Ministers approve draft NAMA legislation

jmayo

boa-constrictor wrote: »

There shouldn't be a burder to the exchequer to begin with. Why did they guarantee Anglo - because as Lenihan says "it was systemic". Anglo was not systemic. In fact if you were an Economics teacher and you were explaining systemic to a class of 16 years olds you could give Anglo as an example of a Bank that isn't systemic. BOI, AIB Yes, Anglo definitely No.

If this correction was left to the market it would be rough but it would be largely sorted out in a couple of years and we could start rebuilding the economy. What NAMA is going to do is ensure that the normal workings of a market economy don't apply and thereby stretch this out over 10 years or more.
...

Very good post and totally agree about Anglo.
By dragging in Anglo to this in the first place, we have added 70 odd billion of developer loans.
What percentage of this amount will ever be realised ?
Why was this bank included against advice from various sources including supposedly the Dept of Finance, the Central Bank, and some bankers ?

To us and old phrase "the dye was cast" that night and we will suffer the consequences for decades to come.

D.S. wrote: »

You are confusing several points though. The decision to bail out Anglo, while connected to some degree, is seperate to the decision to set up NAMA to protect the banking system and the wider economy. Even if Anglo had failed, NAMA still would of been set up and there would still be a burden on the exchequer.

There absolutely should be no burder to begin with. But that's nothing to do Anglo. There is a burden to begin with because Government spending got way out of hand. The public service spending is a joke for the return we get. Taxes were lowered to ridiculous levels during a boom time when we should of been saving money for the future. THe Government promoted the boom and spiked it's effect rather than taking counter cyclical measures that would of smoothed it out.
...

By not letting Anglo go, we are stuck with their dodgy loans.
Yes we might be setting up NAMA, but the exposure to the taxpayer would probably be lowered. Anglo has cost us how much already ?

Questions I always ask are: how many branches did Anglo have, how many normal account holders did it have, how many normal borrowers did it have.
Take these answers and try square them with the fact that our governmnet told us it was of systemic importance. :rolleyes:

Do you seriously believe that the government signing up
a) to nationalise Anglo
b) capitalise the two major banks
c) using NAMA to buy developer loans off the major banks
has no bearing on the ability of this country to source external finance at lower interest rates ?

As regards NAMA not having a burden to begin with, where will the government, sorry NTMA/NAMA, get the funds to purchase all these loans ?
Even if they get the 90 billion in loans for lets say 60 billion, where will they raise these funds ?

The banking crisis doesn't have anything to do with how the government allowed the public finances go out of control, but the tax payer ends up paying for them don't they ?
Either way the taxpayer is screwed.

boa-constrictor

D.S. wrote: »

You are confusing several points though. The decision to bail out Anglo, while connected to some degree, is seperate to the decision to set up NAMA to protect the banking system and the wider economy. Even if Anglo had failed, NAMA still would of been set up and there would still be a burden on the exchequer.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm intimately involved in this and unlikely to. If they didn't save Anglo they wouldn't have to sort it out. I took issue with this when they guaranteed the Banks because that was the mistake that made everything else necessary.

D.S. wrote: »

There absolutely should be no burder to begin with. But that's nothing to do Anglo. There is a burden to begin with because Government spending got way out of hand. The public service spending is a joke for the return we get.

I would have thought that in the context of the discussion we are having, it would be obvious that I am referring specifically to the cost to the taxpayer of recapitalising the Banks and the costs which will be involved in financing the Nama project. Public spending did get out of hand but our annual budget deficit pales into the background when compared to the potential liability from the Nama project.

Of course any government with even basic sense (or indeed any 12 year old child) would think to keep some of the surplus so it could be injected into the economy (or used to keep taxation down) in order to stimulate demand when the recession hits (as it always eventually does).

D.S. wrote: »

I would agree you could allow Anglo to fail but would any Minister of Finance of taken the risk it would bring in terms of the wider reputation/confidence to the wider banking system in this country?

What that effectively means is that every bank in the country can take whatever risks it wants; when they make billiions the shareholders can pocket the dividends and when they lose they have the benefit of a government guarantee.

D.S. wrote: »

Absolutely, if you let the economy run it's own course, the market would move to a more natural state but that does not mean the Irish economy would ever bounce back. Ireland is a small economy on the outskirts of Europe. We can not be successful as an economy without intervention of some sort. Letting this sort itself out could actually mean that we go bankrupt as a nation and spend a significant amount of time in a depression. I fundamentally disagree that free market thinking will ever benefit Ireland in the long term. As a nation we have few skills/benefits in this country that could not easily be sourced in Europe, in terms of large Corporations setting up shop here.

