NAMA: Not great, but the best we have

PunkFreud · 31-08-2009 1:10am #1

Firstly, I am aware that there are many NAMA threads already there, but otherwise I would be going off topic. Mods, feel free to merge this with another if you think it would be better.

NAMA is getting terrible press because we are all listening to the media, who will always jump on the anti- side. They don't want to be seen being for anything which the government wants. They will always sell more giving out about the whole idea.

Firstly, Fine Gael's idea is severly flawed. The "good bank" would just hand out loans to small businesses and the punters on the street. Seems good. However, this could potentially ruin the banks even more, costing the state much more. With the "good bank" handing out all the loans, there would be no loans for the other banks to give out (no customers). Thus their debts would cripple them even more with the loss of any future income. The fall of the banks would either A) cost the public even more ias they would then have to nationalise them or

the shareholders (many savers and pensioners) would lose their savings and (with the bank guarantee) would cripple the government as they are obliged to refund everyone's deposits.

Labour's plan is a joke. Firstly, nationalisation would cost the shareholders all their savings. Also, what would nationalising the banks do? It obviously wouldn't help, all we have to do is look back at the Anglo Irish debacle. Iceland were the only country to nationalise all their banks, and they were in dire straights. I did hear that there was a higher chance that the IMF could be called in if that happened, but I honestly can't remember.

Ok, NAMA. With NAMA, we would buying €80bn worth of loans for €60bn (remember, they weren't 100% loans, so the value of property bought would be higher). With no bad loans in the banks, they would be better able to lend again, meaning more loans for small businesses. The state could then sell off the loans/property in a number of years, and a profit could be made (it is highly unlikely that the value of property would fall again and again for the next few years).

I read today that Garrett Fitzerald is for NAMA and against a change in Government over the next few months. He is angry at his party and Labour for just moaning and shouting about it. They are against everything the Government is doing.

Personally, I agree with him. However, once the mess is sorted out I would prefer a change in Government.

EDIT: Just have to make this clear: I am not a Fianna Fáil member or supporter. Just because I think they have an alright idea doesnt't at all mean that I suport their party.

Sand · 31-08-2009 2:57am

Youre arguments a mix of the misinformed and the confused. Id suggest looking into the matter a little longer before you support a plan that involves borrowing 60-90 Billion ( !!!!!) for dubious purposes, with little or no oversight, and little or no guarantee of any positive impact on the economy.

NAMA is getting terrible press because we are all listening to the media

Nope, the media is actually behind the curve here. Its been poked out of its stupor by quite smart and qualified economists at site likes irisheconomy.ie who have time and again pointed out the flaws of NAMA and suggested other potential avenues for the government to take.

If anything theres now a full blown media onslaught of scaremongering by Fianna Fail and property industry shills in the media attempting to discredit the 46 economists and deride their input.

Firstly, Fine Gael's idea is severly flawed. The "good bank" would just hand out loans to small businesses and the punters on the street. Seems good. However, this could potentially ruin the banks even more, costing the state much more. With the "good bank" handing out all the loans, there would be no loans for the other banks to give out (no customers).

- Providing credit to the real economy is the purpose of the government intervention, remember? If the good bank is providing credit then thats a good thing. Fine Gaels proposal directly addresses the objective, NAMA is at best indirect and there is nothing in it to prevent the banks from simply taking the cash and battening down the hatches.

- The problem is not lack of demand for credit, it is lack of supply of credit.

The fall of the banks would either A) cost the public even more ias they would then have to nationalise them or the shareholders (many savers and pensioners) would lose their savings and (with the bank guarantee) would cripple the government as they are obliged to refund everyone's deposits.

- If we do NAMA we get overpriced, non performing loans secured on property as property prices collapse. If we nationalise, we get the bank assets that can be cleaned up and sold on. Nationalisation > NAMA.

- Under NAMA the shareholders and bondholders (who invested, with inherent risk) take no loss. The state takes it all. Under nationalisation the shareholders and bondholders get wiped out first for any losses suffered. Only then is depositors cash at risk.

Labour's plan is a joke. Firstly, nationalisation would cost the shareholders all their savings.

