NAMA: Not great, but the best we have

Mr.Micro

Lenihan and Cowen will run with NAMA IMO that's a certainty. It will be successive Governments that will have to deal with the fall out for the so called quick fix it solution that Lenihan seems to be passionate about. What the hell does he know about economics? Will this NAMA introduction be the long term disaster that FF leave us before it is voted out of office?

Sand

According to the Irish stock exchange, Bank of Ireland alone is currently worth about 2.4 billion. So, yes it would be costly to nationalise all the banks.

Bank share prices are only sustained by hope NAMA will come and give them free cash. Speculators are betting that NAMA will be passed. When it it passed theyll realise their profit. Other speculators have already realised a profit and are selling now.

If NAMA is put to one side and the banks are told that have one year to sort themselves out, after which they will be nationalised then bank share prices will collapse, reflecting confidence in the ability of our incompetent banks managing their own problems. And then they can be nationalised at effectively no cost.

Lenihan has confused himself over this, citing share price as a reason against nationalisation and for NAMA when share prices are actually factoring in NAMA. Without claiming to be an expert myself, I am stunned by the economic illiteracy and lack of basic common sense demonstrated by our Finance Minister and various Fianna Fail spokesmen...like [URL="javascript:showRadioPlayer('/news/morningireland/player.html?20090828,2600687,2600687,real,209')"]Frank Fahey, when challenged by George Lee last Friday[/URL] said...and I **** you not, “[NAMA funding is] not taxpayers’ money. It is ECB money.....I cannot believe, George, that you’re saying that this €30 billion will come from the taxpayer. This money will be paid in Government bonds which will then be cashed.”

Frank Fahey has become the main Fianna Fail spokesman on NAMA (apart from Lenihan of course) and is on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance that I assume Alan Aherne believes will provide sufficient oversight on NAMA. He is one of the masterminds behind NAMA and he cant even grasp that government bonds is ultimately backed by taxpayers. Its frankly incredible. And terrifying that these guys are going on a massive, massive speculatory property gamble.

With our money. Just to clarify for Frank.

Mr.Micro

Sand wrote: »

Frank Fahey has become the main Fianna Fail spokesman on NAMA (apart from Lenihan of course) and is on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance that I assume Alan Aherne believes will provide sufficient oversight on NAMA. He is one of the masterminds behind NAMA and he cant even grasp that government bonds is ultimately backed by taxpayers. Its frankly incredible. And terrifying that these guys are going on a massive, massive speculatory property gamble.

With our money. Just to clarify for Frank.

Exactly, these muppets could not muster a mastermind together if it came in kit form. If it was their own personal funds that they were about to gamble they would refuse point blank. It is quite clear that they are out of their depth and do not even comprehend the simple workings of share prices or the prospective workings of NAMA. It is jaw dropping to realize that Lenihan and Co are about to spend by many estimates, 90 billion euro on the toxic debts and maybe even more after that. Will that make Ireland and all its people rich or better off? NO. Will it make the banks better or the financial institutions better run ? Again no. It will bail out the investors and developers and leave our country in a desperate situation. Then all be good children and vote for Lisbon as we in FF know what's good for FF.

ifconfig

FF did manage to roll out Dara Calleary to defend the NAMA plans today on the Pat Kenny radio show in an on air debate with George Lee (FG). Dara Calleary, to give him his due, was more robust than the previous defenders of the unfolding NAMA fiasco.

I've no background in economics but the one alternative proposal which I've seen which is different to the Labour party suggestion of full (temporary) nationalisation of the main banks or the FG "good bank" proposal is the one put forward by Constantin Gurdgiev as published a few days back in the Irish Independent. He is one of the 46 economists, IIRC, who signed the op-ed piece in the Irish Times.

Link here

I am curious to know what people on this forum think of his suggestion.

