No bailout money has gone into the banks

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You cannot ignore ELA Guys! It is about as large as all our borrowings from all sources to date since 2008 inclusive.

ELA isn't something that the Irish government are on the hook for, but the ECB. If the ECB goes bust, then we've a lot more trouble than either the the deficit or the GGD (which is why I'm not worried about it because the Germans are pragmatic, not suicidal).

jmayo

antoobrien wrote: »

The deficit for 2008, 2009 & 2010 was €56.1bn (exchequer statements).

The value of the banks payments were to 2010 were €4.725bn. Without the bank bailout & guarantees we were still €51.375bn in defecit by the end of 2010.

So yes were would still have needed the bailout. It would have been about €17bn smaller (the portion we are borrowing to fund the banks according to the troika agreement)

So you are saying that the markets would have frozen us out even without the huge bank debts/bond repayments being made soverign ?

BTW where did all the money that was used to fund NAMA and bank recapitalisation come from again and who owes it ?
AFAIK it comes to a hell of a lot more than 17 billion. :rolleyes:

BTW I am not one of these people that believes the banks are the reason we need cutbacks, but I do think we could have staggered on without the bailout if we hadn't the banks hanging around our necks.
Actually much like Spain could have staggered along until the banks came a calling.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

ELA isn't something that the Irish government are on the hook for, but the ECB.

Wrong. The Irish Government pays it off through those famous Anglo Promissory Notes.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Wrong. The Irish Government pays it off through those famous Anglo Promissory Notes.

Promissory notes is for IBRC, so how does that effect the (ELA) lending to AIB, BOI & PTSB?

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You cannot ignore ELA Guys! It is about as large as all our borrowings from all sources to date since 2008 inclusive.

It permits an operation where a sovereign ( or is it?? ) Central Bank creates a security that is acceptable to the ECB for Repo Operations etc.

Sponge Bob, the ELA is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the use of the troika bailout money, of which the ELA does not form any part. Please desist from further off-topic posting. If you need that officially, we can do that.

regards,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

jmayo wrote: »

So you are saying that the markets would have frozen us out even without the huge bank debts/bond repayments being made soverign ?

Yes that's my opinion.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW where did all the money that was used to fund NAMA and bank recapitalisation come from again and who owes it ?
AFAIK it comes to a hell of a lot more than 17 billion. :rolleyes:

NAMA funding has been dealt with extensively in this forum, I suggest you go search if my previous answer isn't detailed enough - however it's not funded from government coffers so we don't need to worry about it (here).

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I am not one of these people that believes the banks are the reason we need cutbacks, but I do think we could have staggered on without the bailout if we hadn't the banks hanging around our necks.

The figures shown in this thread make it clear that the banks aren't the millstone that people seem to believe it was. As I've said earlier:

antoobrien wrote: »

but even if the banks hadn't failed in September 2008 we'd still have a significant deficit. The total deficit since 1/1/2008 is approx €87.5 billion (based on exchequer statements up to the end of May). Taking out the €15bn paid to the banks, the non-banking portion of the deficit is €72.5bn.

The problem was always the deficit, the bank failure was just the tipping point.

jmayo wrote: »

Actually much like Spain could have staggered along until the banks came a calling.

The difference between us and Spain is that it took a few extra years for their deficit to become a problem. They are already in a deficit correction program (or whatever its called). The only reason they've come after Spain now is that there were easier targets hanging about (Greece in particular). I've no doubt that about this time next year we'll start drifting back into the markets sights, if we're not there already.

Dotsie~tmp

antoobrien wrote: »

Yes that's my opinion.


NAMA funding has been dealt with extensively in this forum, I suggest you go search if my previous answer isn't detailed enough - however it's not funded from government coffers so we don't need to worry about it (here).



The figures shown in this thread make it clear that the banks aren't the millstone that people seem to believe it was. As I've said earlier:




The problem was always the deficit, the bank failure was just the tipping point.



The difference between us and Spain is that it took a few extra years for their deficit to become a problem. They are already in a deficit correction program (or whatever its called). The only reason they've come after Spain now is that there were easier targets hanging about (Greece in particular). I've no doubt that about this time next year we'll start drifting back into the markets sights, if we're not there already.