Labour are a joke, and so is your objection based purely on the interests of shareholders. Shareholders are investors. They invested, they didnt prioritise risk management. And they lost. I am sorry, but they lost. Shareprice may fall as well as rise.

The state should be totally disinterested in shareholders versus the interests of the taxpayer. If people put all their money in AIB or BoI shares I have one word for you...diversification.

Also, what would nationalising the banks do? It obviously wouldn't help, all we have to do is look back at the Anglo Irish debacle. Iceland were the only country to nationalise all their banks, and they were in dire straights. I did hear that there was a higher chance that the IMF could be called in if that happened, but I honestly can't remember.

We wont be nationalising all our banks. BoI and AIB maybe, but not all. And sorry to break this to you, but they are in dire staits. The only message nationalisation will send is that the Irish are facing up to the issues and not attempting to hide them - after the antics at Anglo Irish between the bankers and the regulator to deceive shareholders, a bit of straight forward reality might do Irelands reputation a world of good.

Ok, NAMA. With NAMA, we would buying €80bn worth of loans for €60bn (remember, they weren't 100% loans, so the value of property bought would be higher).

Actually, no real figures have been released. All thats known for sure is that NAMA wont be referring to market values to determine the purchase price. Instead it will rely on a makey uppy value called Long Term Economic Value. It is also known that NAMA intends to overpay for the loans - pay more than they are worth.

There is no point denying this. There is no point to NAMA unless it overpays for the loan.

With no bad loans in the banks, they would be better able to lend again, meaning more loans for small businesses.

Even with NAMA in place the banks will take losses on the loans and their balance sheets will be in bad shape for years. There is absolutely nothing in NAMA that compels the banks to lend ( nor could there be...) and it is actually very likely they will sit on the cash, batten down the hatches and try nurse their balances sheets back to health by restricting lending, slashing staff and pulling in deposits with high interest rates covered by jacking up variable rates on taxpayer mortgages.

This is why NAMA is such a terrible idea. We give 60-90 billion, and get little more than promises in return. Again, FG good bank gets to the root of the issue at the very least. As a concept its miles ahead of NAMA.

The state could then sell off the loans/property in a number of years, and a profit could be made (it is highly unlikely that the value of property would fall again and again for the next few years).

Really? That would make Ireland the first property bubble where prices didnt fall over many years. Japan took the route of propping up its banks when its property bubble burst...house prices there declined over the next 15 years, and its economy still has not recovered. Is that what you want for Ireland? Property has already declined 90% in some cases. 90%!

NAMA cannot make a profit on the loans. It is designed to overpay for the loans. If it profited on the loans it is pointless as the banks could simply have held the loan itself and profited on it ( AIB and BoI will continue to manage the transferred loans on a day to day basis) without introducing NAMA as a meaningless and costly additional layer of bureacracy.

I read today that Garrett Fitzerald is for NAMA and against a change in Government over the next few months. He is angry at his party and Labour for just moaning and shouting about it. They are against everything the Government is doing.

I am sure Garrett Fitzgerald is a very nice man, but his article is inaccurate and misinformed. And also puzzling, given the oppositions role is to pick holes in the government when the government is engaged on a dangerous and foolhardy plan, gambling the entire economic future of the state in the process. We need our opposition now more than ever.

The opposition have offered alternatives and solutions but the Fianna Fail response has been to stick their fingers in their ears, going "LALALALALALALALALA" and ignoring everything put to them. If Fitzgerald believes the oppositions role is simply to rubberstamp the governments actions, maybe going through the motions for the cameras, then it is a sad indictment of political system in this country.

Personally, I agree with him. However, once the mess is sorted out I would prefer a change in Government.

Why? What difference would a change in government make after NAMA is passed? The hands of any government would be tied unless they defaulted on the bonds used to underwrite NAMA which would be unthinkable. Fianna Fail know this - NAMA is their last gift to the boys (bankers and developers) before they gratefully retreat to the opposition benches to watch FG and/or labour try to clear up the mess that Fianna Fail created.

