quarter of 2015.

Mr. David Duffy

That is our current estimate.

Regarding mortgage interest, I will ask a positive question with a negative twist. Why did AIB reduce its variable rate? Permanent TSB was the last bank to present to us. Of it, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank, none has dropped its rate. Bank of Ireland has a net interest margin of 2.08%. Ulster Bank has a net interest margin of 2.32%. Permanent TSB's margin is low at 0.88%. AIB's figure is 1.6%. Mr. Brown of Ulster Bank told the committee this morning of his belief that banks should be trying to achieve something in the order of 2.5%. My question is leading, but I am giving a context. I welcome AIB's reduction and reasonable net interest margin, but the reduction could have an impact on the margin. Why did it do this?

Mr. David Duffy

That is a fair question. We did it for two reasons. First, we have set out time and again at this meeting our principles of treating customers fairly and on an equitable basis. We have worked hard to run a structured rebuilding of the bank, including by improving our margin and managing downwards our cost of funding. If we could make improvements in our funding levels, we felt it appropriate within those principles to return some share to the customer.

Is that through a change in the mix of AIB's funding, namely, more deposits?

Mr. David Duffy

It is a mix in terms of how we have improved funding across the board. Second, we did not make the decision without having regard to the margin. We have forecast, on a guidance level, being in excess of 2% over time. With a view to achieving that margin, managing our funding and using our publicly stated principles, we asked whether we could do this. The answer was, "Yes".

For me it is straightforward. Given the reduction, AIB anticipates that its cost of funding will decrease and expects variable rates to fall rather than rise. Am I correct in my assumption?

Mr. David Duffy

We anticipate that our cost of funding may improve, but decisions are not just based on that element. There is also the cost of risk and the cost of managing the bank. All three elements form part of the equation.

Based on those elements, the other main banks that presented to us, particularly Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank, should be dropping their rates in line with AIB's. Ulster Bank and Bank of Ireland have higher net margins. As I have stated previously, there is a lack of competition in the Republic of Ireland market.

The variable rate that AIB charges in the North is more or less the same as its standard rate. Where loan-to-value, LTV, ratios fall below 60%, however, the variable rate charged is significantly less than it is in the Republic. This is the one consistent trend across the banks. Why is this the case for AIB? It seems simple - there is competition in the market in the North. It seems clear from our meetings with the banks that there is more than a possibility that they are exploiting and ripping Irish customers off, given the fact that the average cost of borrowing for mortgages across Europe is significantly less. There is an onus on the banks and the Governor of the Central Bank to deal with this issue now and ensure proper competition in the market. Will Mr. Duffy answer my question on the Republic versus the North?

Mr. Duffy should be brief.

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask my colleague to give specific answers to the Deputy's question.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

The rate applying where LTV ratios are lower than 60% exists specifically in that marketplace. It is a competitive rate.

Is it not down to competition?

Mr. Bernard Byrne

No. People have decided to compete on that particular rate for that particular offering in that particular marketplace. If one examines the quantums associated with the offering, one will not find a great deal of activity. It is an attractive headline rate for discussion, but it is not where the market is. The standard variable rates across that marketplace are, on average, at or higher than those in this marketplace. Weighting provides more representative information. There is a teaser rate on which people compete heavily, but it is that.

What is the teaser rate in the Republic?

Mr. Bernard Byrne

We are not in that space.

I will allow Deputy O'Donnell to contribute again.

I welcome AIB to the meeting and acknowledge that the bank has reduced its interest rates by 24 basis points. However, this is still less than the reduction in the cost of funding, which AIB's document mentioned was 30 basis points. I hope AIB will continue reducing its variable rates for mortgage holders.

Under the restructuring plan that has been approved for AIB, the bank will pay the State its capital surplus on 31 December 2016. Does the bank intend to pay any capital surplus prior to that date?

Mr. David Duffy

That is the exact discussion to which I referred when answering Deputy McGrath's questions. We need an answer from the domestic regulator and the single supervisory mechanism, SSM, as to what our total capital must be.

Once we understand this number we can address the components of our capital. I would only be able to answer the question properly at that stage.

At that stage the bank would find out whether it had a surplus. When it is clarified and if there is a surplus prior to this date, is it the intention to wait until New Year's Eve 2016 or is the bank open to paying capital surplus prior to this date?

Mr. David Duffy

We are open to being able to make a payment prior to the date, but it is not our decision. It is a shareholder decision. We are trying to create an investment bank. If surplus capital exists and it is requested, we are open to it.

In recent years, has any cash payment been made on the dividends for the 3.5 billion preference shares held by the State in AIB?

Mr. David Duffy

No, we have not made any cash payments on these.

It is all in the form of bonus shares.

Mr. David Duffy

Yes.

It falls due in May. Is there an intention in 2015 to make the €250 million cash payment required under the preference shares?

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask my colleague, the chief financial officer, to make a comment.

Mr. Mark Bourke

The matter is under discussion with the Department. While previously it was scrip every time, it is likely we could have a discussion about it being paid in cash on this occasion.

I ask for clarification on the discussion. Is it not the case there is an obligation on the bank to pay the cash sum when it is in profit?

Mr. Mark Bourke

As far as I am aware, in previous periods we have always paid by way of scrip. This is the first time we have the possibility to discuss paying it in cash. It relates back to the bank being sustainably capitalised and profitable.

Mr. David Duffy

To be clear, previous behaviour versus potential behaviour issues were with regard to capital adequacy. Until we passed the stress test we were not willing to put the bank at risk in this respect.

I understand this is why in the past shares were issued in lieu of the €280 million. Given the fact these issues have been addressed, and it is very welcome that they have been, it is reasonable to assume when it falls due in May the €280 million will be paid in cash.

Mr. David Duffy

It is a reasonable view and a discussion in which we will engage with the Department of Finance.

With regard to the expectation the €21 billion will be paid back to the State, does this include the €1.5 billion already paid for the guarantee fees? Does it include the €280 million the bank has failed to pay the State in cash over the past three years?

Mr. David Duffy

I am speaking very simply about a valuation associated with the assets of AIB and any dividends associated with this. I have not done a reconciliation of all outstanding amounts. I could not even tell the Deputy the exact amount in other distributions made to date.

I suggest from the answer that AIB is not taking the same approach as Bank of Ireland, whereby it states it has paid so much in guarantee fees that the State has been paid back. Mr. Duffy is still of the view that a capital investment of close to €21 billion is to be repaid by the State.