So your saying its the debt burden that locked us out, of which the soverign debt/deficit spending mattered most? Have you not considered markets factoring in future bank liabilities? The global economy is cooling and the Euro is no longer guaranteed survival. The banks are an open ended potentially huge liability in such scenarios.

Sponge Bob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sponge Bob, the ELA is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the use of the troika bailout money, of which the ELA does not form any part. Please desist from further off-topic posting. If you need that officially, we can do that.

The table you posted originally shows Troika Money going into the banks. Arguably 60% was 'our' money (NPRF) and 20% was Borrowed in Market operations ( we ran a current account deficit in each year shown as you may choose to recall which funded much capital and current spending and still does although capital spending is anorexic as one would expect).

The final 20% ( the exchequer portion of PCAR B ) was Troika money.

When the Troika moved in c.12/2010 we still had around €15bn of NTMA funds borrowed in Market Operations The PCAR B adequacy ratios statement was published in March 2011 and we drew heavily (€11bn) off the Troika/IMF between Dec 2010 and Feb 2011 (compare note 7 in each link)

On a narrow technicality the PCAR B operations did not result in any significant dilution of pre 2009 shareholders in AIB/BoI and PCAR A era operations resulted in Nationalisation or major dilution of existing shareholders so the correct posiition is that we took over 2 of the banks with our own money and money we borrowed ourselves and sadly we rescued Anglo and Nationwide from bankruptcy.

I think BoI did not participate in our PCAR B funding slosh and raised funds on the open market, PCAR B did not result in the state gaining any significant further shareholding in BoI. However I do not think the Permo takeover was funded under PCAR B but was a later panic operation paid for by the TROIKA/IMF. You could possibly add a few quid to that €20bn total so.

The sum total of the drawdown of the Troika/IMF funds will reach €45Bn at the end of this month which will be the first time that we owe the Troika/IMF as much as we seemingly owe the ELA operation as it happens.

We have further drawing rights of €22.5bn between now and around the end of 2013 by which stage we will have exhausted our EU/IMF bailout timeline/fund We ran a deficit of €6.6bn in the first 5 months which implies a run rate of nearly €16bn a year.

So no, we didn't pay in full for the banks, I think we merely used the NPRF as a slush fund as and when required to avoid being seen overborrowing in Market Operations.

Pottler

No Bailout money went directly to the banks because that keeps the bailout debt amounts firmly on the books of the Soverign. Much nicer to have a whole Country and its taxpayers on the hook for the money than some rocky Bankers. The Troika may be ruthless, but they're not dumb.

Sponge Bob

Sovereign drew down Troika funds and shovelled them straight into the banks, the OP was commenting on the provenance of Capitalisation and Nationalisation funds.

antoobrien

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

So your saying its the debt burden that locked us out, of which the soverign debt/deficit spending mattered most?


No, I'm saying that if we hadn't had the bank problem we'd have lasted about another year before a bailout.

Take a look at the bailout again - we're borrowing €17bn over 3 years for banks. That's roughly equal to the average annual deficit over the past 4 years.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Have you not considered markets factoring in future bank liabilities?

Yes I have - after all I'm not claiming that the banks are totally irrelevant. What I believe is that they're not, and are nowhere near being, the main problem we have.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

The global economy is cooling and the Euro is no longer guaranteed survival.

What has that got to do with the topic at hand? We're discussing the curious accounting arrangements around the use of the bailout money, not the future of it.

Btw no currency is guaranteed survival, just take a look at the Zimbabwe dollar - it so devalued as to be utterly useless. It's an object lesson in the damage of inflation. But that is also o.t.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

The banks are an open ended potentially huge liability in such scenarios.

No they're not, like any entity (business, organisation or person) - they're only liable for what they owe. However calculating what they owe isn't the easiest thing, even with full access to the books.

Sponge Bob

They are not open ended. They owe around €150bn and we have not even started on the €30-50bn of mortgage writedowns and personal insolvencies coming down the tracks.