-ifc

Count Dooku

ifconfig wrote: »

I've no background in economics but the one alternative proposal which I've seen which is different to the Labour party suggestion of full (temporary) nationalisation of the main banks or the FG "good bank" proposal is the one put forward by Constantin Gurdgiev as published a few days back in the Irish Independent. He is one of the 46 economists, IIRC, who signed the op-ed piece in the Irish Times.

Link here

I am curious to know what people on this forum think of his suggestion.

-ifc

It based on idea that world is full of idiots, which will be happy to give money to Irish banks and all profit will go to taxpayers

Under the current Nama proposal all the gains are made by the banks' bondholders and shareholders. The trust would start by putting taxpayers in front of other beneficiaries. To do so, we first need to force the banks to estimate the full extent of current losses on the loans, just as the Swedish government did in their banking crisis 19 years ago. Following that, banks' shareholders and bondholders should be required to take a hit in exchange for some shares in the trust.
More capital should be supplied by new private investors sourced with the help of the Government.

Gurdgiev just want to tell everybody about his existence

There is much better proposal

NAMA money pit could be our economic Stalingrad

jmayo

Sand wrote: »

Bank share prices are only sustained by hope NAMA will come and give them free cash. Speculators are betting that NAMA will be passed. When it it passed theyll realise their profit. Other speculators have already realised a profit and are selling now.

If NAMA is put to one side and the banks are told that have one year to sort themselves out, after which they will be nationalised then bank share prices will collapse, reflecting confidence in the ability of our incompetent banks managing their own problems. And then they can be nationalised at effectively no cost.

Lenihan has confused himself over this, citing share price as a reason against nationalisation and for NAMA when share prices are actually factoring in NAMA. Without claiming to be an expert myself, I am stunned by the economic illiteracy and lack of basic common sense demonstrated by our Finance Minister and various Fianna Fail spokesmen...like [URL="javascript:showRadioPlayer('/news/morningireland/player.html?20090828,2600687,2600687,real,209')"]Frank Fahey, when challenged by George Lee last Friday[/URL] said...and I **** you not, “[NAMA funding is] not taxpayers’ money. It is ECB money.....I cannot believe, George, that you’re saying that this €30 billion will come from the taxpayer. This money will be paid in Government bonds which will then be cashed.”

Frank Fahey has become the main Fianna Fail spokesman on NAMA (apart from Lenihan of course) and is on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance that I assume Alan Aherne believes will provide sufficient oversight on NAMA. He is one of the masterminds behind NAMA and he cant even grasp that government bonds is ultimately backed by taxpayers. Its frankly incredible. And terrifying that these guys are going on a massive, massive speculatory property gamble.

With our money. Just to clarify for Frank.

I listened to that interview and it was the greatest amount of sh*** I have heard spouted in a long time.
Fahey of the many houses, actually said that NAMA would bring money into the economy and that when house prices would go back up we the taxpayers would make money.
He actually stated that property was already recovering.
I can't understand why Lee did not pick him to pieces on that, maybe he had given up listening to the sh**e by that stage.
Lee should have filletted him on that comment.

Did anybody listen to Bo Lundgren (on Morning Ireland), ex Swedish Finance Minister who was actually very much involved with the plan to rescue Swedish banking system back in early 1990s.

He maintained that shareholders in banks had to take the fall before taxpayers and that you nationalise, that way you don't have to make decision what to pay for toxic debts.
Thus you don't overpay for worhtless sh**e (my words not his).

Then at some point in the future you reprivatise and hopefully get some money back for the taxpayers.
You will always find someone that would want ot invest in banks when you look at their past history upto the last 7/8 years.

IMHO looking at the supposed NAMA model, it appears to be to save the banks and keep them in semi private hands at all costs or rather at any cost to the taxpayer :mad:

What is the upside for taxpayers with the current NAMA model ?
Well we might breakeven, based on the premise that prices return to circa 2005-2007 levels for all property and not just good property in very good sought after areas.
This is since a lot of the securing assets are everywhere and anywhere.
Thus that 20 acre field in Ballgobackwards also has to go up to a value approaching that which was paid for it at the height of the boom when the developer was going to build 100 townhosues on it. :rolleyes:

Does anyone realistically see a field outside say Gorey (for arguments sake) now worth what it was in 2006 because the area still needs the 100 houses that were planned for it ?

