Carrot/stick
Registered User
- Messages
- 28
Ah, yes I understand now what you're asking.
So with AIB a split is 2 separate contracts. There's a 'good' portion and a warehoused portion. Legally there are 2 separate loans, and AIB generally can't move amounts between the 2.
It doesn't actually matter if AIB ever expect to receive any of the warehoused amount back, as it's now a completely separate contract that just happens to be secured against the same asset. Typically there are 100% provisions against the warehoused balance as the good portion is written down to the asset value. But they have a good loan that's performing once it goes through 'curing' phase.
The customer is still legally obliged to repay the full amount.
In the case of PTSB, legally there is a single contract with a senior / junior debt part. The review clause allows PTSB to move amounts between the 2. Because it's a single contract, the entire is non-performing.
In substance, both are trying to achieve the same thing, but because of the legal contracts they are treated differently.
What PTSB have proposed is better for customers - they want to write off completely the warehoused portion. But because of the above, the remaining part would be classed as non-performing, so there's no benefit to bank.
AIB could in certain circumstances write off without impacting classification.
That's my understanding - if the rest of it is performing! They've asked the ECB to change rules so that if they write off warehoused portion, where the remainder is performing, that they can treat is as a performing loan.PTSB want to write off the warehoused portion? That would eat up a a massive chunk of their capital.
That's my understanding - if the rest of it is performing! They've asked the ECB to change rules so that if they write off warehoused portion, where the remainder is performing, that they can treat is as a performing loan.
It would counter-intuitively release capital; They've already taken a hit through P&L for the warehoused part where it's written to zero, but because the remaining is treated as non-performing they have to hold excess capital for future losses on them.
The other option is to sell them, which is the same write-off, or possibly more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?