Mr. David Duffy

I cannot comment on the other bank, but the approach we are taking is to maximise the value of the asset as it is today with a view to generating the invested funds being returned from the value.

The bank has been meeting investors for quite a number of years to get the bank ready for sale in the first quarter of next year if it is sanctioned. Is Mr. Duffy surprised that the Minister for Finance is telling the committee he will apply for retroactive recapitalisation for the bank? If this were the case, it would be a transfer of the shareholding the State holds to the European Stability Mechanism. Is Mr. Duffy surprised these discussions have not taken place? I am actually not surprised, because I do not believe the Minister will do it. I would be surprised if the Minister were intending to do so, and telling us he will make an application and it is a matter of timing, but not speaking to the CEO of the bank who is speaking to investors.

Mr. David Duffy

It is a good observation on one level, but to be honest the practical nature of this means regardless of whether any transaction such as this happens it would be but an interim stepping stone. The single supervisory mechanism would not be a long-term holder of the shares so we would still need to look to the investors. Educating the investors is required whatever sequence is arrived at.

I agree with Mr. Duffy that it will be the final outcome. Does he accept, as the CEO of AIB, that to have the State transfer the shares from the ESM out of the State's hands could pose major challenges for the bank in how it is structured and operates? If it were the intention of the Government, would he expect discussions to be under way at this stage?

Mr. David Duffy

I do not think it would have a change impact on the bank regardless of it being the outcome. The European restructuring plan involves the same group of people who effectively approved our strategy, and being a shareholder would not see a change in the strategy or, therefore, any structural element of the bank. If a conversation were imminent and I was about to hear of it on leaving the meeting, I would be surprised if I had not already heard it.

We will leave it at that. The Minister has a view the European Stability Mechanism may not be the best place to manage the banks. Obviously he thinks there would be an impact on AIB.

The bank's staff has decreased by 60% since 2007. Will Mr. Duffy provide the number of staff earning more than €100,000?

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask Mr. Bernard Byrne to provide the exact number of people. The number of people earning more than €100,000 has reduced by 40% during my tenure over the past three years. Significantly, while we or the Deputy may have an opinion on this, I have managed to lose in excess of 20 very senior people who are being paid significantly more, in Ireland, by competitors and in other industries. If I must run a commercial enterprise to get the €20 billion back, I must be able to focus on managing it commercially. In such cases I may need talent levels which cost this much. However, we have materially reduced the number and we expect to be able to generate the returns the Government requires.

I have found the information, and the number of people is 560. Are discussions taking place on performance-related payments in AIB? Is there still a legislative block on AIB paying bonuses?

Mr. David Duffy

There are no discussions on pay increases or discretionary bonuses, or whatever the category might be to which the Deputy is referring. As to a legislative block, I do not believe there is one.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

There is an existing prohibition in one of the agreements. Obviously there are taxation implications with regard to the 90% tax issue.

With regard to strategic defaulters, which is a term Mr. Duffy has used but one I do not accept, he has claimed that one in five of the bank's customers in arrears were strategic defaulters. Does he still believe this is the case?

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask my colleague who runs the arrears to give an insight into this. It will answer the question.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Who we defined as strategic defaulters were, at the time, people who had chosen to prioritise payments other than their mortgage payment, in some cases unsecured debt. It is still an issue today. We have had significant success in bringing people out of deep arrears who have not paid mortgages for a considerable period of time, partly because we have worked in many cases with Insolvency Service of Ireland advisers to cram down the unsecured debt and see the mortgage prioritised so we can keep people in their homes. I do not believe we were making a judgment on whether somebody was deliberately withholding and seeking debt reduction, we were stating they were-----

It was widely publicised at the time that Mr. Duffy suggested 20% of customers were strategic defaulters, and this definition has been clarified. Time has now elapsed, things have changed and the bank has been dealing with the issue. What percentage is it today?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would not make a guess as to a percentage. I can give some indicators, but it is hard for me to make-----

The bank has stopped calculating strategic defaulters.

Mr. David Duffy

We gave examples at the time at our previous meeting with the committee, and have focused all of our energy on bringing people out of arrears rather than calculating their reasons for being in arrears. This is why we are not as focused on it. If the Deputy looks at the numbers, he will see we have been very successful in getting people out of arrears.

I would say there are other reasons the witnesses are not giving me figures on strategic defaulters today.

Deputy Doherty can come in again after this round has finished.

I will put my last question and make an observation. A significant amount of the bank's proportion involves legal issues, 40% of which relates to family homes. Also, some 10% of the long-term resolutions relates to voluntary surrender. I see this as a major issue. In regard to the solvency service, how many of the proposals from PIPs did the bank veto and can it explain the rationale for that?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We have had 57 personal insolvency arrangements put to us in which we were the controlling voter. In 50 of those cases, we voted for the proposal and in seven we voted against the proposal. In all but two of those we voted against, we had already offered the customer a modification - a substantial fundamental restructure on the primary mortgage. Principally, this was because we did not believe the structure made sense either for the borrower or ourselves. In 50 out of 57 cases, we voted "Yes". We only exercise our veto if we believe the deal is wrong. Typically, that is because there is too much of a dividend going out to unsecured debt. Where we do not control a vote, we voted "Yes" in 34 out of 45 cases.

I will start with the massive decline in the number of staff over the past six or seven years. What percentage of this decline is attributable to outsourcing? I accept that Mr. Duffy may not be able to give me a precise calculation.

Mr. David Duffy

It is a de minimis percentage, but I would have to do the exact calculation. We can come back to the Deputy on that. However, if one considers going from 25,000 to 11,000 and the limited amount of outsourcing that has occurred, it will be a small number.

In the context of the answer given to Question No. 13, can Mr. Duffy give details of the functions that have been outsourced in the past 12 months? Are there currently bidding processes open for the outsourcing of other services?

Mr. David Duffy

The amount of outsourcing we do is relatively small in the total context of running the bank. The types of areas mentioned are in catering, some technology and other areas. In comparison with the rest of this economy, we do no more nor no less outsourcing than any other bank, than government or any other company. There are no enforced redundancies in the execution of our models and all rights of the individuals in question transfer, through the transfer of undertakings protection of employment, TUPE, arrangements.

Pensions do not necessarily transfer. The kind of pension one would have in AIB would not compare with that in a small outsourced place.