PS according to DAFT.ie there are 924 properties for sale in Gorey as of today.
That figure should be enough to cause even the most optimistic proponent of NAMA to think again.

LostinBlanch

jmayo wrote: »

Did anybody listen to Bo Lundgren (on Morning Ireland), ex Swedish Finance Minister who was actually very much involved with the plan to rescue Swedish banking system back in early 1990s.

He maintained that shareholders in banks had to take the fall before taxpayers and that you nationalise, that way you don't have to make decision what to pay for toxic debts.
Thus you don't overpay for worhtless sh**e (my words not his).

Then at some point in the future you reprivatise and hopefully get some money back for the taxpayers.
You will always find someone that would want ot invest in banks when you look at their past history upto the last 7/8 years.

to answer your question, yes.

But of course you forget that NAMA is not there to bail out anyone except the economy, you cynic you. :rolleyes:

Of course as Sand has previously suggested Cowen / Lenihan seem to have difficulty seeing the economy as seperate from AIB / BOI shareholders and bondholders.

And remember NAMA is not a bailout of developers. But wait? What's that you say? There's a letter in todays times explaining exactly how NAMA could bail out developers despite the continual lies we are being fed. NAMA could employ the developers holding worthless land according to section 148. So we overpay for worthless assets, and then pay the developer to "develop" those assets? Linky just look at the first letter.

Madam, – A number of points arise in relation to the appearance of the Minister for Finance before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service (Home News, September 1st). First, it is reported the Minister stated that there would be measures to prevent developers who defaulted on loans from re-entering the construction business. The content of section 148 of the National Asset Management Bill 2009 appears to envisage a completely different situation. Section 148 provides that Nama “may enter into an agreement (including an agreement with the person who was the debtor in relation to the asset concerned) for the purpose of developing the land.” If this section were to come into force it appears that Nama can do the exact opposite to what the Minister has stated and employ the developer to develop the land in question. This section makes no provision that the “person” with whom Nama has reached the agreement must not have defaulted on a loan. Contrary to what the Minister states, this seems like a recipe to bail out developers. – Yours, etc,

You couldn't make this up!

gurramok

PunkFreud wrote: »

Yes, they are, but in 7/8 years time, do you really expect property values to still be falling? As long as we get back what we paid, it won't really matter (in my opinion).

Long Onion wrote: »

Surmising that a return to 2007 prices in 10 years time would amount to a bubble is equally as unfounded as surmising that (1) we are at the bottom and (2) that they will indeed recover.

Either way you look at it, there is guesswork involved.

To both of you, i'd like to know why and how..

1 - We are at the bottom now

2 - On what basis that prices will rise 88% within 7 years.

On the data and evidence we have now and for the near future, both statements are false.
If those statements are been pedalled by pro-Nama people, the whole thing is indeed a casino gamble.

SeaFields

On a side note to this thread, going on the latest political poll, Fine Geal seriously need to get the finger out and get themselves ready to be in government.

They need to stop playing politics around the NAMA issue (obviously there will always be some, to some degree) and to get their proposal of their alternative into a serious working proposal. I had a read of it on their website and its boils down to a couple of vague pages mostly dismissing NAMA.

If NAMA fails to get through and brings down the government, we don't need another bunch of headless chickens in the Dail. We need people with the ability to get stuck in immediately.

jmayo

gurramok wrote: »

To both of you, i'd like to know why and how..

1 - We are at the bottom now

2 - On what basis that prices will rise 88% within 7 years.

On the data and evidence we have now and for the near future, both statements are false.
If those statements are been pedalled by pro-Nama people, the whole thing is indeed a casino gamble.

gurramok,
as lostinblanch said we got to stop being being so cynical
Just take it as truth, as our glorious leaders and connected ones know best.

