who's going to run NAMA and should they be trusted

mox54

firST, I disagree with the whole concept of NAMA, it is a mistake and a very expensive one too.

who'll run NAMA, who are they and can we trust them to do it properly...are these the same people/civil servants who walked us into this mess in the first place.....it's all very scary:eek:

weird

Fianna Fáil is helping out their Developer buddies again... I'd say at this rate it'll be Bertie

is_that_so

A perusal of the website might have helped you in formulating your question. http://www.nama.ie/

mox54

i was speaking to a developer last night who's business is near collapse and he expects nama to bail out builders by restarting a lot of developments and finishing them off for sale....these guys have some neck and the whole thing stinks.......;)...why are we putting up with it?

is_that_so

NAMA is designed to help the banking system not developers. He'll still have to pay back his FULL loan even if NAMA buys it as a discount from his bank. He's also likely to find banks far less receptive to requests for large loans in the future. If NAMA forces sales it'll be to cover loans outstanding against them not to restart developments. However if some need to be completed it is not unreasonable to assume that they'll need smaller builders unless they just use the developers themselves. But there's no reason for your developer friend to believe that NAMA will award his "failing" business any work.

A lot of loans are also secured on land banks which are now worth a fraction of what they were. There has been talk of such land banks being repossessed by NAMA and being passed to the Government to be used for public/social housing.

SkepticOne

mox54 wrote: »

i was speaking to a developer last night who's business is near collapse and he expects nama to bail out builders by restarting a lot of developments and finishing them off for sale....these guys have some neck and the whole thing stinks.......;)...why are we putting up with it?

Yes it is effectively a bailout for developers. It will also improve the capital position of banks and this is the reason put forward by politicians why NAMA must go ahead.

Time Magazine

Moved from Economics.

cyclopath2001

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes it is effectively a bailout for developers. It will also improve the capital position of banks and this is the reason put forward by politicians why NAMA must go ahead.

Does ths mean that bank share values will go up and bankers will keep their huge salaries, thanks to the use of money that was set aside for the provision of future social welfare pensions?

Martyr

Of course they can be trusted..tut tut.

FF set this up to benefit the country, there's no question at all, the biggest beneficiary of NAMA will undoubtedly be the Irish taxpayer.

why would FF screw us over? it's insane to even contemplate irish people are being fcked up the ass by a dozen or so guys in 4000 euro suits.

ah sure, everything is perfect..NAMA is a brilliant idea.

Lenihan is sayin in 30 years time this will be worked through. The way I see it is that we didnt buy all the properties as individuals so collectively we will get a 30 year mortgage as taxpayers to mop it up.

Its the easiest way to explain it to people. Ireland is a person who is getting continuous pay cuts (decreasing GDP, increasing unemployment) while they borrow more and more. Ireland was a property speculator and they bought too many houses. Although Paddy decided to buy up the rest of the houses for sale for the craic anyway (NAMA) even though he knew prices were falling and absolutely nobody else was buying. Maybe he thought he was being a cute hoor

worded

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0703/1224249965637.html

NAMA SCAM stop looking at where they want you to look
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=23895

NAMA - 90 Billion to our national debt. Accountants, Lawyers & Bankers get rich
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055637820

weird

is_that_so wrote: »

NAMA is designed to help the banking system not developers. He'll still have to pay back his FULL loan even if NAMA buys it as a discount from his bank. He's also likely to find banks far less receptive to requests for large loans in the future. If NAMA forces sales it'll be to cover loans outstanding against them not to restart developments. However if some need to be completed it is not unreasonable to assume that they'll need smaller builders unless they just use the developers themselves. But there's no reason for your developer friend to believe that NAMA will award his "failing" business any work.

A lot of loans are also secured on land banks which are now worth a fraction of what they were. There has been talk of such land banks being repossessed by NAMA and being passed to the Government to be used for public/social housing.

Um, when do I get my bail out?

Banks should be nationalized and the developers shouldn't be propped up. Let them go bankrupt I say.

Instead of the developers carrying the bad debt, we will! Great I dea Cowen!

weird

Martyr wrote: »

Of course they can be trusted..tut tut.

FF set this up to benefit the country, there's no question at all, the biggest beneficiary of NAMA will undoubtedly be the Irish taxpayer.

why would FF screw us over? it's insane to even contemplate irish people are being fcked up the ass by a dozen or so guys in 4000 euro suits.

ah sure, everything is perfect..NAMA is a brilliant idea.

I love it!

is_that_so

weird wrote: »

Um, when do I get my bail out?

Banks should be nationalized and the developers shouldn't be propped up. Let them go bankrupt I say.

Instead of the developers carrying the bad debt, we will! Great I dea Cowen!

And once they are nationalised where are they going to get funds if it's not from us? This alone is another cost to the taxpayer and we'd really be "bailing them out".