What your basically saying is that every good thing we ever did was based on handouts. I take offence to that. We are world renowned for food production for a start. We would have an excellent tourism industry if our high cost base hadn't caused us to become so overpriced and if the government recognised that an island economy needs a good transport infrastructure to flourish (I refer specifically to our pathetic road network and the ridiculous airport taxes).

Saying that you don't believe in the market economy is a pretty huge statement to make and I would submit that you wouldn't have been as quick to say this 4 years ago when the country was booming. Isn't it funny how quick people are to put out the hand when the bad times come.

D.S. wrote: »

I do not disagree with this. Everything here is correct.

Well thanks for that.

D.S. wrote: »

But the supply/demand of the Property market can be managed by the Government seperately to the management of the banking system.

I need to clarify something; what do you propose to leave to free enterprise after you have set the government up to run all big business, or do you think that there is room for any involvement in entrepreneurial activities by private citizens. If you do believe that a private citizen can get involved in enterprise do you expect him to compete with government run enterprise

D.S. wrote: »

I disagree that NAMA is a vehicle to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. The people who are failing on the most risky loans are the rich themselves???

If Nama wasn't set up the normal procedure when a development loan isn't repaid is that the bank would demand the loan, call on the personal guarantees of the director, obtain a judgement against him, send the Sheriff out to seize his Merdedes, his Range Rover, his speedboat, his helicopter and sell them and obtain an order for possession and sale of the asset in question. As such the developer stands to lose almost everything.

With Nama what will happen is that the loan will be extended for years and interest rolled up. Additional funds will be advanced (this is provided for in the draft legislation) to complete the developments and they will eventually be liquidated some time in the future. Nothing will be seized and there will be no pain for the developer. This will not provide a profit for Nama because the loans will have rolled up to a level which will mean that the proceeds of sale of the development will not even discharge the loan never mind produce a surplus. If you don't believe me get a calculator out and roll up the debt of €1,100,000,000 in Liam Carrolls group of companies for say 7 years at an appropriate interest rate, say cost of funds + 4% (standard for protracted bridging loans). Then calculate what you would need to sell the property for to discharge the debt (remember to de-Vat the proceeds).

They reality is that Nama can re-arrange the deck chairs but it isn't going to make a bit of difference to the final result.

The developer is benefitting and the taxpayer is paying = transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

And don't suggest that Nama doesn't need to charge interest as this would be the final bullsh1t argument. There is a cost of funds to Nama too and if it isn't passed on you might as well scrap the whole thing and just write a cheque to the developer in question now and let him use it to pay off the banks.

D.S. wrote: »

I do not understand your argument here against NAMA. However, I do understand the anger that we are paying for this mess and it's not even our fault.

I believe in a market economy. I've been to Russia and I didn't like what I saw. I believe that if you invest your money in an enterprise and it fails you should take the loss and that if it succeeds you should take the gain and you should not be taxed excessively on that gain.

I believe in less government and less taxes.

D.S.

jmayo wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that the government signing up
a) to nationalise Anglo
b) capitalise the two major banks
c) using NAMA to buy developer loans off the major banks
has no bearing on the ability of this country to source external finance at lower interest rates ?

None of my posts ever suggested this??

The Governments ability to source external finance and repay is absolutely an issue. But that is a completelys seperate thing from the NAMA debate, i.e. did the Government do the right thing in setting up NAMA.

jmayo wrote: »

Either way the taxpayer is screwed.

+ 1

D.S.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

I took issue with this when they guaranteed the Banks because that was the mistake that made everything else necessary.

I don't agree with this. The Guarantee scheme was used as a way to provide international confidence in the banking sector and allowed our two systemic banks to raise much needed capital.

I don't believe any Minister for Finance would of allowed Anglo to fail as it the risk to the rest of the banking sector was unclear and as such that would be a risky bet. Therefore, the Government was always going to end up paying out hard cash to Anglo, rightly or wrongly, which means that the Guarantee scheme was not a mistake, and provided a useful mechanism to our two systemic banks.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

What that effectively means is that every bank in the country can take whatever risks it wants; when they make billiions the shareholders can pocket the dividends and when they lose they have the benefit of a government guarantee.

