So if Liam Carroll's properties hit the market tommorrow..

population

What do you reckon they'd be worth?

I cant see this happening because the banks (bar ACC, the only bastion of sense in all this) are locking arms around him to see that he makes it safely into SCAMA, but if hypothetically he was forced into a firesale, what do you reckon the discount would be???

irishguy

50%

D3PO

about 70% primary reason is most of it is commerical property and not residewntial. if it was residential it would be less.

its an absolute scam. government putting pressur eon to keep this under wraps until they pay over the top book values for the loans being taken on by NAMA.

They must think we are absolutly thick.

SkepticOne

population wrote: »

What do you reckon they'd be worth?

I cant see this happening because the banks (bar ACC, the only bastion of sense in all this) are locking arms around him to see that he makes it safely into SCAMA, but if hypothetically he was forced into a firesale, what do you reckon the discount would be???

The figure I've heard quoted is about 1/4 of the book value.

latenia

Aside from his unsold new developments that these loans relate to, Carroll personally owns over 1,000 apartments around Dublin which he has held on to for letting/investment. In short, even at fire-sale prices, he has plenty of money to pay back his debts.

D3PO

latenia wrote: »

Aside from his unsold new developments that these loans relate to, Carroll personally owns over 1,000 apartments around Dublin which he has held on to for letting/investment. In short, even at fire-sale prices, he has plenty of money to pay back his debts.

Which would be fine if he was personally on the hook. But hes not. Its called being a limited company ......

jdivision

It's been said in court he has borrowings of nearly E1.3 billion and if they were sold by a liquidator they'd be worth less than E300m so they'd be down more than 75%

The_Conductor

D3PO wrote: »

about 70% primary reason is most of it is commerical property and not residewntial. if it was residential it would be less.

I'm curious as to why you reckon commercial property is somehow weathering the storm better than residential property? The accounting standards governing financial reporting have obliged many pension funds to reappraise the value of their commercial holdings (even while the banks have been shielded from similar exercises). It used be that a company only recorded the asset value in its accounts at cost price- until such time as that asset were disposed of (at which time they would realise a once off gain associated with that asset). Accounting standards are years behind events- which is why banks are able to get away with purely hypothetical values on their assets- but if you focus on commercial values in their purest sense being composed of a multiple of their annual rental earnings (typically between 10 and 14 times annual rental income- depending on location and other factors)- it immediately becomes apparent that there has been a considerable drop in the market value of commercial property- and the risks are all downside- as rents continue to fall. The discounts on offer in some prestigious locations- such as Irish Life's Stephen's Green Shopping Centre (which include a lengthening of the 'hello' rent-free period for rental of some units), while they are negotiated on a case by case basis- are startling- when you consider this is supposed to be the jewel in the crown of Irish shopping.........

Duckjob

D3PO wrote: »

Which would be fine if he was personally on the hook. But hes not. Its called being a limited company ......

Limited company protection doesn't always apply though. For example, where the directors can be shown to have acted negligently or recklessly, their personal assets can be seized.

bobbysands81

There will be NO fire sale.

The properties will be managed in a way that ensures that the highest return possible is achieved.

Some might be sold, but many many others will be rented out.

The new Govt scheme, Long Term Leasing, will take up to 20% of them alone with guaranteed rents for 10-20 years.

The fun is only beginning...

stepbar

latenia wrote: »

Aside from his unsold new developments that these loans relate to, Carroll personally owns over 1,000 apartments around Dublin which he has held on to for letting/investment. In short, even at fire-sale prices, he has plenty of money to pay back his debts.

So you think he has more than 2.9 billion worth of property?

2.9 billion is how much he's estimated to owe all the bank. AIB (the lead bank) is owed 1.1billion of that. At an average of 200k each (lets say) even if he sold every apt he personally owns (or supposedly owns), the sum would come to about 200 million. That would not plug the 1billion deficit that the 6 companies under protection have. Carroll is ****ed and the only hope he has is if NAMA come to the rescue. He won't be trading out of this, that's for sure.

timo87

D3PO wrote: »

Which would be fine if he was personally on the hook. But hes not. Its called being a limited company ......

Would it not be the case that he would have given personal guarantees on these loans, was that not standard practice among developers?

Wouldnt this then remove the protection afforded by incorporation?

jmayo

Duckjob wrote: »

Limited company protection doesn't always apply though. For example, where the directors can be shown to have acted negligently or recklessly, their personal assets can be seized.

Yeah right what are the chances of seeing that ?
Afterall we live in a country where insider trading, misleading investors by serious breeches of normal company law is tolerated rather than punished.

stepbar wrote: »

So you think he has more than 2.9 billion worth of property?

2.9 billion is how much he's estimated to owe all the bank. AIB (the lead bank) is owed 1.1billion of that. At an average of 200k each (lets say) even if he sold every apt he personally owns (or supposedly owns), the sum would come to about 200 million. That would not plug the 1billion deficit that the 6 companies under protection have. Carroll is ****ed and the only hope he has is if NAMA come to the rescue. He won't be trading out of this, that's for sure.

From what I have heard, he has other serious personal worries right now.

Salvelinus

timo87 wrote: »

Would it not be the case that he would have given personal guarantees on these loans, was that not standard practice among developers?

Wouldnt this then remove the protection afforded by incorporation?

Or the loans may have been guaranteed with other properties?

D3PO

Duckjob wrote: »

Limited company protection doesn't always apply though. For example, where the directors can be shown to have acted negligently or recklessly, their personal assets can be seized.

try proving in court they were negligent without accepting those that ran the banks were negligent.