Closed ended to the tne of around €200bn I make it. BUT we only spent €20bn shown in the OP acquiring those liabilities and the bulk of the liability is still expressed as ECB Repo cash.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They are not open ended. They owe around €150bn and we have not even started on the €30-50bn of mortgage writedowns and personal insolvencies coming down the tracks.

Where do you get this rubbish out of sponge? Or do you realize that the second round of capitalisation is aimed at Blackrock's estimation of further losses totaling €16bn.

So come on put some sources forward (that aren't newspaper articles written by hacks that can't add).

Sponge Bob

Blackrocks estimate is too low. Mind you so were 2009 and 2010 estimates of capital adequacy and injections designed to deal with that undercapitalisation. These are shown in the original post.

Since then the Permo has made a few glugging noises, last summer and again in february 2012

Rather than read the media I suggest you read the likes of NamaWinelake who is a dab hand with the spreadsheets God Bless them.

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/2011-annual-reports-for-irish-banks-reveal-potentially-catastrophic-losses-and-additional-bailouts-requirements/

The 2011 annual reports for Bank of Ireland, AIB/EBS and Irish Life reveal the scale of losses that will be in store if our economy doesn’t turn around and grow. Each of these three financial institutions published two valuations for their loan-books – a “carrying value” which is what is reported in the accounts and represents the book value of the loans less a convoluted provision for impairments and a “fair value” which represents what the loans are worth today if they were called in and the underlying asset was used to pay off the loan.

Here is the summary of the loan books in 2011 which show that the overall difference between “carrying value” and “fair value” for these three institutions is an almighty €38bn which if it materialised would wipe out the entire capital base and need nearly €20bn in additional capital to boot, just to keep banks solvent.

To give them adequate capital buffers might involve a further €20bn. So €40bn, all told on top of the €72bn current and projected cost.

Carry Value vs Fair Value.

2010 Annual Reports.



2011 Annual Reports.



None of the banks have provided adequately for the losses they have cystallised so far, they have indulged in can kicking like converting Repayment to Interest Only and stretching terms to make the loans 'perform' .

Back to Namawinelake.

Weren’t the 2011 stress tests supposed to put an end to this drip-drip of bad news on the banks, which has entailed a journey from “cheapest bailout in the world” to what is beginning to look like “most expensive bank bailout in the world”? Yes, the stress tests were supposed to draw a line under the banks and their prospective losses, but the trouble is the economy is continuing to list, and our export markets are all looking shaky. We haven’t yet reached the depths in property prices projected in the stress tests, but we are on the eve of getting personal insolvency legislation which may crystallise losses for the banks as people use new arrangements. Last year’s stress tests may need to be revisited in a few months.

And the Personal Insolvency legislation will inevitably lead to a very disorderly deterioration in carrying values and in loss recognition.

There are perhaps €100bn - €110bn of mortgages out there. I posited a loss of €30-50bn of that €100bn mortgage book over time and driven by economic circumstances and personal insolvency factors both together with proper accounting recognition of losses realised but not booked to date.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Blackrocks estimate is too low.

Possibly, but then in 3 years we could decide they're too high. 1 year later there's no evidence to support your assertion that they're drastically low.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Mind you so were 2009 and 2010 estimates of capital adequacy and injections designed to deal with that undercapitalisation. These are shown in the original post.

The rules for banking capital have changed since the initial capital injections in 2009 - or have you head about Basel III The banks are capitalized to blackrock's

Sponge Bob wrote: »

And the Personal Insolvency legislation will inevitably lead to a very disorderly deterioration in carrying values and in loss recognition.

Won't be applied to chances who could have afforded but didn't pay the debt - estimated to be between 10% - 20% of mortgage arrears.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There are perhaps €100bn - €110bn of mortgages out there. I posited a loss of €30-50bn of that €100bn mortgage book over time and driven by economic circumstances and personal insolvency factors both together with proper accounting recognition of losses realised but not booked to date.

I presume you mean 30-50 in addition to the blacrock forecast losses - which are forecast to be €27 billion on the €140bn mortgage loan book between 2011-2013.