Absolutely not. Proper regulation (national and supranational), serious and appropriate legal repurcussions for mismanagement at the board level. The issue here is that the banking boards got away with this mess scott free. But the central tenant of my arguement is that banks are fundamentally important to the economy, and so cannot be allowed to fail, and therefore NAMA was a justified tool in the Irish context.

Whether or not it is administered correctly is another thing, and I already have some doubts on that from what I am seeing.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

What your basically saying is that every good thing we ever did was based on handouts. I take offence to that. We are world renowned for food production for a start. We would have an excellent tourism industry if our high cost base hadn't caused us to become so overpriced and if the government recognised that an island economy needs a good transport infrastructure to flourish (I refer specifically to our pathetic road network and the ridiculous airport taxes).

Yes. I am. The CAP propped up our Agriculture industry, the CFP propped up our Fisheries industry, tax incentives to multinational businesses setting up here, the EU pumping billions of Euro into our national infrastructure, rhe Government paying for the second and third level education of it's people.

The foundations of our success were all based on intervention, not free market economics somehow evolving to favour a small Island on the periphery of Europe succeeding economically beyond the larger, more centrally located countries who had much larger and profitable natural resources.

If you think our Celtic Tiger was not founded on intervention, I think you need to look at the facts again.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

Saying that you don't believe in the market economy is a pretty huge statement to make and I would submit that you wouldn't have been as quick to say this 4 years ago when the country was booming. Isn't it funny how quick people are to put out the hand when the bad times come.

That's exactly what I am saying. Particulary at this point in our economic cycle. I am saying intervention is the only way we can get out of this mess. The tax payer will pay for it one way or the other. Leaving this to free market economics is not a logical route out of this situation.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

I need to clarify something; what do you propose to leave to free enterprise after you have set the government up to run all big business, or do you think that there is room for any involvement in entrepreneurial activities by private citizens. If you do believe that a private citizen can get involved in enterprise do you expect him to compete with government run enterprise.

You are misquoting me. I have never once said that the Government should run big business. I am saying that introducing a tool such as NAMA and the Bank Guarantee schemes are appropriate if administered correctly. I am saying that intervention, when calculated, appropriate, and carefully administered, can stimulate less competitive economies such as Ireland.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

If Nama wasn't set up the normal procedure when a development loan isn't repaid is that the bank would demand the loan, call on the personal guarantees of the director, obtain a judgement against him, send the Sheriff out to seize his Merdedes, his Range Rover, his speedboat, his helicopter and sell them and obtain an order for possession and sale of the asset in question. As such the developer stands to lose almost everything.

With Nama what will happen is that the loan will be extended for years and interest rolled up. Additional funds will be advanced (this is provided for in the draft legislation) to complete the developments and they will eventually be liquidated some time in the future. Nothing will be seized and there will be no pain for the developer. This will not provide a profit for Nama because the loans will have rolled up to a level which will mean that the proceeds of sale of the development will not even discharge the loan never mind produce a surplus. If you don't believe me get a calculator out and roll up the debt of €1,100,000,000 in Liam Carrolls group of companies for say 7 years at an appropriate interest rate, say cost of funds + 4% (standard for protracted bridging loans). Then calculate what you would need to sell the property for to discharge the debt (remember to de-Vat the proceeds).

They reality is that Nama can re-arrange the deck chairs but it isn't going to make a bit of difference to the final result.

The developer is benefitting and the taxpayer is paying = transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

And don't suggest that Nama doesn't need to charge interest as this would be the final bullsh1t argument. There is a cost of funds to Nama too and if it isn't passed on you might as well scrap the whole thing and just write a cheque to the developer in question now and let him use it to pay off the banks.

The reality is that the developers have the debt wrapped up in complex legal entities where it will be extremely difficult for any bank to get back the majority of the losses in a reasonable amount of time. These developers will fight tooth and nail for as long as they can and the losses could be huge.

Now the problem is this, if the biggest banks are facing huge losses and embroiled in multiple legal battles to reclaim as much cash as they can, with huge writedowns to their balance sheets on a drib-drab basis, this will only serve to undermine international confidence in our banking sector, impact negatively on their short and long term financing resulting in the stifling of credit to the rest of the market.