If NAMA is defeated, the government will fall - we can have a proper general election and bring about a government with a proper mandate tacking the issues, hopefully a government that will give more weight to the advice of independant economists as opposed to bought and paid for industry shills when they are forming economic policy.

donaghs · 31-08-2009 9:37am

Garret does seem like a nice man, but if you look at how his government handled the AIB mega-fiasco with ICI in the 80s - his endorsement of NAMA doesn't inspire me with confidence. Back then the Irish taxpayer had to pick up the bill for AIB, and got no guarantees, shares, or anything in return. Except a promise that that Irish financial meltdown had been averted.

donaghs · 31-08-2009 10:07am

It was a few years later but didn't AIB give Garret a dig-out too?
http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0217/fitzgerald.html

Count Dooku · 31-08-2009 10:27am

PunkFreud wrote: »

With no bad loans in the banks, they would be better able to lend again, meaning more loans for small businesses.

Small businesses don’t need loans
They need customers with money in their pockets.
FYI, Irish industry is growing, even with credit crunch

The Irish Republic saw a 9.3% rise in output, while the Netherlands (2.1%) and Poland (1.7%) also posted strong growth

We are performing better then any country in EU
It means that only ineffective parasitic businesses, like developers need cheap credit
BTW, even if NAMA will pass and banks will pay bondholders in full, banks will be not able to borrow money because it will be no opportunity for them to invest.
Everybody will be screwed twice - by public sector and NAMA
It means that people will not have spare money and they will be not able to start to buy overpriced houses again.
NAMA is useless without property bubble

jmayo · 31-08-2009 1:56pm

PunkFreud wrote: »

...
NAMA is getting terrible press because we are all listening to the media, who will always jump on the anti- side. They don't want to be seen being for anything which the government wants. They will always sell more giving out about the whole idea.

Ehhh sounds very much like typical ff supporter blaiming the meedja for all the problems :rolleyes:

PunkFreud wrote: »

have to nationalise them or the shareholders (many savers and pensioners) would lose their savings and (with the bank guarantee) would cripple the government as they are obliged to refund everyone's deposits.

Labour's plan is a joke. Firstly, nationalisation would cost the shareholders all their savings. ...

Funny how ned O'keefe and frank fahey were singing along these lines during the week.
It is nice to see how you are using their arguments about how poor shareholders (e.g pensioners) would be wiped out using nationalisation or FGs plan to let the banks go bust.
I said on here, or on another forum, how ff were suddenly coming out sowing fear about people losing their pensions and here we have more of it.

PS investing in shares is not saving !
It is gamble, a calculated risk.

PunkFreud wrote: »

... The state could then sell off the loans/property in a number of years, and a profit could be made (it is highly unlikely that the value of property would fall again and again for the next few years).

Yep that would be thinking alright, temporary blip in property prices, normal service will be resumed soon. What Irish propertty bubble :rolleyes:
Oh f**k it, there goes another pig by the window, would they ever stay on the ground :rolleyes:

PunkFreud wrote: »

I read today that Garrett Fitzerald is for NAMA and against a change in Government over the next few months. He is angry at his party and Labour for just moaning and shouting about it. They are against everything the Government is doing.

Personally, I agree with him. However, once the mess is sorted out I would prefer a change in Government.

Oh of course you do :rolleyes:
And finally throw in a bit about wanting new government to appear objective.

What type of government would you like, a one party one perhaps ?

Diarmuid · 31-08-2009 2:26pm

PunkFreud wrote: »

Firstly, nationalisation would cost the shareholders all their savings.

And that's bad why? The companies they owned failed. They lose their investment. It's Capitalism 101.

31-08-2009 2:52pm

Garret Fitzgerald isnt to be trusted on this issue, he is a vested interested...

http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0217/fitzgerald.html

From 1999

Former Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald has confirmed that AIB and Ansbacher wrote off debts of almost £200,000 that he owed them six years ago. He was in financial difficulties at the time because of the collapse of the aircraft leasing company, GPA, in which he was a shareholder. Dr Fitzgerald was quoted in today's Examiner newspaper as pointing out that the write off occured after he had left politics. He insisted that no favours were asked or given.