Mr. David Duffy

The type of pension we have in AIB is no longer a defined benefit pension, but a defined contribution pension. Those pensions are typically offered by all of those companies.

Are there bidding processes currently open?

Mr. David Duffy

There are a couple of discussions we are engaged in with unions, but we cannot discuss them publicly.

Would AIB take any lesson from Ulster Bank and the maximum fine imposed on it yesterday? Does AIB accept there is a lesson to be learned in terms of the outsourcing of IT services and the offshore setting of jobs, particularly in terms of IT services?

Mr. David Duffy

The nature of anything we do is on-shore. Before all of this technology cycle hit, we undertook to have an external party do an independent and robust review of the resilience of our payment systems, which is of particular sensitivity. We are also taking and have taken decisions at our board on the level investment in this area, to ensure we have the resilience required for the our operating model. As the largest payments provider in the country, we take this responsibility seriously. It is not necessarily a correlation to say outsourcing happens with technology and, therefore, there is a lack of resilience in payment systems. We will deliver resilience in our payment system.

Is AIB planning to outsource a larger portion of its IT than is currently outsourced?

Mr. David Duffy

Not materially, no.

Have any jobs in the IT or other areas been transferred off-shore?

Mr. David Duffy

Some activities have been transferred, but this is limited. The majority of activity is on-shore.

Where there is outsourcing, does AIB give a commitment that workers will have the right of redeployment or redundancy if they do not wish to transfer to the new entity?

Mr. David Duffy

That is part of the normal process we offer.

Yesterday, I spoke to a worker in a bank branch in Dublin who said his job was outsourced. Basically, he said he had the choice of going over to the company in question, Noonan's, or redundancy. He had no choice of redeployment within AIB.

Mr. David Duffy

I will not comment on a specific company's situation or its commercial arrangements, but in a position where redundancy is the alternative offer, the redundance situation is usually because there is no alternative deployment, based on the relevant skills of the person or the activities of the bank. Hence, redundancy is made available as an option.

The bank could re-skill people or reallocate them to different areas if it chose to.

Mr. David Duffy

We make every effort to do all of that.

Where there is outsourcing work, is the decision on the contract chosen based on the lowest possible bid or does it include elements of social responsibility, where the jobs will be or the quality of the jobs?

Mr. David Duffy

In our board discussions it is made specific that cost is not the only criteria. Invariably, it is not the end criteria for making a decision. In the world we live in there are often skills gaps where we do not have the expertise required and managing that aspect is equally important. Specialist skills are one of the reasons we look to outsourcing. We do not always achieve the lowest cost possible in outsourcing when looking at some specialist skills areas.

Might where the jobs are located be included in those criteria?

Mr. David Duffy

Absolutely, it is a key priority for us when outsourcing to focus on on-shore jobs in Ireland.

The number of AIB bank branches is being reduced from 267 to 200, which is a similar cutback to that of the other banks that have attended here. Does AIB envisage closing more branches in the coming period?

Mr. David Duffy

Between AIB and EBS, we have a larger number of branches than any other bank in the country. We also have a joint venture with the post office service, which has over 1,000 branches. We are the only bank that has that scale. We have no plans to cut branch numbers further and are, in fact, considering opening branches in a number of locations.

If AIB was to close branches, what criteria would be used?

Mr. David Duffy

As I said, we are not planning to close any. Therefore, we do not have any criteria for that.

What criteria were used in the past when selecting branches for closure?

Mr. David Duffy

My colleague, Mr. Byrne, will answer that.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

One of the criteria is the economic criteria, based on populations moving and changing. As usage changes, if a bank is to remain open, it must be an economic proposition. We have tried to change the functionality of each branch to make it more cost effective and so we can operate a branch environment at a lower cost, which makes it more likely the branch will survive in the longer term. The cheaper cost of operation allows us to maintain the service.

Generally, the decision on whether a branch is to close is driven by the economics of how transactions take place. Nowadays, some 95% of all transactions take place away from the branch. We are focused on keeping the branch useful as a service and customer engagement environment. However, some 95% of people's transactions do not happen in the branch.

Would AIB accept, therefore, that this means IT services are a core service of banks, because that is how people interact with banks? They interact through their smart phone app, online banking, etc.

Mr. David Duffy

That is difficult to answer because there are many different elements of IT service. The device a person has is not our device, but we may put apps on the device. We also have infrastructure, main frames and desktop technology. Some elements, by definition, are critical, such as payment related systems. Other elements, such as desktops or app developments, are not. Therefore, the answer is both "Yes" and "No", depending on the area.

Mr. Duffy did not answer fully Question No. 24, which asked whether if the Central Bank's proposed new mortgage deposit and loan to earnings ratio were in place, what percentage of AIB's existing mortgage holders would have qualified for their loans. I presume a relatively large percentage would not have qualified, although I accept it is difficult to give a precise figure.

Mr. David Duffy

Yes. Some of the logic behind that is that there are two elements to it. One relates to what would happen the market if that was implemented. Currently, there are many more buyers than there are homes available. As a result, I do not believe some of the dramatic statements on the market are relevant, as the houses will still be purchased. Second, the principle of a 20% deposit and the loan to income, LTI, rate are valid. I am on public record as saying I agree with those. If we take a long-term view of the customer's protection as well as of our bank stability, we should look at those kinds of levels.

The real issue is one of execution, which involves some element of transition in order that the law of unintended consequences does not drive out a sector of the economy. Trying to calculate numbers on a hypothetical basis does not address the issue which needs to be addressed. We will make a submission on that to the regulator.

On pay levels at the top of the AIB, I note that while they are within the Government's pay cap, they are set at its outer limit. Is it justified to pay staff almost €500,000?

Mr. David Duffy

If one wants to obtain the full €20 billion return, one must hire the best talent and the market will dictate the pay level. Many of us have taken our jobs at the pay cap. I have reduced my compensation to 15% below the pay cap and retained it at that level. This is a market force issue. It has taken me a very long time, nearly two years, to hire a chief financial officer. One will not get the value back to the State unless one can attract a chief financial officer of a certain calibre who can bring the bank to the market. It took me two years, not to convince Mr. Bourke but to get him into the bank. These are realistic elements we must deal with and, therefore, the compensation issue, while still the subject of the cap, is not my main focus.

I call Deputy Arthur Spring.

Having arrived late to the meeting, I will give way to Senator Barrett.