As for namawinelake

So far Ireland has spent €67.8bn bailing out the banks, comprising €62.8bn in cash and promissory notes directly injected into the banks, and a further €5bn gifted to the banks by NAMA in state-aid and for which we are now on the hook if property prices don’t recover

We haven't spent €67bn on the banks. We certainly haven't spent all the money on the promissory notes (amounting to half the total).

We have committed to covering up to €62.5bn of capital losses. The analysis on the potential loss is a theoretical exercise that would need the entire loan book to try and sell at once. How likely is that?

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The table you posted originally shows Troika Money going into the banks. Arguably 60% was 'our' money (NPRF) and 20% was Borrowed in Market operations ( we ran a current account deficit in each year shown as you may choose to recall which funded much capital and current spending and still does although capital spending is anorexic as one would expect).

The final 20% ( the exchequer portion of PCAR B ) was Troika money.

When the Troika moved in c.12/2010 we still had around €15bn of NTMA funds borrowed in Market Operations The PCAR B adequacy ratios statement was published in March 2011 and we drew heavily (€11bn) off the Troika/IMF between Dec 2010 and Feb 2011 (compare note 7 in each link)

Heh - that doesn't prove your claim, though, does it? We know that at most we're talking about the €6.5bn of Exchequer cash here, and you're simply making an assumption that because troika money was drawn down, that cash had already been used, which you don't know to be the case, and which as far as I know is not the case - the government has maintained a cash buffer throughout.

And I'll remind you we have a direct statement from Noonan that contradicts your claim:

However, the cost of bank recapitalisation to date has been met from our existing resources – cash reserves and the NPRF.

Source: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/06/00097.asp

Of the two of you, I admit to taking a statement by the Minister for Finance somewhat more seriously.

And, again, please try to stay on topic, rather than weltering around introducing every other issue relating to the banks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob

Minister Noonan would have been quoting his Departmental Civil Servants.

I'll leave the last word on them lads to his predecessor.....speaking to Ivan Yates on Newstalk.

http://thestory.ie/quotes-from-brian-lenihan/

BL: No you’re missing the point! This is an accounting device! This is not real borrowing! What the markets look at is real borrowing. Not accountancy devices… – April 26 2010.

So it was 'the cheapest bailout in the world' and 'we managed it entirely from our own resources'. Is that what I am meant to say in final summation.....?????

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Minister Noonan would have been quoting his Departmental Civil Servants.

I'll leave the last word on them lads to his predecessor.....speaking to Ivan Yates on Newstalk.

http://thestory.ie/quotes-from-brian-lenihan/



So it was 'the cheapest bailout in the world' and 'we managed it entirely from our own resources'. Is that what I am meant to say in final summation.....?????

Well, to quote BL, you're missing the point (of the thread). Whether it's an accounting trick or not, the money that has been put into the Irish banks has been treated in such a way as to ensure that legally - and in accounting terms - its provenance as "Irish own resources" has been kept beyond doubt.

And it's something the government both seems to have made a point of, and to be proud of. I'm not sure why that is, and the various issues of ELA, accounting tricks, etc, that you've raised are all entirely irrelevant to that point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pottler

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Sovereign drew down Troika funds and shovelled them straight into the banks, the OP was commenting on the provenance of Capitalisation and Nationalisation funds.

No, emphatically, the OP was commenting that "no bailout money went into the banks". It's also the thread title. And it's also entirely logical that the recapitalisation money was drawn from domestic funds rather than externally provided funding, because that does not muddy the waters in the case of a dispute as to who got what and who owes what. You are radically overcomplicating a simple transaction. Troika funds were provided direct to the Soverign and the state was instructed to use its own Capital assets to provide "liquidity" to the banking sector. To me that's blindingly obvious and simply "ringfences" the States absolute liability to repay funds received with no recourse (to either the electorate or the Troika) to plead absolution as "sure the money went to them bankers". The money was for State expenditure - so the money is the states liability. I would imagine it's a simple measure to ensure no room to renege on what has been agreed to date.:)Edit: Pretty much beaten to the punch by Scoffy there. I should have read on past your post Spongebob. :-)

noodler

I thought it was always the case unofficially that we would use our own resources first for the recaps.