Responding to the report this morning, Dr Fitzgerald said the actions of AIB had nothing to do with the fact he was a former Taoiseach

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/08/31/story921211932.asp

By Vincent Browne

Mark FitzGerald told the Moriarty Tribunal in July that in April 1995 Michael Lowry, who was then minister with responsibility for most of the major semistate companies, contacted him and made an outrageously improper proposal.

(Mark FitzGerald is the son of the former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald; he is the major shareholder in the estate agents Sherry FitzGerald, and, at the time, was a trustee of Fine Gael.)

Mark FitzGerald and Lowry met in Powers Hotel beside the Dáil.

In his statement to the tribunal FitzGerald said: "Mr Lowry then told me that Marlborough House, of which Telecom Éireann (then a semistate company under the remit of Lowry's department) as the tenant, had recently been bought by Mr Ben Dunne, that Mr Dunne had been in touch with him, Mr Lowry, and wanted to get the rent up from »5 per square foot to »10 per square foot".

This would have involved an increase in rent of about €500,000 per year, €2.5 million over five years, which is the usual time span between rent reviews.

In August he was contacted by Denis O'Brien and in-formed that he, O'Brien, wanted to improve his "profile" with Fine Gael.

FitzGerald said that he advised O'Brien against making any contribution to Fine Gael in that context, although he went on to facilitate just that by furnishing him with the name of the organiser of the golf classic.

He subsequently became aware that O'Brien did contribute to the golf classic.

Fitz- Gerald was not asked by the Moriarty Tribunal if he had gone to anyone in Fine Gael other than the newly-appointed party general secretary Jim Miley, whom he had simply advised (according to FitzGerald) that it would be unwise to accept a contribution from O'Brien.

Worth reading the entire piece :!:

Long Onion · 31-08-2009 2:53pm

I ahve been wrestling with the issue for a while now, and listening to all those who are anti-NAMA, I seem to be missing something, if you can clarify it for me I would be grateful.

Firstly, I would like to state that I am not a FF supporter, nor a supporter of the Developers nor the bankers who are at the root of the problem.

The problem seems to be that we have €90 billion of loans secured on assets whose value is far less, the Banks have lent out the money and now have sizeable holes in their balance sheets, as a result, credit is not being advanced to where it is needed and this is retarding the growth in the wider economy.

In order to help me understand your answers, I will have to simplify this s bit so bear with me.

If we had Bank A and it had lent €90 billion to Developer B which was secured on assets worth only €30 billion, the problem is plain to see. NAMA would go in and take these loans off Bank A for say €60 billion, taking into account the percieved long term value of the assets. The Bank would get Bonds to the value of €60 billion which it could sell on the open market and repair the hole in the balance sheet, the remaining €30 billion would have to come from the Government in re-capitalisation or from the existing share holders or bond holders.

If we nationalise Bank A, we take over a bank with a hole in the balance sheet of €60 billion (the difference between the loans granted and the value of the assets). But we also take on the residential and commercial loans which are struggling, we will still need to re-capitalise the banks to the tune of €60 billion. So why is nationalisation to be preferred, I am presuming that if a Bank is nationalised, the shareholders and bond holders (as they then were) will not put up any further cash.

A huge amount of ordinary workers pension funds have a high exposure to Irish financial stocks so a nationalisation may have a big impact on many DC schemes, so the ordinary workers would end up paying this way also.

Can you let me know what I am missing here, as it seems to me that, although neither approach is ideal, Nama seems to be the lesser of two evils.

31-08-2009 3:05pm

Long Onion wrote: »

credit is not being advanced to where it is needed and this is retarding the growth in the wider economy.

Read the thread, it isnt retarding growth

Long Onion · 31-08-2009 3:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Read the thread, it isnt retarding growth

Sand wrote: »

- Providing credit to the real economy is the purpose of the government intervention, remember? If the good bank is providing credit then thats a good thing. Fine Gaels proposal directly addresses the objective, NAMA is at best indirect and there is nothing in it to prevent the banks from simply taking the cash and battening down the hatches.

- The problem is not lack of demand for credit, it is lack of supply of credit.

There seems to be a lot of contradictory info here.