As the tax payer we are going to take the hit anyway. I think it is appropriate to take these bad loans away from the banks. Pursue these developers to the full letter of the law, while allowing the banks to get back to basics. However, for this to work, the banks need to work in a completely new regime of regulation with appropriate consequences for making inappropraite decisions. My problem to date is that no new legal framework is being drafted as yet to make sure these mistakes aren't repeated.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with managing these debts on a case by casis, allowing some developers to forgoe payments for awhile, or to roll up interest etc etc, or even to consider settlements. This is all justified if it means the Government recover as much cash as possible. The Goverment will still be left with the assets, if necessary.

These developers are in serious trouble and there is a serious risk that this situation results in the developers packing up shop, and walking away, leaving the Government with huge debt. The Government needs to appropriately manage these bad debts and recover as much as possible, minimising the burden to the exchequer.

I don't see how the developer benefits if the developer is forced to repay as much of the debt as physically possible? I don't see a transfer of wealth if they have to repay these loans by selling/liquidating everything they own?? Couple that with the stress, the public humiliation, the bankruptcy and everything else that will follow. I'll qualify this by saying that the developers won't benefit so long as the Government commits to appropriately going after these people. If the Government takes a soft stance, well then that will be a travesty. But that is a seperate discussion to whether it was right/wrong to set up NAMA.

What I see happening is the tax payer paying for the writedown of value in the property market. This is not a transfer of wealth to the rich but a huge, and unfair price for the ordinary tax payer to pay.

What will be a huge injustice is if these individuals file for bankruptcy, walk away from their commitments, and leave the Country footing the bill. I hope NAMA and subsequent bills will provide the Government with the power to squeeze every last cent possible from these people, while protecting the banking system and the wider economy.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

I believe in a market economy. ........I believe in less government and less taxes.

I think your being overly idealistic and I don't think what you suggest will work in any way in the current environment.

I don't believe in Governments becoming overly interwined the market. I do believe that they can use incentives and certain tools, when appropriate, to stimulate the market to a certain agenda. Generally speaking these tools tend to be inefficient and never exactly result in succeeding the way they were intended. But they generally have a much more positive influence than leaving free market economics to run it's course.

I think NAMA is an appropriate tool, as was the Bank Guarantee, but it is crucial that both are closed out as quickly as possible.

I'd love less taxes, but we elected a Government who made the worst possible decisions during a boom, and now we'll have to pay the price in higher taxes. There is no way around this.

boa-constrictor

Your entitled to your view but I don't share it.

I don't agree that these transactions are structured in a way that would prevent the developers being pursued. Banks don't advance funds to limited companies for risky deals without personal guarantees (except for the sweetheart deals done by the a55holes in Anglo).

I don't believe for a minute that the govt will pursue these individuals as vigourously as the banks would (if they stopped holding hands).

I believe that the individuals who have been suckling at the FF power teat for years will get to keep their helicopters and my taxes will foot the bill.

As many people have pointed out, there are no repercussions for the people who caused this. If this was the U.S. Messrs Drumm and Fitzpatrick would be sharing the same exercise yard as Madoff. No chance here.

P. Breathnach

boa-constrictor wrote: »

Your entitled to your view but I don't share it.

I don't agree that these transactions are structured in a way that would prevent the developers being pursued. Banks don't advance funds to limited companies for risky deals without personal guarantees (except for the sweetheart deals done by the a55holes in Anglo).

I think you will find that many of the loans are secured only on the assets of companies, frequently on a particular asset.

I don't believe for a minute that the govt will pursue these individuals as vigourously as the banks would (if they stopped holding hands).

It will not be for the government to decide on such things. NAMA will operate on commercial terms.

I believe that the individuals who have been suckling at the FF power teat for years will get to keep their helicopters and my taxes will foot the bill.

They might, because of the way they have arranged their affairs. Why do you think the people with access to big money employ lawyers and accountants? Part of the reason is to ensure that if the business fails, their personal assets are safe.

As many people have pointed out, there are no repercussions for the people who caused this. If this was the U.S. Messrs Drumm and Fitzpatrick would be sharing the same exercise yard as Madoff. No chance here.

"Sentence first, verdict afterwards", as the Red Queen said.

boa-constrictor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you will find that many of the loans are secured only on the assets of companies, frequently on a particular asset.

Not so.

Development loans would never be secured on the development only. To do so would mean that the Bank was risking all the funds it put in (typically the majority of funding) and the beneficial owner of the company was risking only his equity input. It would be ludricous for a Bank to risk hundreds of millions for a return equal to the margin on the loan (of 2 or 3 percent) and leave all the potential gain (25 to 50%) to the developer for risking far less money. If this is how you think it works you haven't got a clue what your talking about.