Remember, the fundamentals are still sound :rolleyes:
As they song says "you gotta have faith" :eek:

Actually the future is going to be so bright I see a lot of people having to buy shades.
Well how else will they stand the sun in Australia, the States or God knows where else they have to go to have a future. :mad:

LostinBlanch

Now for some legal opinion on NAMA. Looks like it is in breach of EU law. Long post warning

The government’s draft NAMA Bill is intended to assist Ireland’s banks in the financial crisis.

The government’s NAMA scheme is itself a form of State Aid and is in breach of Article 87 (3) (b) of the EU Treaty. In principle it is, therefore illegal. The scheme is not currently activated but the effects of the government’s disclosed intentions are manifest in the economy. The Commission has previously found a declaration by a government, to advance State Aid, is a form of State Aid. Complaints about the current consequences of the NAMA plan have been voiced publicly by;

a. The manager of the Park Hotel, Kenmare, Co. Kerry;
b. The Chief Financial officer of ACC Bank;

The government has claimed the origins of the NAMA scheme lie in “advice” from international institutions including the EU Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.

The attribution of credit to the EU Commission for NAMA is presumed to be a reference to Commission Communication 2009/C 72/01. This Communication was an “easing” of State Aid regulation as applied to bank restructuring.

In fact, the government’s scheme is not in conformity with Commission Communication 2009/C 72/01.
The NAMA scheme is of such a scale as to raise concern about the sustainability of public finances by over-indebtedness. The EU Commission expresses concern that asset relief should not undermine public debt capacity.

The NAMA scheme, far from being limited to the minimum necessary, is extended to the maximum, limited only by the creative skill of the government. Government spokespersons have given indications that the “transfer value” is intended to lie in a range of 66% to 75% of bank book value. The EU Commission mandates that the bank must bear the maximum level of loss. NAMA, as “floated” by government, seeks to reverse this principle.

The government has failed to make public the impact on the [public] balance sheet. No information has emerged from government to show the impact, on public debt, of NAMA.

The government has failed to make public the disclosure of impairments and assessment of eligible banks. This requirement is mandated by the Commission.

The government has disclosed its intention to avoid imposing on the banks the losses associated with impaired assets to the maximum extent. The full measure of bank loss is the difference between current market value and bank book value. The government’s indicated “transfer value” is much closer to book value than market value.

Only Anglo Irish Bank has been wound up or nationalised. The government has failed to evaluate losses or correctly identify losses, as evidenced by the absence of adminstration or nationalisation of any other bank. There is good reason to think some, at least, Irish commercial banks are insolvent. That there is uncertainty on the point is evidence of government default.

The government has failed to disclose details of the daily portfolio values presumably received by the government from the banks. Alternatively, the banks have failed to make such values or disclose them to the government. The Commission mandated this daily exercise for participating banks.

The government has maximised uncertainty about the proper value of of the banks’ assets. The government has consistently refused to declare the “transfer value” it has in mind; it cites the mantra “case by case” to justify this. The Commission expressed the need to make public disclosure of asset values by [the government].
The government has conflated “complex assets” with the impaired assets of Irish banks (the outcome of a real property bubble). The Commission identifies “toxic assets” as the source of most bank asset impairment. Irish banks did not suffer to any appreciable extent from such assets; Irish impaired assets are in the real estate category. These latter are not “complex”. Their values are low due to the bubble bursting and the effects of recession.

The government has ignored the necessity to secure adequate remuneration for the Irish state. The NAMA scheme has no chance of recovering, for the Irish state, the cost of taking the impaired assets from the banks. The Commission mandated the recovery of all losses by the State from the participating banks.

The government has failed to ensure the beneficiary banks bear the losses incurred in the transfer of assets. The Commission’s requirement on the point is expressed in different ways; it says the banks must bear the losses to the maximum and that the State should secure adequate remuneration.