SkepticOne · 31-08-2009 3:16pm

Long Onion wrote: »

If we nationalise Bank A, we take over a bank with a hole in the balance sheet of €60 billion (the difference between the loans granted and the value of the assets). But we also take on the residential and commercial loans which are struggling, we will still need to re-capitalise the banks to the tune of €60 billion. So why is nationalisation to be preferred, I am presuming that if a Bank is nationalised, the shareholders and bond holders (as they then were) will not put up any further cash.

A huge amount of ordinary workers pension funds have a high exposure to Irish financial stocks so a nationalisation may have a big impact on many DC schemes, so the ordinary workers would end up paying this way also.

The point of nationalising is that you minimise the problem of overpaying for assets to the benefit of shareholders but the detriment of tax payers.

It is unfortunate that bank shareholders have to take the hit, but that is not the fault of the taxpayer so why should the taxpayer stump up. If you own shares it is your responsibility and yours alone to ensure your money is invested wisely. Where is the benefit to the country of taking money from one set of pockets and putting it into another set?

Long Onion · 31-08-2009 3:29pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

The point of nationalising is that you minimise the problem of overpaying for assets to the benefit of shareholders but the detriment of tax payers.

It is unfortunate that bank shareholders have to take the hit, but that is not the fault of the taxpayer so why should the taxpayer stump up. If you own shares it is your responsibility and yours alone to ensure your money is invested wisely. Where is the benefit to the country of taking money from one set of pockets and putting it into another set?

Thanks, but maybe this is what i'm not getting - if we nationalise the banks, do we not take over an institution with a €60 billion hole in the balance sheet, and do we not need to plug the €60 billion hole?

SkepticOne · 31-08-2009 3:46pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Thanks, but maybe this is what i'm not getting - if we nationalise the banks, do we not take over an institution with a €60 billion hole in the balance sheet, and do we not need to plug the €60 billion hole?

What do you mean by hole in the balance sheet?

Valcin · 31-08-2009 4:09pm

I reckon the reason the government are so against nationalisation is because of the bigger picture issue.

While the banks have shown themselves incompetent at running themselves, it would be questionable as to whether the government would do a better job. If they nationalize you could find a situation where the banks are run(even more) in to the ground because they don't have any idea what so ever how to run a bank. Admittedly, the banks have proven incapable of running themselves but they would probably still do a better job at it than the government that gave us the Health service, the millions over budget Luas that doesn't join up etc.

If the banks are nationalized then you have the situation where by every mortgage holder in the country owes money to the government. The government effectively has control over your home. It has the power to turf you out if you don't pay your mortgage because they own the banks. People in financial trouble would start to ask themselves "maybe if I joined the Fianna Fail party then there will be less chance of me getting my house repossessed". Fianna Gael mortgage holders may get worried and start thinking about voting Fianna Fail in the next election.

Then you'll have a situation where people can't get a loan for their mortgage, business start up etc. so they go to their local T.D. asking them why they can't get a loan and asking them to sort it out for them and they promise that they will give them a vote in the next election. This opens the country up to all sorts of corruption. Every gangster and schister in the country will be trying to become a T.D. because they have control and power over so much money that can be easily exploited.

I know the above examples are extreme but there is a wider issue of why there shouldn't be nationalization. We've seen how corrupt the government was with power over planning permission, imagine how corrupt it would be having control over every mortgage in the country and control over who gets loans worth billions.

NAMA sounds like a load of bollocks but at the end of the day something needs to be done with the banks. Those who say its good don't know what they are talking about and those who say it's bad don't know what they are talking about because no one has a clue of what would happen if it's implemented. Something has to be done to get credit flowing and there doesn't seem to be any other ideas been put forward by the opposition or media. Also I reckon some peoples call for nationalization is more to do with some sort of love for an out of date, leftist ideal than any proper economic reason.

What are we, a bunch of Commie's?

Long Onion · 31-08-2009 4:14pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

What do you mean by hole in the balance sheet?