I welcome our visitors. Questions Nos. 19 and 22 have not been answered. I ask the witnesses to answer them in correspondence. Question No. 22 asked what percentage of AIB customers pay at the highest rate of interest. The response directs us to Question No. 19, which is a different question and the response does not answer Question No. 22. I ask AIB to send a reply to the committee secretariat.

On the proposals made by the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Honohan, Mr. Duffy's remarks are much more informative than the replies provided to Questions Nos. 25 and 40 in the written document. Given that the proposals were published on 7 October last, Allied Irish Banks must have formed a more definitive view than the views expressed in the answers to these questions. I gather the bank's view is that while the proposals are a good idea, they should not be implemented at this time. That is not, however, the view provided in the written reply.

The Nyborg report estimates that if the rules proposed by the Central Bank had been in place, we would have been required to put €2 billion rather than €64 billion into Irish banks. I would have expected a stronger endorsement of the proposed rules than that provided in the written document submitted to the joint committee. These rules are a normal part of banking in other countries where busts do not occur. Is that not the case?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes. Perhaps that is my mistake in terms of the documentation. I stated immediately after the rules were issued - this was reported on the front page of the Irish Examiner - and subsequently at a conference that I was absolutely supportive of the proposed rules. I would like to make clear that I do not have any equivocation about the principles. I am old enough to remember being subject to these types of limits when I was young and looking for a mortgage. If one looks at long-term stability, these are the types of principles we should have and they should be inherent in every economy. Not unlike anything else I am trying to do, this is a matter of execution. When one seeks to introduce a significant change of policy at a particular point in time it always creates unintended consequences. It is taking us some time to try to map out these consequences in order that we can give an informed and constructive view to the Central Bank.

While it was to be expected that the building and auctioneering industries would not like the proposed rules, the banking sector must support rules that ensure we will not have bank busts. I am pleased, therefore, with Mr. Duffy's response.

In the reports compiled on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts and Comptroller and Auditor General, Professor Honohan was especially concerned that accountants in the previous era did not have an accurate view of what was occurring in the banks. Allied Irish Banks has changed accountants recently. Is that correct?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes.

What steps has the organisation taken to ensure it obtains more accurate information on what is going on in the sector and the economy does not go off the rails again? I commend AIB on changing accountants, which was, I believe, in the spirit of the Honohan report. What has been the bank's experience of making this change and how has it contributed to the overall improvement in AIB's operation which Mr. Duffy recounted?

Mr. David Duffy

That is a fair point on which my colleagues may also comment. The issue must be viewed through the lens of risk because risk is the business we are in. While accountants have a view of that risk, they are looking at the core issue. We took the view that a fresh forensic view from the accountants was important. The other vital element was to ensure the risk governance of the bank was robust and independent. This means not getting into the problem for somebody else to be able to see it. We have, therefore, brought in a chief risk officer who does not report to me. This means that I, as the chief executive officer, cannot enforce a lending practice or deal. The chief risk officer reports to the head of risk who is a board member and the committee of risk is a sub-committee of the board. What we have is a governance model alongside a risk appetite that is defined and agreed at the board level rather than the executive level. What one can do in each bucket and the independence of the risk head are the two vital criteria for risk management. One adds to this the forensic lens of the external accountants. The combined effect of these factors will ensure the types of issues to which the Senator refers will not recur in AIB.

What company audits AIB now?

Mr. Mark Bourke

Deloitte.

I apologise for being late. For the record, I should declare that my uncle is a public interest director.

I will address four issues, the first of which is mortgage arrears difficulties and AIB's engagement with the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO. How is this process working out? I ask the witnesses to elaborate on the capacity of AIB to expand its product offering through An Post and its branch network. What are its expansion plans in terms of opening new branches? What is the value of the company as a result of realising and writing down losses? How does its make-up play into the value of what is essentially a State owned asset? On the sale of AIB on the market, what is the current value attributed to the company and what steps will be taken to ensure the sale achieves the optimum value for the State?

How would Mr. Duffy describe AIB's relationship with the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation relative to its relationship with personal insolvency practitioners, PIPs, before the current engagement commenced? Is AIB achieving value for money? The feedback available to me suggests this relationship is progressing in a proper fashion and is probably better than the relationships between the IMHO and the other banks. What will be the ultimate cost of this process to the bank and taxpayers? Should the model be extended?

Mr. David Duffy

We will tackle all four of the issues the Deputy raises with different members of the team given the relevant expertise. As the first question related to the Irish Mortgage Holders Association, our head of arrears, Mr. O'Connor, will comment.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We have a good relationship with the IMHO, which has been ongoing for a little over a year. The IMHO released results last week showing that long-term sustainable solutions had been reached for approximately 1,350 accounts. There is some misunderstanding about the nature of the relationship between Allied Irish Banks and the Irish Mortgage Holders Association. The IMHO is an engagement channel and the services we offer through that channel are not any different from the services we offer through any other channel. To the extent that personal insolvency practitioners come to us or a mortgage holder contacts us directly, we do not offer a special product. What we provide is an engagement that is principally for people who want to be represented and believe they cannot approach the bank directly.

Does AIB not have an internal team which deals specifically with the IMHO?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes, and we also have an internal team that deals with people directly and an internal team that deals with personal insolvency practitioners and advisers.

Are the outcomes more fruitful for the mortgage holder and bank in cases where the vehicle of the IMHO is used?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It gets probably better results on intractable cases. I refer to people who are scared and who, for whatever reason, have not wanted to face the bank. We have managed to cure some very deep arrears cases. In the year to date, we have cured approximately 2,000 cases that have been in arrears greater than a year, and some that have been in arrears of two or three years. It has proven very good with intractable cases. They give them a lot of one-to-one attention.

We expanded the service this year. It is a pure cost-recovery model. I will not get into the economics of it, but it is pure cost recovery. To the extent that the IMHO is a dedicated channel for AIB, EBS or Haven, they get a cost recovery, and we agree that at the start of the year. We did expand it to put additional people in. We are happy, as we stated at the committee last year, to the extent that it has more people coming through that channel. I would love to expand the capacity. If it achieves solutions, it is great.