Part of the reason nationalisation was not considered was the cost of doing so. We can't afford it. A further element was the effect of such a nationalisation on the country's ability to borrow for that nationalisation and our other needs, on international markets. That type scenario would have meant chances of the IMF intervention becoming a reality.

weird

is_that_so wrote: »

And once they are nationalised where are they going to get funds if it's not from us? This alone is another cost to the taxpayer and we'd really be "bailing them out".

Part of the reason nationalisation was not considered was the cost of doing so. We can't afford it. A further element was the effect such a nationalisation on the country's ability to borrow to pay and the rates it would pay for that nationalisation and our other needs. That type scenario would have meant chances of the IMF intervention becoming a reality.

Who says IMF intervention is a bad thing? I think we could use some oversight and management of our economy. The clowns in power have gone completely unchecked that's why we are where we are at now.

If the banks get nationalised then we are owners. No more massive bonuses. Credit would flow to small businesses and most importantly we'd reap the rewards when the economy turns back aorund, not the fat cats.

As it stands now, we are getting all of the bad debt anf none of the good. All we are doing is giving carte blanc to these same fat cats to go about business as usual.

if they spill the milk again, no problem the tax payer will clean it up!

P. Breathnach

is_that_so wrote: »

... Part of the reason nationalisation was not considered was the cost of doing so. We can't afford it. A further element was the effect of such a nationalisation on the country's ability to borrow for that nationalisation and our other needs, on international markets. That type scenario would have meant chances of the IMF intervention becoming a reality.

How do you conclude that we can't afford to nationalise the banks? Without NAMA, they are worthless, and they could be nationalised for what they are worth -- just a small token payment.

NAMA is intended to save them from total collapse and, let's face it, it is going to cost us a lot (I don't give any credence to the suggestion that in the medium to long term it will wash its face or even make a profit). If we put billions into the banks, and the shares become valuable as a result, we would have effected a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders.

is_that_so

If the value of loans, good and bad is €90 billion then it's fairly obvious. Add in our current borrowing requirements and we couldn't buy a bank if we wanted. Anglo has already cost billions. There is also the question of the flight of deposits, the effect on shareholders (not all of them are "fat cats"). On top of that add the reduction in rating to Ireland's debt and the resultant increase in borrowing rates coupled with our dwindling tax returns then you can see why NAMA makes mores sense. Then there's the matter of exceeding that "promised" 11% deficit by a huge amount. NAMA or a variation on it has been used before in other countries. Nationalisation offers a populist fix and would require large funds for some time to come, potentially screwing any possibility of recovery in the near future and leaving us with huge borrowing requirements. Northern Rock for example, a nationalised bank,has just announced losses about €1 billion.

NAMA does put it on the long finger but it does so, in theory, in an organised way. The big, big question is how the valuation of assets and loans will be carried out and in that I am certainly concerned.

Whether it will work or how long it will take is impossible to say, but it will certainly improve the balance sheets of banks and in theory get the banking system working again. Between a rock and a very hard place I'd prefer it to nationalisation. We're paying either way but at least NAMA offers a way to make the banks pay.

is_that_so

weird wrote: »

Who says IMF intervention is a bad thing? I think we could use some oversight and management of our economy. The clowns in power have gone completely unchecked that's why we are where we are at now.

If the banks get nationalised then we are owners. No more massive bonuses. Credit would flow to small businesses and most importantly we'd reap the rewards when the economy turns back aorund, not the fat cats.

As it stands now, we are getting all of the bad debt anf none of the good. All we are doing is giving carte blanc to these same fat cats to go about business as usual.

if they spill the milk again, no problem the tax payer will clean it up!

Latvia's experience to date and there are rumours of even more stringent conditions which may include tax and VAT increases.

Latvia secured an IMF stand-by arrangement worth more than $2.3 billion just before Christmas. Conditionality in the programme includes an immediate 15 per cent reduction in local government employees’ wages, a wage bill ceiling that mandates a 30 per cent cut in nominal spending on wages from 2008 to 2009, a cut in government spending equivalent to 4.5 per cent of GDP, a pension freeze and a value-added tax increase.

Link to story:http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-563607

AMIIAM

The IMF will sort out the unholy mess that Ireland is. The fiscal adjustments necessary would be spread proportionately, not as is happening under this monstrous regime who are protecting their obscenely rich cronies, and shafting the poor.

spoutwell

NAMA is a vain attempt to prop up the banks and the price of property.
The gov. and the judiciary are trying every trick to prevent Carroll's 'empire' being sold off by a receiver. There is talk in the media of some development land being written off at agricultural value - thats €6,000-€20,000 for something that cost up to €1 million an acre as residential -zoned land.
Too many Fianna Failers are up to their necks in property. They will sell the country out to try and prop up the value of their assets.
But the banks must pay back what they borrowed to create the Celtic Tiger - the country's external debt is €1.67 billion, and the chances of that are nil.
How many years are the 'govt. bonds' for that will pay the banks for their bad loans? What happens when the bondholders come to cash them in?
Iceland 'went broke' and now its recovering.
Fianna Fail want the country to recover by borrowing more money when we're already broke.
Iceland has a much lower exteranl debt/ GDP ratio.