Those that ran the bank havent been made personally responsible for the debt the banks are in so you cant rule against the developers in the same way.

I say take everything off the lot of em . But it wont happen

D3PO

timo87 wrote: »

Would it not be the case that he would have given personal guarantees on these loans, was that not standard practice among developers?

Wouldnt this then remove the protection afforded by incorporation?

its possible we jsut dont know. that said didnt the courts rule last week in favour of a developer who they agreed wasnt personally libel despoite providing personal gaurantees on company loans.

The judge saying the bank knew the gaurantee was no good therfore he threw it out. Now with tha tprecedence you would wonder if any of these personal gaurantees are any good !!

dixiefly

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you reckon commercial property is somehow weathering the storm better than residential property? The accounting standards governing financial reporting have obliged many pension funds to reappraise the value of their commercial holdings (even while the banks have been shielded from similar exercises). It used be that a company only recorded the asset value in its accounts at cost price- until such time as that asset were disposed of (at which time they would realise a once off gain associated with that asset). Accounting standards are years behind events- which is why banks are able to get away with purely hypothetical values on their assets- but if you focus on commercial values in their purest sense being composed of a multiple of their annual rental earnings (typically between 10 and 14 times annual rental income- depending on location and other factors)- it immediately becomes apparent that there has been a considerable drop in the market value of commercial property- and the risks are all downside- as rents continue to fall. The discounts on offer in some prestigious locations- such as Irish Life's Stephen's Green Shopping Centre (which include a lengthening of the 'hello' rent-free period for rental of some units), while they are negotiated on a case by case basis- are startling- when you consider this is supposed to be the jewel in the crown of Irish shopping.........

I think he/she was saying that the drop in residential values would be less.

El Stuntman

jmayo wrote: »

From what I have heard, he has other serious personal worries right now.

how deliciously insinuating

what does it mean?

The_Conductor

dixiefly wrote: »

I think he/she was saying that the drop in residential values would be less.

It wasn't clear.
I'd be interested in knowing on what basis they are drawing their conclusions regardless- I'm not saying I'd agree or disagree with them- just I'd be interested in what their thinking on the matter is.

dblennon

El Stuntman wrote: »

how deliciously insinuating

what does it mean?

It means he has other things to take care of. personal health might be what was being suggested....





won't get into details defamation and all that
NAMA is going to take all the Assets off the developers the only things they're going to be allowed to keep are the family home, The wifes & siblings assets below tax thresholds.

Trust me it isn't going to be a case of the developers getting off with a slap on the wrist, they are going to get royally srcew=d (obviously deservedly for reckless borrowing)

Salvelinus

It looks like a small number of "business men" contributed to the mess by over borrowing money they shouldn't have go tin the first place, does this piss you off in that there could be god knows how many hard working people out there with good business ideas that didn't have access to money and owuld have done better with it?

D3PO

dblennon wrote: »

NAMA is going to take all the Assets off the developers the only things they're going to be allowed to keep are the family home, The wifes & siblings assets below tax thresholds.

Trust me it isn't going to be a case of the developers getting off with a slap on the wrist, they are going to get royally srcew=d (obviously deservedly for reckless borrowing)

NAMA has no control to take over any assets ... All its doing is taking control of loans from the banks loan books.

Now depending on developers defaulting and the terms of their agreements with the bank will determine what and how much NAMA can take back as coletaral for unpaid loans.

But everything cant be taken off the developer unless everything is was put up against the loans this isnt going to be the case and your dreaming if you think it is.

stepbar

El Stuntman wrote: »

how deliciously insinuating

what does it mean?

He certainly doesn't look a well man. The latest picture of him had him out with the missus. He looked painfully unwell and was reported to be carrying a limp. But then again if you were bitting 60 and owed 2.9 billion wouldn't you? The next thing that could happen would be a massive heart attack (god forbid) and then the house of cards would be royally fcuked.

johnnyskeleton

stepbar wrote: »

He certainly doesn't look a well man. The latest picture of him had him out with the missus. He looked painfully unwell and was reported to be carrying a limp. But then again if you were bitting 60 and owed 2.9 billion wouldn't you? The next thing that could happen would be a massive heart attack (god forbid) and then the house of cards would be royally fcuked.

The only thing I'll say is that while I would like to see the property kings of the last few years dethroned, I don't wish them ill in a personal capacity. So there's no pleasure to be taken from the fact that he might be ill at the moment.

The_Conductor

stepbar wrote: »

He certainly doesn't look a well man. The latest picture of him had him out with the missus. He looked painfully unwell and was reported to be carrying a limp. But then again if you were bitting 60 and owed 2.9 billion wouldn't you? The next thing that could happen would be a massive heart attack (god forbid) and then the house of cards would be royally fcuked.

A comment like this about someone's health started one of the tribunals.
Lets keep this based in hard facts please.

S.

jdivision

There have been rumours about Carroll's health for nearly two years. People close to him say they're not true so don't think they should be discussed here.

stepbar

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The only thing I'll say is that while I would like to see the property kings of the last few years dethroned, I don't wish them ill in a personal capacity. So there's no pleasure to be taken from the fact that he might be ill at the moment.

Nor do I.

smccarrick wrote: »

A comment like this about someone's health started one of the tribunals.
Lets keep this based in hard facts please.

S.

I don't see anything wrong with mycomment. It's a fair comment. In fact I didn't start anything. jmayo did.

The_Conductor

Quit arguing.
If you want to hypothesise as to what might happen if his property hits the market in the near future- be my guest. The point I made is steer clear of rumours about his health or any personal issues relating to him. Its not for discussion here.

Cheers,

Shane