Would Mr. O'Connor consider a centre of excellence as something that could help a borrower to find a person who could advocate on their behalf and engage properly with the banks, having knowledge of the personnel with whom he or she is dealing?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I am all for anything that moves solutions through the channel, particularly the most intractable long-dated arrears. We have stated that that could be a centre of excellence. To the extent that 10,000 customers have come through that channel, I would be more than happy-----

Is there any vehicle other than the IMHO out there? The reason I ask is that we are trying to get a platform that we can spread across the other institutions in order to help those with distressed loans. At present, the best example I have, from my engagement with people, is that of AIB and the IMHO. I wonder whether Mr. O'Connor has an opinion. Is there anything else out there that could be better?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

There is nothing else out there that is anything like it. It has a specific purpose. We put a fairly good methodology around it. I could not speak for what other banks would choose to do or not to do, but I believe it is as good and valid a model as is out there. Third-party representation, for those who feel they need it, clearly works. We are also agnostic as to advisers. In a lot of cases, an adviser is helpful for those who feel they cannot deal with what is happening. I would love to see it expand. I would love to see more advisory services in the country.

I thank Mr. O'Connor for that. I will move on to the second issue.

Mr. David Duffy

Mr. Bernard Byrne will answer the question about An Post and branch-related product sales, as he runs that arena.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

We have a long-standing relationship with An Post anyway. As we were closing down branches in a number of rural locations, we expanded that relationship to include significant functionality in post offices around those locations in order to take the transactions. Last year we conducted over €1 billion of transactions through An Post, which was approximately a 7% increase year-on-year. This equates to 3.25 million transactions. The largest single piece consisted of SME paper transactions, which very small businesses find useful for lodging cheques and cash. That is where the offering is. We have continued to expand it; for example, there is now a slightly more enhanced credit card capability. We will do that because it is useful and helpful from both parties' point of view. Every now and then, we are competitors of An Post as well. We both compete for business such as deposits and other offerings.

That is one of the questions I was going to ask.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

We have to get the right balance in respect of these matters, and that is what we seek to do. An Post understands that. It is a matter of trying to come up with the right balance for us, for the customer and for An Post.

In respect of enhancements in the future, that is one of the issues we have been focused on. We have gone through the retraction of some of the physical infrastructure. We have invested heavily in opening more channels. We are available much more now than we used to be. We have 15 lobbies that are available for 14 hours a day. That used not to exist. Small businesses can use those lobbies in high-footfall locations.

We have an online channel, in terms of phone banking, for customers from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night six days a week. That is a really enhanced offering, particularly in rural locations. In particular, those involved in agriculture find that helpful, as they do not have to go into the branch any more; they can get loans online. We are trying to enhance that functionality.

I will make a point to Mr. Byrne about first-time buyers and those who are going back in to try to secure family homes. There is a power-distance relationship that has evolved as a result of the crisis. When customers go to a bank, the relationship element is not as strong as it used to be. I note some customers have stated that they are looking at identifying a person in the bank who will help them navigate through the process. It is not appropriate for customers who are neither economists nor bankers, nor experienced in purchasing loans for mortgages, to have a telecommunications relationship rather than an individual relationship in which they can ask questions and sit down with staff. Where is AIB in this regard and what is it doing to ensure that customers are being prudent and provided with the correct advice?

Mr. Bernard Byrne

On the mortgage side, our most recent campaigns in respect of both brands, AIB and EBS, have featured this as a significant component. In AIB, our commitment is that the same person who handles a customer's mortgage application will be with the person all the way through the process. That is our advertising positioning. In EBS, there is a commitment to personalisation and out-of-hours availability - that is, much more significant hours, because it is a different model.

I am aware that two of Deputy Spring's questions are outstanding and there is just over a minute left.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

I can keep going.

We might come back in afterwards, if that is okay.

Mr. David Duffy

The next question was about the balance sheet.

Mr. David Duffy

Did Mr. Bourke want to make a comment?

Mr. Mark Bourke

Could Deputy Spring restate the question and what was driving it?

The reason I am asking the question about the balance sheet is that some institutions are realising their losses and writing down debts, and this has an implication for the balance sheet. In the event that AIB is not realising and crystallising losses, what kinds of latent or deferred loss are built into balance sheets within the bank at present, and how does AIB sell this when conducting its whistle-stop tour to corporate investors and others who are considering investing in AIB? I am really asking how it all stacks up.

Mr. Mark Bourke

We are talking about the fact that AIB currently has an inordinately large non-performing loan portfolio of approximately €26 billion, and today we have approximately €13 billion of provisions against that. That is down substantially, even from our June results. Our experience to date has been, as one will see in the June results, that we restructured approximately €3.2 billion and we wrote off against that €1.9 billion of provisions. In doing so, we were able to write back approximately €200 million. That is the result of the first six months, which tells us that we are operating comfortably within provisions to that extent, as we work through our non-performing loans.

Was that merely a sample that was plucked out?

Mr. Mark Bourke

It is not a sample. These are specific-----

I will allow Deputy Spring to come back in after we conclude this round.

Is the time up?

It is well up.

I thank the Vice Chairman.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for the answers they have given both in writing and orally.

I will start by echoing Senator Barrett's view on the Central Bank's new mortgage deposit and loan-to-earnings ratios, how crucial these standards are, how they can insulate us against future boom-bust cycles, and the need for the banks - not only AIB but those right across the sector - to get behind that. Some of the response to date has been most disappointing.

I commend AIB on the work that is ongoing with the IMHO. It is really constructive and it is working well. Where my concern lies is with the significant amount of impaired SME loans that are still on AIB's books. I am sure it has already been mentioned, but, as I understand it from the answers AIB has given, €4.4 billion is the current amount of impaired loans on its books. I welcome the fact that this has decreased by 9% since December 2013, but I wonder whether any thought is being given to an IMHO-style solution whereby business owners can have some form of independent representation.

Obviously, one of the biggest drags on the economy is this overhang of debt for business. The growth in the economy that we have seen to date is largely led by exports and foreign direct investment, not by the indigenous economy. There is a real need, and an interest, for banks to do something about that. Even with the new legislation, the examinership process is not working for SMEs. It is too expensive. AIB has an opportunity to lead in trying to find a solution to assist SMEs in a meaningful way, and I would be interested in hearing Mr. Duffy's views on that.