If you have read the papers in the last week you will have seen Liam Carroll being pursued on foot of his personal guarantees for €60 mln. The fact that the guarantee might be deemed to be invalid is down to the incompetence of the Bank. The point is that it is the norm to take them. That loan by INBS was for €66.5 mln so it was almost a full recourse loan (90%). This would be the norm. I would concede that a loan for €1 billion might not be fully guaranteed but how many of these are we dealing with. The only reason that a €1 billion loan would probably not be fully guaranteed is because asking for a guarantee for a vast sum like this is nonsensical as who could ever satisfy it.

D.S.

boa-constrictor wrote: »

Not so.

Development loans would never be secured on the development only. To do so would mean that the Bank was risking all the funds it put in (typically the majority of funding) and the beneficial owner of the company was risking only his equity input. It would be ludricous for a Bank to risk hundreds of millions for a return equal to the margin on the loan (of 2 or 3 percent) and leave all the potential gain (25 to 50%) to the developer for risking far less money. If this is how you think it works you haven't got a clue what your talking about.

If you have read the papers in the last week you will have seen Liam Carroll being pursued on foot of his personal guarantees for €60 mln. The fact that the guarantee might be deemed to be invalid is down to the incompetence of the Bank. The point is that it is the norm to take them. That loan by INBS was for €66.5 mln so it was almost a full recourse loan (90%). This would be the norm. I would concede that a loan for €1 billion might not be fully guaranteed but how many of these are we dealing with. The only reason that a €1 billion loan would probably not be fully guaranteed is because asking for a guarantee for a vast sum like this is nonsensical as who could ever satisfy it.

That's not what he said. What he said was the loans have often be secured by assets of the company in question, often a particular asset. The problem is that these assets were typically other properties/land. Many of these securities have now devalued in line with the declining property sector leaving the banks over exposed.

The becomes extremely complex when developers like Liam Carroll have multiple companies with seperate securties, cash flows, and debt structures. With the debt and assets wrapped up in several legal entities, it can be difficult and expensive to gain full recourse under the law.

Now following on from that are two questions. Of all the loans open to Liam Carroll or any such developer, how much of that could realistically be recovered if/when it has to? Could NAMA as a commercial entity ensure that the recovery process is well managed, particular when more than likely, they may have to rely on the Credit Management services/expertise of the existing banks?

Sponge Bob

D.S. wrote: »

Could NAMA as a commercial entity ensure that the recovery process is well managed, particular when more than likely, they may have to rely on the Credit Management services/expertise of the existing banks?

I was wondering when that would come up.

The 1st €30bn of NAMA wonga is supposed to come from 50 developers. You could theoretically chase that many but they will have cash stashed to pay for lawyers to make things awkward.

For the Second €30bn you will be dealing with up to 1000 individuals , directors accountants solicitors etc .

The LAST €30bn is owed by chancers like Jimmy Clancy in Galway who owe in the range €5m-€10m each and who have transferred vast amounts out of the state and to the wife and some of whom have gifted the kids rather generously . Local knowledge is utterly vital to the unravelling of this sort of mess.

For each €5m of loans you will likely have to chase 2-3 people and account for every penny in a labyrinth . Scaling that up to €30bn leaves you chasing up to 20,000 people . A sizeable amount of the population but indicative of the scale of the development frenzy in Ireland in the mid decade .

NAMA will never be able to do itself that but AIB and BoI staff who are surplus to requirements in their lending operations could be set on these smaller operations to see what they can get back .

When the bank 'levy' comes up ( it is not in the NAMA act) the issue of secondment to NAMA will also have to be discussed .

boa-constrictor

D.S. wrote: »

That's not what he said. What he said was the loans have often be secured by assets of the company in question, often a particular asset.

It would save alot of time if you read what he said. He said;

I think you will find that many of the loans are secured only on the assets of companies, frequently on a particular asset.

My point is that they are never secured on the asset only (except perhaps when the Anglo geniuses are at work).

P. Breathnach

boa-constrictor wrote: »

It would save alot of time if you read what he said. He said;

I think you will find that many of the loans are secured only on the assets of companies, frequently on a particular asset.

My point is that they are never secured on the asset only (except perhaps when the Anglo geniuses are at work).

I'm not getting into a pissing contest. Let's wait and see how things play out.