I mean that they would have to potentially write off €60 billion in assets from their balance sheets as the loans become impaired and the monies advanced cannot be re-couped due to the plummeting value of the assets upon which they were secured. So come the next reporting deadline, they show assets that are €60 bn down on previous estimates, this could render them insolvent.

Salvelinus · 31-08-2009 4:15pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

What do you mean by hole in the balance sheet?

The hole is just resting in the balance sheet

SkepticOne · 31-08-2009 4:52pm

Long Onion wrote: »

I mean that they would have to potentially write off €60 billion in assets from their balance sheets as the loans become impaired and the monies advanced cannot be re-couped due to the plummeting value of the assets upon which they were secured. So come the next reporting deadline, they show assets that are €60 bn down on previous estimates, this could render them insolvent.

OK. There is no way you can avoid this no matter what alternatives you go with. What the alternatives seek to do is put the burden on the risk takers (those that would have pocketed the profit had the gamble paid off). But once you have cleaned them out there is still a large amount to be made up and this will fall to the tax payer.

The most radical alternative is allowing the banks to fail. But this would mean that depositors would take a massive hit.

Long Onion · 31-08-2009 4:56pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

OK. There is no way you can avoid this no matter what alternatives you go with. What the alternatives seek to do is put the burden on the risk takers (those that would have pocketed the profit had the gamble paid off). But once you have cleaned them out there is still a large amount to be made up and this will fall to the tax payer.

The most radical alternative is allowing the banks to fail. But this would mean that depositors would take a massive hit.

Would nationalisation not transfer the full burden to the tax payer without giving us the option of renegotiating the price being paid? We would automatically be liable for the full initial amount loaned by the bank in the first place as opposed to the 75% ish proposed by NAMA.

Again, maybe i'm missing something here, but this is why I think NAMA may be the lesser of two evils.

Yixian · 31-08-2009 5:11pm

Valcin wrote: »

What are we, a bunch of Commie's?

Don't flatter yourself.

Sand · 31-08-2009 5:37pm

Would nationalisation not transfer the full burden to the tax payer without giving us the option of renegotiating the price being paid? We would automatically be liable for the full initial amount loaned by the bank in the first place as opposed to the 75% ish proposed by NAMA.

Again, maybe i'm missing something here, but this is why I think NAMA may be the lesser of two evils.

Look at it this way:

There is one scenario. There is a 60% loss (totally makey uppy value) on the loans the banks have recklessly made.

There are two solutions.

NAMA - The government forces say 30% loss on the banks, and get the loans instead. The tax payer then makes up the rest of the 60% loss on the loan. The bank balance sheet benefits from resucing the 30% they would otherwise have lost. The shareholders reap the benefit of any improvement in the banks shareprice/value as a result

Nationalisation - The Government recognises the 60% loss up front. Under NAMA the banks have already accepted a 30% loss, so for comparison purposes only the remaining 30% is important. To make up the loss 30% loss, instead of it being funded by the taxpayers, the obligatations to shareholders and unsecured bondholders are wiped out so that taxpayers are only liable for 30% Loans less the value of shareholder equity and unsecured bonds.

On top of this the taxpayers get a bank. They reap the benefit of any improvement in the banks shareprice/value as a result.

From a taxpayers point of view Nationalisation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NAMA

Under NAMA the taxpayer takes 100% of the banks risk. Under nationallisation, the shareholders/bondholders get wiped out first and the taxpayer only picks up the tab for the remainder. Its a vastly better option for the taxpayer.

Remember, Brian Lenihan has stated that Fianna Fail will write *any* cheques to keep AIB and BoI limping along. *Any* taxpayer cheques I should clarify.

If you consider AIB and BoI worth saving (I dont) then at least under nationalisation the taxpayer gets a bank for their money. The last time AIB was bailed out by the taxpayer, AIB repaid the favour by assisting people in evading taxes.

**** em. The taxpayer needs to be totally self interested here.

ei.sdraob · 31-08-2009 5:41pm

they are discussing NAMA on matt couper now on today fm, can listen online

SkepticOne · 31-08-2009 5:56pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Would nationalisation not transfer the full burden to the tax payer without giving us the option of renegotiating the price being paid? We would automatically be liable for the full initial amount loaned by the bank in the first place as opposed to the 75% ish proposed by NAMA.