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask the head of our Financial Solutions Group, Mr. Brendan O'Connor, to comment on SMEs, how long this is going to take to execute, and our progress on initiatives with regard to advice.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I wish to point out at the outset, with regard to examinership, that the vast bulk of SME debt in the country is drawn in personal names rather than in corporate entities, so for many people examinership is, unfortunately, not an option. If one takes out the consumer mortgages, we deal with approximately €20 billion worth of challenged debt, most of which is impaired, while some is not. The figures referred to by Mr. Bourke earlier relate to a reduction of approximately €4.5 billion in that impaired debt over the past nine months. That €4.5 billion has come about through restructurings with customers and recognising that some of the debt will not be recoverable, so write-downs are in place. As of the end of September, we have made offers in respect of approximately €16 billion of that €20 billion worth of debt, so we have issued heads of terms to these customers, 80% to 85% of which are accepted. We will more than likely end up in a legal resolution with the rest. There is quite a strong advisory core out there, but one is largely dealing with non-core debt, so it does not lend itself to examinership. It also has a very entangled nature between personal property and buy-to-let and is sometimes wrapped up in pension mortgages and SMEs. We would expect that by the end of next year we will have not only offered everybody a resolution but, ultimately, restructured, documented, fulfilled and drawn down those restructures in large part. We have made a very significant amount of progress in the past nine months and now that activity is manifesting itself as the reduction in non-performing loans that one sees on the balance sheet today. They are restructured drawn deals under which, subject to performance, customers will be able to get on with the rest of their lives and start their businesses or do whatever they need to do.

Would the bank consider some sort of independent entity for SME debt along the lines of the IMHO? I appreciate that advice is offered by the bank, but sometimes there needs to be an interlocutor.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It would be an exponentially more complex proposition because of the nature of the debt. One of the reasons the IMHO works so successfully is that it is singularly focused on family home mortgages - that is, one asset. It would be very difficult in the other area. We are not against it, but it would be a huge investment by somebody and we would probably be finished by the time we got it done.

I know that others have raised the issue of variable-rate mortgages. Was it common during the boom years to include a clause in the mortgage that linked the change in interest rates of the mortgage to market conditions? This issue has been raised in the courts in recent times and I am curious as to whether it applies to AIB.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

Without getting into specifics of any issues involved in a court case, every institution has its own language that differs from institution to institution. Notwithstanding television coverage, the issue that is being examined at the moment is a very specific one relating to a very specific institution. It is probably not right to extrapolate the individual issue that exists at the moment into the broader context. That is based on my observation of where this is.

I am asking what the standard clause in a mortgage would be. Is there anything that explains why mortgage interest rates would go up or down?

Mr. Bernard Byrne

There is generally a reference to funding cost in all agreements.

Mr. David Duffy

We are trying to make that clear by offering a wide range of products with a lot of explanation behind them. Our fixed-rate mortgage, as we explained earlier, is at 3.5%. The rate is around 3.5% for people taking out mortgages today. One cannot dictate to the customer what they should do but one must offer choice and flexibility and then offer advice behind that. It involves professional advisers in each case across that spectrum of products.

Deputy Spring indicated that he wanted to ask further questions.

We will go back to the balance sheet for a moment. There is such interest that I am sure every journalist in the country is watching.

Mr. Mark Bourke

We left it at the fact that we are working through the non-performing loan portfolio. That started at €29 billion.

Was that a random section of it?

Mr. Mark Bourke

The totality started at €29 billion, with €17 billion in provisions. As Mr. O'Connor noted, we reduced that by €3.8 billion at the half year and wrote off €1.9 billion of those provisions. The important thing to note is that in doing so, we are talking about the work that is being done and individual restructurings showing that we are over-provided in that particular case. The summary for the half year was that we wrote back a level of those provisions. What we would not do is extrapolate that and say there is an over-provision level or an amount that will come back. What we would say today is that by the time we work through another large tranche - we are planning to deal with between €10 billion and €13 billion in a two-year period - we would have time-----

Mr. Mark Bourke

Starting at the beginning of this year. By the middle of next year, we would effectively see the re-default rates, the cure rates and how the restructurings are working. One could then take a view on the entire book. That the first balance sheet equation.

What percentage of the restructured loans are starting to default on their restructuring? A paper on this has been completed for the Central Bank of Ireland and the figures were quite high. Has the bank done anything internally on this?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It is quite early in the process. By the time it reaches the balance sheet so that one sees the reduction in non-performing loans, the process will have been in existence for between 18 months and two years, because we must stabilise SMEs and cashflows. It takes quite a long time to put all the legal documentation-----

I am talking about loans that were restructured.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

The re-default rates at the moment are not material, but I would not read anything into that because it is still very early days. We right-size the balance sheet of the SME-----

When Mr. O'Connor says the rates are not material, what does he mean?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Less than a couple of percent, but it is early days.

With regard to the entire banking sector, there were indications in that paper that the rate could be as high as 45% for mortgages, and the restructurings have not lived up to what was expected. That question leads on to how-----

Mr. Mark Bourke

The wider context of valuation of the bank concerns two things, one of which is how it is performing. Our big challenge as a bank is to get ourselves to the point at which we are no longer shrinking. We are just coming close to the point at which we are at a stable level of lending and have a stable asset stock, so that it the first thing that drives valuation. Coming from that, the second thing is that the bank is sustainably profitable and, therefore, internally generates capital.

Mr. Bourke talks about being sustainably profitable. What net interest rate must the bank make in order to be in that bracket?

Mr. Mark Bourke

Our current and disclosed half-year results show us at a net interest margin of 164 basis points. Our medium-term target published is 200 basis points.

What would that be for new business mortgages?

Mr. Mark Bourke

On new business, our current lending rate is probably between 3% and 4%, but we would only look at net interest margin, NIM, as a function of the total blended cost of funding and the total blended cost of-----

I understand that, but there are many allegations out there that the banks are profiteering at the moment.

Mr. David Duffy

I wish to be clear on that issue, because it is important. People talk about the ECB rate. That is 3% of our deposits, so it might as well not be relevant in the discussion.

What percentage is tier 1 capital?

Mr. David Duffy

I am not sure. It depends on whether everybody wants to go through the entire balance sheet of reconciliation, which we can do.

The reason I ask that question is that if the bank is looking for more deposits and if An Post is left in a situation in which the bank will be competing with it - because, historically, An Post has provided higher interest rates than the banks-----

Mr. David Duffy

That is very fair. The basic thing is that the ECB is not the driver. One comes back to the fact that it is one's credit standing. People talk about the European rate. We are nowhere close to that. We cannot borrow at those rates.

What is the risk factor that is being blended into the bank's cost of funds?

Mr. David Duffy

There are three risk factors. Sixty-four basis points is an average risk of loss in the future model of the bank.