The government has denied the relevance of “market values” for impaired assets and asserts its intention to value impaired assets on a “case by case” basis, without distinguishing between market value and tranfer value and without assigning assets to “baskets”(as explained in Communication 2009/C 72/01). The government has failed to properly examine the value of impaired assets. By deferring the valuation exercise and avoiding transparency it is evading the Commission’s requirements.

The government is intent on setting impaired asset values at too high a level. The assets are predominently real estate assets and the effect of the government action will be similar to the negative experience produced in Japan from a similar cause. The Commission noted the Japanese example in requiring States to avoid such an effect, a frozen real estate market a decade long.

The government has attributed the Irish financial crisis to the collapse of Lehman Bros., rather than to a property bubble. This prevents any proper remedy being applied to Ireland’s public debt and banking crisis.

The government’s NAMA plan exposes Ireland to proceedings by the EU Commission and/or non-participating banks and to claims for damages by those banks and the claw -back of Aid from the participating banks.
At a time when the finances of the State are so badly stretched, Ireland cannot afford this.

So someone could complain to the EU Commission and they could take a case against NAMA?

With every passing day this cunning plan of Baldric Lenihans unravels more and more.

PunkFreud

oceanclub wrote: »

In PunkFreud's only other politically-related post, he says that Cowen is doing his best:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61872756&postcount=7

Even most Fianna Failers would find that hard to swallow.

P.

Yes I did. His "best". I never said his best was good enough or up to scratch. I chose my words very carefully. A farmer forced to drive a rocket ship would do his best, that doesn't mean he's going to do any good.

Well forgive me for being a cynic and not believing.
There have a good few supposed objective posters on politics and economic forums who have been "objectively" endorsing NAMA and other government polices.
Funny how certain attitudes and phraselogy is used.

I never said I was being objective. I was just giving my opinion. Just because I think that NAMA is the best option available (from the 3), does not mean I am a supporter of the party. It's funny how no-one assumes anyone else is a Fine Gael, Labour, or Sinn Féinn supporter, just that "I am a Fianna Fáiler".

The problem is to do that means intentionally forming another property bubble to get the prices back to unrealistic levels.

No, prices need not go back to 2007 prices. Remember that these are not 100% loans

Long Onion

gurramok wrote: »

To both of you, i'd like to know why and how..

1 - We are at the bottom now

2 - On what basis that prices will rise 88% within 7 years.

On the data and evidence we have now and for the near future, both statements are false.
If those statements are been pedalled by pro-Nama people, the whole thing is indeed a casino gamble.

You either didn't read my post properly or didn't understand it. I did not say that we were at the bottom, nor did I say that prices will rise. I merely pointed out that nobody knows whether we are still falling nor can they say with certainty that a rise in property values over the next 7-10 years would amount to a bubble - it could be a result of organic growth for all we know.

Surmising is surmising no matter which side of the fence you sit on. There is no logical reason why anti-NAMA surmising is better than pro-NAMA surmising

Long Onion

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Now for some legal opinion on NAMA. Looks like it is in breach of EU law. Long post warning



So someone could complain to the EU Commission and they could take a case against NAMA?

With every passing day this cunning plan of Baldric Lenihans unravels more and more.

The Government guarantee scheme was also a breach of EU anti-trust law, it placed Irish financial institutions at a competitive advantage to those domiciled in other member states. Creditors of AIB were given unlimited guarantees, those of Ulster Bank were not.

If you cast your mind back to the debate which ensued following the enactment of such measures post Lehmans, you may recall that the EU decided that it was every man for himself, the member states were told that there was no rule book for this kind of crisis. In light of this, and in the absence of any amber light from Brussels, I doubt if a challenge on these grounds would be entertained.

LostinBlanch

We'll see.

In the meantime, with the oversupply of property (both privte and commercial) on the market. Who is going to buy all these and pay the inflated prices the famous 88% that John Mulcahy of Jones Lang La Salle predicts house prices will go up to again.

Mind you, Matt Cooper puts him nicely in his box in the examiner today.