No because nationalisation would not involve paying the full amount to anyone initially. The banks would essentially be brought into public ownership for nothing or a nominal amount. Then you split the assets and refloat the banks without the impared assets. Note that these assets are not liabilities but assets with an uncertain but probably low value. It doesn't eliminate the burden on the taxpayer; the state still owes the depositors and secured bond holders but, in theory at least, reduces it.

amacca · 31-08-2009 6:02pm

hmmm whats that smell?

just heard a certain monsieur fahey saying he was fully behind NAMA..

Surely the govt could get a better spokesperson to talk it up than him, wasn't it not too long ago he was telling couples at a meeting in Galway that there was never a better time to buy what with there being great value out there?

I hope he didn't plunge too many more misguided couples into crippling negative equity on the back of that pronouncement and I hope hes not plunging our entire economy into increased crippling debts on the back of this one.

"Ah sure I'm only a small player Matt" (what with my 50 or so properties in Ireland and abroad)

I ask again, why could they not get someone else to defend it? whats going on? Is the public not aware of this man and his interests?

oceanclub · 31-08-2009 6:09pm

Today we heard from John Mulcahy, the Dept of Finance guy that Lenihan has deputised to NAMA, that NAMA evaluations are based on two things:

1) That we are, right now, at the bottom of the market
2) That we will see property prices increase by 88% in 7 years - or an average of 9.5% increase per year between now and 2016.

Since both these statements are complete fantasies, how can anyone have any hope in NAMA?

P.

Salvelinus · 31-08-2009 6:18pm

amacca wrote: »

hmmm whats that smell?

just heard a certain monsieur fahey saying he was fully behind NAMA..

Surely the govt could get a better spokesperson to talk it up than him, wasn't it not too long ago he was telling couples at a meeting in Galway that there was never a better time to buy what with there being great value out there?

I hope he didn't plunge too many more misguided couples into crippling negative equity on the back of that pronouncement and I hope hes not plunging our entire economy into increased crippling debts on the back of this one.

"Ah sure I'm only a small player Matt" (what with my 50 or so properties in Ireland and abroad)

I ask again, why could they not get someone else to defend it? whats going on? Is the public not aware of this man and his interests?

At last some objectivity.

pat kenny · 31-08-2009 6:20pm

Hey ocean club do you have a link for that story?
Or was it on the radio?
If so which station?

They are some shocking statements if true.

ei.sdraob · 31-08-2009 6:26pm

pat kenny wrote: »

Hey ocean club do you have a link for that story?
Or was it on the radio?
If so which station?

They are some shocking statements if true.

ei.sdraob wrote:

they are discussing NAMA on matt couper now on today fm, can listen online

todayfm last word

SkepticOne · 31-08-2009 6:42pm

Article in today's Irish Tims.

Mr Lenihan said he was open to suggestions on amendments from the Opposition on areas such as transparency and accountability, adding that most discussion to date had focused on valuations.

Much judgment had been based on commentators’ own valuations of properties, valuations which “appear to be made on a back-of-the-envelope basis”, Mr Lenihan said. Valuations have not yet been completed, he said.

LostinBlanch · 31-08-2009 6:43pm

Well if anyone's interested to see what politicians have the largest property portfolios the tribune did a nice list yesterday. And surprise Fahey tops the list. Nothing like objectivity eh? :rolleyes:

As has been pointed out earlier Garrett Fitzgerald was bailed out by AIB to the tune of £200 K. The old boy network strikes again. So that's why I take his statements supporting NAMA with a pinch of salt.

Listening to Eddie Hobbs on newstalk at lunchtime he said that the banks aren't going to lend for the next two years and of course will want to put up charges for a sh*ttier service to further screw us. We have to have structures in place that protect taxpayers from being screwed on the double, one from overpaying for banks mistakes, two from lack of competition which will arise when all this ends and something to stop the banks upping charges as much as they can.

SkepticOne · 31-08-2009 6:44pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

todayfm last word

Looks like this programme will be available tomorrow on podcast here.

NAMA: Not great, but the best we have

Comments