Sixty-four basis points is extraordinarily high relative to-----

Mr. David Duffy

It is extraordinarily high relative to ten or 15 years of boom. If one was to take a mature and conservative view, one would be talking about that figure. When we look at our funding rates - at what we can borrow in the market - we see that the sovereign for 15 years is at a rate of 2.5%. We are not borrowing at ECB rates but at these rates. We have to add the cost of risk and running the bank.

Administration.

Mr. David Duffy

I suggest that when these three factors are taken into consideration, it is extremely competitive to offer a one-year fixed rate of 3.5%. At the same time, we are trying to create a margin that will allow us to create a shareholder return and evaluate. We could engage in a lot of reconciliations, but these are the principles.

I am trying to get behind this issue. I have tabled a couple of parliamentary questions to get the information.

Mr. David Duffy

The Deputy can have it afterwards, if he wants.

I thank Mr. Duffy. We are all very conscious of the sale of the bank. How is the bank going about it? Where is the valuation? When will we be in a position to talk to institutional investors and look at how they will go about it? Will there be an initial public offering from scratch again? What will happen? What will be involved in this process? I hope we are not heading for another eircom or anything like it.

Mr. David Duffy

That is not what we are planning. The senior executives did not enjoy that experience and that is not our intention. We have stated clearly that we have a three year job to deliver an investable bank. That means getting to profitability in a sustainable way, with a passed stress test, approval from the European Commission, functional lending capacity showing that the largest lender in the economy is performing its role, arrears being addressed materially and non-performing loans being reduced. That is the story. We have been educating investors, not to sell the bank but to ascertain whether the team is delivering what it needs to deliver for the bank to be investable. These discussions will continue. We are now in a position where we hope to be able to say in March that the half-year result has continued in terms of its momentum and that the bank is now profitable, well capitalised and meeting the criteria with regard to lending and arrears, etc. We want to be able to say at that point that the bank is investable. Decisions on when to sell, at what price to sell and how much to sell are entirely in the hands of the shareholders. That is what happens. We have to fix the capital architecture before we can sell the bank. We do not yet know what the capital solutions are. We do not know from the Central Bank what the total capital stack is and until we do, we cannot fix-----

I will not ask the delegates to comment on other institutions. Given that they are dealing with the balance sheet and prudential losses, etc., I am perplexed about why they are not yet in a position to know what the bank's share value is. One of the bank's main competitors in the market has a share value. Is there a relatively-----

Mr. David Duffy

We have 524 billion shares, as the Deputy is aware. We point out in every communication in every forum what the valuations are and what the share price is today by comparison with what the underlying valuation should be.

Would it be fair to say that currently there is not a level of certainty about the true value of the business that the bank hopes to have this time next year?

Mr. Mark Bourke

I think there is greater clarity. We are covered by a number of analysts. If they apply multiples to banks of similar size or shape, there are actual valuations which are multiples of the book valuation and to which we would be compared. All of this is in the public domain.

Are they taking a valuation of how the contingent losses are built in?

Mr. Mark Bourke

They are making assumptions.

Does AIB's preferred way of realising the value in the bank involve one institutional investor, or multiple institutional investors? How does the bank see this playing out?

Mr. David Duffy

Historical experience tells us that if one sells in a series of steps to a series of investors who are valuing their entry at the maximum amount the shareholder can get, based on a strategy, one will not be subject to the whole thing changing again. Any strategy pursued by the largest bank in the country which is critical to the sovereign in the current construct must involve a stable, maximised value process. It is likely that there will be a series of steps, although this has not yet been determined.

I thank the delegates for their time and ask them to keep up the good work.

It was indicated in AIB's initial presentation that the bank had approved lending of approximately €9 billion in the first nine months of 2014 and that this marked an increase on the figure for the previous period. I am not clear on the proportion of the lending drawdowns of approximately €4 billion that is mortgage lending.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

Mortgage lending accounts for a figure of €1.2 billion.

I noted the comments made about the Governor of the Central Bank's statement on mortgage deposits and loan to earnings ratios. We have mainly received reasonably negative comments about it from some of the other lending institutions. Representatives of Ulster Bank said to us this morning that 68% of the first-time buyer mortgages approved by the bank this year would have fallen outside the proposed loan to value ratios or loan to income criteria. They suggested, as their counterparts from Permanent TSB did, that a focus on affordability and repayment capacity would be more relevant than a focus on strict limits and criteria. My personal belief is these criteria have no real or theoretical basis and that they hark back to the lending of the 1970s and 1980s, as opposed to more modern day lending. Much of what has been suggested by the Governor of the Central Bank is an attempt to pre-empt another bubble in the property market. Do the delegates believe we are in or are approaching a property bubble?

Mr. David Duffy

From our perspective, this is not an actual credit boom but a stock and supply issue. Therefore, we are not likely to be in that circumstance. The perception we are discussing is being driven by a small number of properties in a small sector of this city. There is no doubt that price anomalies will arise as a result of the stock issue. That needs to be addressed. If we look around the country more broadly, we will see that nobody in west Cork is having a Ballsbridge experience. There has to be balance in that regard. We map every single part of the geography in terms of incremental prices and stock, at which we look, as we look at our property strategy. We believe that, with sensible lending and stock coming on stream and taking a five or ten year view of the economy, we will not see a property bubble. We will see some volatility around the stock shortage and then stabilisation.

Does Mr. Duffy agree that we are a long way off boom values, given that prices dropped by 55% from the peak and are now 40% below that level?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes, we are. I would also be cautious. Perhaps my job is to be paranoid, but I think the boom values were dislocations. One should discount the boom value and instead look at where one thinks one is in that context. With that model in mind, we keep a very close eye on it. We believe a balance is achievable over time.

The committee has been asked to look into the possible introduction of a mortgage insurance scheme. The delegates are probably aware that such schemes were quite common in the 1980s and early 1990s before we got into the heady days of the Celtic tiger, particularly among people who were in impermanent employment, etc. Do the delegates have a view on this issue? If they cannot outline their view today, are they prepared to submit a view to the committee in writing? It would help us in our deliberations on the mortgage insurance scheme issue.