SkepticOne

I think most of us can agree that the vast bulk of funds lent out to developers will never be returned. NAMA is being set up so that that money is never repaid to the tax payer rather than banks (their shareholders and bond holders).

To mitigate the effect on tax payers, an extremely optimistic view is being taken of the market. By pretending that things are going to pick up in a few years, the public are being led to believe that they're getting a better deal than they are.

The effect of this will be to bail out developers.

It is not a commercial venture since no genuine corporation looking for a return for its shareholders will go near it. NAMA is being set up specifically to operate on a non-commercial basis.

boa-constrictor

Good man Skeptic One. At last someone who hasn't been blinded by Brian Cowen's charm......

These other guys will get their planning permission and all the favours that FF can bestown upon them but me and you will keep our integrity.

(normally my tone is much angrier but I'm just in from the pub and subdued by drink).

jmayo

D.S. wrote: »

None of my posts ever suggested this??

The Governments ability to source external finance and repay is absolutely an issue. But that is a completelys seperate thing from the NAMA debate, i.e. did the Government do the right thing in setting up NAMA.

Why is it separate ?
Where will NAMA get the money to buy these loans, how much does NTMA have ?
If the loans are bought back at too low a value, we have to put more capital into the banks.
NAMA is going to raise funds by tryiing to flog government bonds to pensions funds it apepars.
As if my f***ing pension wasn't bad enough, they are going to pis* what's left of it on this :mad:

D.S. wrote: »

I don't agree with this. The Guarantee scheme was used as a way to provide international confidence in the banking sector and allowed our two systemic banks to raise much needed capital.

I don't believe any Minister for Finance would of allowed Anglo to fail as it the risk to the rest of the banking sector was unclear and as such that would be a risky bet. Therefore, the Government was always going to end up paying out hard cash to Anglo, rightly or wrongly, which means that the Guarantee scheme was not a mistake, and provided a useful mechanism to our two systemic banks.

...
Yes. I am. The CAP propped up our Agriculture industry, the CFP propped up our Fisheries industry, tax incentives to multinational businesses setting up here, the EU pumping billions of Euro into our national infrastructure, rhe Government paying for the second and third level education of it's people.

As the tax payer we are going to take the hit anyway. I think it is appropriate to take these bad loans away from the banks. Pursue these developers to the full letter of the law, while allowing the banks to get back to basics. However, for this to work, the banks need to work in a completely new regime of regulation with appropriate consequences for making inappropraite decisions. My problem to date is that no new legal framework is being drafted as yet to make sure these mistakes aren't repeated.

You said it there in "our two systemic banks".
Yet we have the large anchor of Anglo hauling us down.
If Anglo was so important why did so many people, supposedly from Dept of Finance, Central Bank and other banks feel it was unwise to include it in the guarantees ?
Very few know the whole story, but someday we might have a tribunal to enlighten us :rolleyes:

You must be the first person to believe the Irish fishing industry was propped up, if anything it was sold out to allow agriculture benefit.
More votes you see.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

...
The LAST €30bn is owed by chancers like Jimmy Clancy in Galway who owe in the range €5m-€10m each and who have transferred vast amounts out of the state and to the wife and some of whom have gifted the kids rather generously . Local knowledge is utterly vital to the unravelling of this sort of mess.

For each €5m of loans you will likely have to chase 2-3 people and account for every penny in a labyrinth . Scaling that up to €30bn leaves you chasing up to 20,000 people . A sizeable amount of the population but indicative of the scale of the development frenzy in Ireland in the mid decade .

NAMA will never be able to do itself that but AIB and BoI staff who are surplus to requirements in their lending operations could be set on these smaller operations to see what they can get back .

When the bank 'levy' comes up ( it is not in the NAMA act) the issue of secondment to NAMA will also have to be discussed .

Any chance that families can be chased for assets/money transferred to them over last 7/8 years ?

Sponge Bob

jmayo wrote: »

Any chance that families can be chased for assets/money transferred to them over last 7/8 years ?

I should think for a period of around 2 years before a personal guarantee was given , yes. If the transfer occured before then the family members will be in the clear I think.

Do not forget that daddy often promised dear daughter a house or a site but waited then years before he sorted out the actual paperwork . This class of offspring are in for a nasty shock in the next few years and a nastier one if they remortgaged it for a his n hers set of X5s

Each of these episodes of avoidance will have to be proven in court but that will be a relatively quick process in the Commercial Court , half a day to all get the necessary orders to repatriate the assets