The 85bn bailout was
22.5bn EFSF
22.5bn EFSM (incl bilateral loans)
22.5bn IMF
17.5bn Irish Resources (NPRF and Exchquer balances)

The NPRF's involvement in all the recaps since the bailout was a sure sign of this (the big AIB one in December 2010 onwards).

I don't think it is too significant.

Pottler

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Sovereign drew down Troika funds and shovelled them straight into the banks, the OP was commenting on the provenance of Capitalisation and Nationalisation funds.

Re-reading that, it's so wrong and so wide of the threads point that I have just now hit myself in the head with a hammer for having read anything else you have posted so far.:)

Sponge Bob

Where did the money come from for the July 11 and Feb 12 IL&P fundings Pottler and Scofflaw? These were not fully accounted for in the first post.

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Where did the money come from for the July 11 and Feb 12 IL&P fundings Pottler and Scofflaw? These were not fully accounted for in the first post.

The July recap is, in fact - €2.7bn in Exchequer cash for IL&P as per the table. There was no February recap - that was a court challenge to the sale of Irish Life. The State will be putting in another €1.3bn in exchange for Irish Life, which completes the PCAR requirement of €4bn for IL&P, by the end of this month. That money will also, I'm quite sure, come from "Irish" sources, and not be met directly from the bailout funds.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob

but the total pcar b exchequer disbursement was a tad less than 4bn....we'll say 4bn and all for ILP and ignore as rounding.. and does that not then mean that the exchequer gave none of the others a penny during the pcar b round ?

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

but the total pcar b exchequer disbursement was a tad less than 4bn....we'll say 4bn and all for ILP and ignore as rounding.. and does that not then mean that the exchequer gave none of the others a penny during the pcar b round ?

No, the 2011 PCAR payments were €3.9bn to AIB/EBS and €2.7bn to ILP - the total exchequer disbursement was €6.5bn

noodler wrote: »

I thought it was always the case unofficially that we would use our own resources first for the recaps.

The 85bn bailout was
22.5bn EFSF
22.5bn EFSM (incl bilateral loans)
22.5bn IMF
17.5bn Irish Resources (NPRF and Exchquer balances)

The NPRF's involvement in all the recaps since the bailout was a sure sign of this (the big AIB one in December 2010 onwards).

I don't think it is too significant.

The NPRF's total invovlement is €7bn in 2009, €3.7bn in 2010, €10bn in 2011 - total €20.7bn

Exchequer funding, including 28.5bn PN that has not yet been paid, is €42.1bn (leaving €13.6bn actually paid out).

The details of the Troika & Bilateral Lonas are available on the NTMA website
Summary of moneys currently disbursed to Ireland (€bn):
18.40 EFSM
12.74 EFSF
16.23 IMF
1.5 UK
0.1 Denmark

noodler

antoobrien wrote: »

The NPRF's total invovlement is €7bn in 2009, €3.7bn in 2010, €10bn in 2011 - total €20.7bn

Exchequer funding, including 28.5bn PN that has not yet been paid, is €42.1bn (leaving €13.6bn actually paid out).

The details of the Troika & Bilateral Lonas are available on the NTMA website
Summary of moneys currently disbursed to Ireland (€bn):
18.40 EFSM
12.74 EFSF
16.23 IMF
1.5 UK
0.1 Denmark

Sorry, I am not sure what point you were making with that post.


EDIT: Maybe you thought I didn't realise there were bailouts before the pre-2011 PCAR?


Regarding Exchequer contributions, I was almost certain that some of the money given to AIB/BoI (3.5bn each) and Anglo (4bn) in the early days of the bailouts were done via the NPRF but the Exchequer actually made contributions to the NPRF for the purpose.

antoobrien

noodler wrote: »

Sorry, I am not sure what point you were making with that post.


EDIT: Maybe you thought I didn't realise there were bailouts before the pre-2011 PCAR?

I suggest you take another look at my post, you should find that I've referenced the money paid in 2009 - before the PCAR tests of 2010 & 2011.

What I was attempting (lazily) to do was highlight the difference between expected totals that we will pay and the actual amounts spent and received (which I've stopped bothering pointing out).