Mr. David Duffy

We will be happy to submit our thinking on such a model. My colleague, Mr. Byrne, wishes to make some initial comments on the matter.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

An insurance scheme has an obvious appeal in satisfying many of the prudential requirements at which people are looking. It also has an appeal from a consumer protection point of view. Three elements need to be borne in mind on the other side. First, such arrangements generally operate in a repossessions market in which there is very quick execution between somebody defaulting and a house repossession and a realisation of a loss taking place. Therefore, the insurer is able to understand what the loss is and provide insurance. It is less structured and less used to a market like the Irish market, in which a solution is worked through over a long period of time, in effect, in the absence of a loss event. It is not that it could not happen, but it is certainly not designed in that way. Second, there is a price to it and that price factors in the risk involved. Rather than getting rid of the risk, one is simply moving the point of risk. Third, under the current construct, these arrangements generally tend in effect to have a go-back-to-borrower clause. The insurer might pay up, but it will seek recovery from the borrower.

I suggest these three thoughts should be specifically borne in mind. Someone should examine how any such arrangement would work in the Irish market. Many markets end up with some government arrangement as part of the mix.

Having practised as a solicitor for a number of years, I am very conscious of how the mortgage market has changed. It changed from circumstances in which one had to save one's First Holy Communion money with a building society for approximately 40 years before one became eligible to apply for a loan, only to be turned down, to circumstances in which money was being thrown at people. My concern is that we may overstep the mark and put people, particularly those not in permanent employment and those who work for themselves, in circumstances where they will never be able to own their own homes. I am concerned about how the mortgage market is playing out. What can we do to avoid returning to circumstances where people are permanently deprived of the possibility of owning their own home?

Mr. David Duffy

Those are all fair observations. Our view is that there are many examples of what we have been through and the many solutions that have been applied. Each market is different and we should learn as much as possible. In any submission we take this into account. In a country this small and with such a proper drive waiting in its economy we must have a conservative approach to long-term stability. That said, there should not be a law of unintended consequences. One is dealing with a policy which, in principle, is absolutely fine. The question is whether the numbers are fixed and can never change. The real question concerns how to execute that change and prevent any single class from being disintermediated for 40 years, as the Deputy suggested. How does one effect the transition? We will come up with some response in the consultation along the lines of establishing a point of real policy and principle that could be applied to the circumstances and varied accordingly. This should be kept under review, which is what we would do in the case of anything else. Perhaps we might have a meeting of minds on the best way to apply the principles in transition. It may never get to 20; it may stay at 15, or it may get to 17; I do not know. We hope there is a rational execution model that ensures nobody is shut out of the market, while at the same time observing long-term stability in the marketplace.

This is a subject to which we will definitely return. The home ownership rate in Ireland has dropped by over 10%. We have moved from having one of the highest rates in Europe to one of the lowest. Not many people realise this.

My second issue, on which I do not want to hog too much time, relates to buy-to-let arrears and particularly the issue of the appointment of rent receivers. It can be very problematic for many tenants when rent receivers are appointed to properties. Some of the behaviour of rent receivers is appalling. The committee's document on mortgage arrears and a more recent report from the Private Residential Tenancies Board by DKM Economic Consultants, RedC Research and Marketing and Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors have suggested the legislation be amended to clarify the role of receivers in their stepping into the shoes of landlords. This is to avoid scenarios where rents are being paid but where basic repairs are not being carried out, for example, or where there are legal evictions of tenants because some lenders in the current market — I am not suggesting which ones — want properties back quickly without giving appropriate notice to the tenants. Are the delegates against, in principle, the idea of changing the law to ensure clarity on this issue?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Absolutely not. We use very reputable receivers. We have a very strict governance process and receive frequent reports. I am happy that our receivers behave in line with their statutory duties. To the extent that these statutory duties are revised, etc., we are happy to offer support.

It would be good to have clarity on that issue. The buy-to-let loan books of Allied Irish Banks and every other institution show the number of cases in which there are serious arrears and which involve court proceedings. There will be a lot of disruption in the market in the near future. There is at present, but it will get worse.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell asked a very interesting question to which we did not really receive a full reply. Given what has happened, Allied Irish Banks has dropped its variable rate, but other lenders have not. Deputy Kieran O'Donnell's point which was based on the figures and statistics to which he alluded and which he made cogently was that there was not enough competition in the market. Does Mr. Duffy believe that is a fair comment?

Mr. David Duffy

If he is saying there is not enough competition and that this is causing the rate debate, I am not sure he is entirely correct. We are very supportive of more competition in the market. The debate has become confused because people believe we have exorbitant margins. I have pointed out that the ECB rate is not the reference point; it is 3% of our deposits; therefore, we are making thin margins, while trying to guarantee a shareholder return, even at the point to which we have reduced the current rates. If one starts out with a premise that one is not profiteering, one has a very different funding rate from the rest of Europe. Recovering bad credit with a view to trying to borrow on the market and lend is our reality, for which there is no benchmark in the rest of Europe. Therefore, I am not sure the competition issue will change everything that much. For the long-term health of the economy, there will be a need for more competition. This will come from non-bank providers. Some 80% of SME lending in Ireland is with banks, but some 80% of SME lending in America is with non-banks. Therefore, the dynamic of the model will change. Internet lending providers will enter the market in force and scale and this will result in a different form of competition. It is not always just about another bank in a geographical location. The competition will come over time. Ulster Bank is staying, as has been made public, and one will see Permanent TSB drive recovery with strength; one will also see Internet providers. Banks such as RaboDirect are offering a direct channel. All of this will normalise over a period.

I was very interested in Mr. Duffy's comments on the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO, which does superb work. It is a model I would like to see rolled out across the entire banking sector and paid for by it. It would benefit the banks considering that all of us engage with distressed borrowers and distressed lenders such as Allied Irish Banks regularly. There is no doubt but that the opportunity for people to go to an independent expert to take them through the process is very helpful. Does the IMHO deal with the buy-to-let market? The delegates mentioned residential borrowers. What about a buy-to-let borrower whose loan is not connected to a principal dwelling? Is the service applicable in this case?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. The IMHO can deal with buy-to-let mortgages if there is one buy-to-let property. Effectively, where there is a consumer with a buy-to-let property, we have a different engagement channel than for somebody with five to ten buy-to-let properties, which is another segment of the market. However, to the extent that somebody has a buy-to-let property that has now become the principal private residence because he or she has moved into it, or to the extent that he or she has a single buy-to-let property that makes him or her a consumer buy-to-let owner rather than a professional buy-to-let owner, the answer is "Yes."

On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegates for attending and participating. I also thank them for the material they supplied to the committee.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 November 2014.
Barr
Roinn