Mulcahy’s track record in predictions is no more brilliant than anyone else’s.

He also seems to have forgotten the positive spin he put on things two years ago – and I was at a business function less than two years ago where he talked positively about the property market – by claiming he saw the writing on the wall and spoke about it four years ago, as if this now gave him greater credibility to call an upturn.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

You either didn't read my post properly or didn't understand it. I did not say that we were at the bottom, nor did I say that prices will rise. I merely pointed out that nobody knows whether we are still falling nor can they say with certainty that a rise in property values over the next 7-10 years would amount to a bubble - it could be a result of organic growth for all we know.

Surmising is surmising no matter which side of the fence you sit on. There is no logical reason why anti-NAMA surmising is better than pro-NAMA surmising

You are wrong there. Values are still falling and will continue to fall, its economics. There is nothing down the line to stop it hence it is based on factual reasoning.

Long Onion

gurramok wrote: »

You are wrong there. Values are still falling and will continue to fall, its economics. There is nothing down the line to stop it hence it is based on factual reasoning.

I bow to your mystical powers Meg.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

I bow to your mystical powers Meg.

Very funny. Why won't they stop falling then?

I give you a hint why they will continue to fall, the Irish recession.

Long Onion

gurramok wrote: »

Very funny. Why won't they stop falling then?

I give you a hint why they will continue to fall, the Irish recession.

Once again, I am not saying that they will not continue to fall, I am just saying that predicting anything into the future is pure speculation, up, down, it makes no odds - speculation is all that it is. You could wee be right, but you could be wrong also.

If any of us knew for definate, we would not be having this discussion.

bangersandmash

Long Onion wrote: »

I am just saying that predicting anything into the future is pure speculation, up, down, it makes no odds - speculation is all that it is.

It makes no odds until €60bn+ is paid on our behalf under the firm assumption that the only way is up. If things are as uncertain as you suggest, then it would be better to err on the side of caution. Unless the Dept of Finance do have Mystic Meg working in their employ.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

Once again, I am not saying that they will not continue to fall, I am just saying that predicting anything into the future is pure speculation, up, down, it makes no odds - speculation is all that it is. You could wee be right, but you could be wrong also.

If any of us knew for definate, we would not be having this discussion.

Nope, i am right. It ain't speculation saying that prices will continue to fall. Its based on economic facts and figures, not Mystic Meg.

You have not put forward any argument to point to a near future rise hence your view is one of Mystic Meg's.

Long Onion

Long Onion wrote: »

I bow to your mystical powers Meg.

LOL nothing mystic about it. We have 10 years worth of housing supply.
There are several repurcussions because of this not just direct oversupply.

The construction industry was such a huge part of our economy that we will have persistent high unemployment causing lower demand for goods and services in the broader economy. A huge deflationary factor.

This is before we consider how NAMA will suck the life out the economy in the form of cutbacks needed to finance it.

And I havent even touched the current 20 billion deficit.

leonardjos

Long Onion wrote: »

Once again, I am not saying that they will not continue to fall, I am just saying that predicting anything into the future is pure speculation, up, down, it makes no odds - speculation is all that it is. You could wee be right, but you could be wrong also.

If any of us knew for definate, we would not be having this discussion.

I'm amused when NAMA apologisers state that it is impossible to accurately value the loans being taken over. They say that numbers put out by economists and commentators are pure speculation.

Exactly, so why would we be taking a gamble on the value of the loans/property ?! It is speculation, so why do it? It's just not necessary.

thebman

Long Onion wrote: »

Once again, I am not saying that they will not continue to fall, I am just saying that predicting anything into the future is pure speculation, up, down, it makes no odds - speculation is all that it is. You could wee be right, but you could be wrong also.

If any of us knew for definate, we would not be having this discussion.

You can say that about anything and its still wrong.

Its a guess but based on facts that increase the probability that the guess will be accurate. It isn't just a wild stab in the dark hoping you guess right.