The reason why I do this - if we ever get a deal on the PN, or say and exemption/extension on the Basel III rules - these figures will change.

Besides which I'm sick and tired of hearing outright lies from the likes of Nmamwhinelake saying that we've spent 67.5 bn.

Crap if you're going to make a claim like that the figures are:
13.6bn - Excehquer funding (including PN)
20.7bn - NPRF
=====
34.3bn - current outlay on Banks
+
30.0bn - NAMA Capital (i think it's actually 29, but I'll be conservative)
5.0bn - NAMA extra financing
=====
69.3bn - total outlay including NAMA
+
28.5bn - promissory notes potentially due
-3.1bn - pn bond bought by BOI
=====
94.7 - total possible outlay

noodler wrote: »

Regarding Exchequer contributions, I was almost certain that some of the money given to AIB/BoI (3.5bn each) and Anglo (4bn) in the early days of the bailouts were done via the NPRF but the Exchequer actually made contributions to the NPRF for the purpose.

No, payments to the NPRF are reported as capital payments and would show up in the exchequer statements as such.

The Anglo money did come from the exchequer. The €7bn paid to AIB & BOI came from the NPRF (see the OP or this post in another thread)

Sponge Bob

Where is the money coming from for our 1st ESM contribution in July? NPRF OR Our 'own' exchequer? We must stump up €1.25bn for that bailout in 5 tranches of €.0.25bn each.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Where is the money coming from for our 1st ESM contribution in July? NPRF OR Our 'own' exchequer? We must stump up €1.25bn for that bailout in 5 tranches of €.0.25bn each.

I don't know but if it was up to be it'd come from the NPRF - as the ESM (assuming that the counties representing 90% of the capital ratify it between now and then) is an investment (i.e. we will get a return from it unless all the capital is lost).

noodler

antoobrien wrote: »

I suggest you take another look at my post, you should find that I've referenced the money paid in 2009 - before the PCAR tests of 2010 & 2011.

What I was attempting (lazily) to do was highlight the difference between expected totals that we will pay and the actual amounts spent and received (which I've stopped bothering pointing out).

I am sorry if you feel you are repeating yourself on the thread but I am still not entirely sure how the information you posted relates to my OP.

antoobrien wrote: »

Besides which I'm sick and tired of hearing outright lies from the likes of Nmamwhinelake saying that we've spent 67.5 bn.

I don't agree with NWL adding in the C&AG reports on the overpayment whilst disregarding the monies recieved by the Governent for the guarantee fees and the various dividend-relates monies from BoI.

Although, the NPRF's record being what it is, it is probably fair to say we would have made at least the guarantee fees back if the money had been available for them to invest as they saw fit.

antoobrien wrote: »

Crap if you're going to make a claim like that the figures are:
13.6bn - Excehquer funding (including PN)
20.7bn - NPRF
=====
34.3bn - current outlay on Banks
+
30.0bn - NAMA Capital (i think it's actually 29, but I'll be conservative)
5.0bn - NAMA extra financing
=====
69.3bn - total outlay including NAMA
+
28.5bn - promissory notes potentially due
-3.1bn - pn bond bought by BOI
=====
94.7 - total possible outlay

Three small issues with that table:
1) NAMA is 32bn in nominal loans (unless you are subtracting some of the sales already)

2) I am not sure why you would 'minus' the BoI ubying the promissory note - as things stand (and assuming the BoI shareholders vote favourably) we simply owe 6.2bn next year (i.e. we have merely postponsed this years payment to next unless a deal is forthcoming).

3) Are you excluding the 17bn in promissory note interest because the transaction is circular? (I wish a Government spokesperson would actually make this point). I doubt we will get all this interest back but I live in hope.

antoobrien wrote: »

No, payments to the NPRF are reported as capital payments and would show up in the exchequer statements as such.

The Anglo money did come from the exchequer. The €7bn paid to AIB & BOI came from the NPRF (see the OP or this post in another thread)

My mistake, I haven't revisited the 2009 recaps in a while and forgot those early recaps were from two different sources.