Of course it may be wrong but anything can be wrong that we think we already know if we find new evidence.

Long Onion

thebman wrote: »

You can say that about anything and its still wrong.

Its a guess but based on facts that increase the probability that the guess will be accurate. It isn't just a wild stab in the dark hoping you guess right.

Of course it may be wrong but anything can be wrong that we think we already know if we find new evidence.

Hooray, someon who has read what I have been saying! Personally, I believe that property prices have further to fall before they rise, especially in the context of commercial developments. As completed projects continue to come to the market, rental rates will be adjusted and this will lead to a further devaluation of commercial property assets.

This is in the short to medium term however. My only point is that pro or anti-NAMA, all arguments are based, to some degree, on speculation. To damn the other side (whichever that may be) from a height, for using assumptions, whilst using similar (albeit opposite ones) in one's own argument does not hold water in logical sense.

If we knew for a fact where we would be at in terms of property values in 7-10 years, we would be able to attach a concrete value, ergo the problem of valuing the assets is moot. The fact is that we do not know, we can guess - some guesses may be wild guesses, some may be educated guesses but guesses they are.

I would not class myself as a 'NAMA apologist' I have no real conviction that it is the right thing to do, I have just not heard a convincing argument to make me think that nationalisation will result in any less risk to the tax payer. I am, open to suggestions, but nothing concrete has been forthcoming. The current status quo is not tenable, so where does it leave us? Taking over €60bn of toxic assets via NAMA or €90bn via nationalisation, I'll go for the lesser of two evils.

thebman

Well thats fine I guess.

Personally I don't think we should be taking that kind of risk on the level being talked about when it will take generations to pay back if NAMA doesn't make the money back in the medium to long term.

Think the whole idea is bollocks precisely because we don't know but also because I suspect that house prices won't go back up to previous high levels because I believe those levels were pushed by demand from a baby booming generation and that we will not see that level of demand for housing in the country again unless we all go at it like rabbits.

Long Onion

Perhaps you are right, but on the baby boom note, this past twelve months has seen the highest number of births for a very long time, there was a discussion on this topic in a few other fora over the past week or so. It will be an interesting few years ahead whatever route is chosen.

thebman

Long Onion wrote: »

Perhaps you are right, but on the baby boom note, this past twelve months has seen the highest number of births for a very long time, there was a discussion on this topic in a few other fora over the past week or so. It will be an interesting few years ahead whatever route is chosen.

Most likely seeing baby boomers getting married and having kids however I don't see it ever reaching the previous level as couples in developed economies usually have fewer kids if you look at the stats for other developed economies.

PunkFreud

Okay, since I have said that I think NAMA is the best option available, and everyone here seems to disagree with me, will someone please explain to me why the Fine Gael or Labour idea is better.

Honestly, that is not rhetorical. I really want to know how and why NAMA is not the best option available.

Please, do not rant about it, just explain why the other two ideas are better.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

Perhaps you are right, but on the baby boom note, this past twelve months has seen the highest number of births for a very long time, there was a discussion on this topic in a few other fora over the past week or so. It will be an interesting few years ahead whatever route is chosen.

The Irish birth rate was previously high around 1981 and plummeted to around 45,000 in the mid 90's. To get the same numbers now of 32r+ olds again in the future, you will have to wait until about 2032.
Only way to alter that is through immigration and we know from CSO stats that most immigrants don't buy, they rent(http://www.cso.ie/census/..%5Ccensus...%20IRELAND.pdf) and then you have to contend with them returning home!

Long Onion wrote:

I would not class myself as a 'NAMA apologist' I have no real conviction that it is the right thing to do, I have just not heard a convincing argument to make me think that nationalisation will result in any less risk to the tax payer. I am, open to suggestions, but nothing concrete has been forthcoming. The current status quo is not tenable, so where does it leave us? Taking over €60bn of toxic assets via NAMA or €90bn via nationalisation, I'll go for the lesser of two evils.

Go Swedish.