No to Nama Protest March this saturday 2pm

MikeC101

ninty9er wrote: »

That's why we have a public accounts committee chaired by a senior member of the opposition.

Which as far as I can see, is very good at issuing reports condemning gross negligence and overspending, but only after they have happened, and are utterly powerless to enforce any kind of punishment to the guilty parties (a la FÁS)

They don't seem to be very effective at preventing said problems from happening in the first place.

At least, when huge amounts have been wasted, we'll know who was responsible. The party faithful will ensure their reelection, they'll still get their pensions and expenses, but at least we'll know.

MikeC101

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Before you bother wasting too much time talking to ninty9er, he's a member of FF so is just going to tow the party line no matter what you say.

I know he is, but in fairness to him he has always seemed to me to be clear and accurate in putting across his points, and I'm interested to read his take on NAMA from a FF supporters perspective.

hobochris

schween wrote: »

What do the anti-NAMA people propose instead? Shall we let our banks collapse completely?

I think it's disgraceful that we have to set up NAMA but we are where we are so we have to deal with it.

And why would that be a bad thing if our banks collapsed? the government have guaranteed deposits, so peoples money is safe, a federal bank can be started from the ashes and assets worth having can be bought up cheep by this bank. Also foreign banks many of whom are already in a position to take over day to day duties from our popular big name banks, will have more room to move into the Irish market, Bring with them a tiddle wave of investment.

a Fire Sale would mean cheap assets up for grabs, which would also spark investor interest.

As far as Nama goes the government have given no real reason why the banks shouldn't be nationalized first, Which would make more sense as they can force the banks to lend if they own them, which means that they can then guarantee lending after Nama has swooped in and taken the bad debts.

As Nama stands now, I am against it.

nesf

hobochris wrote: »

And why would that be a bad thing if our banks collapsed? the government have guaranteed deposits, so peoples money is safe, a federal bank can be started from the ashes and assets worth having can be bought up cheep by this bank.

Eh, and where exactly are the Government going to come up with the money to replace that lost when the banks collapsed? I assure you it'd be a lot bigger than the cost of NAMA.

hobochris

nesf wrote: »

Eh, and where exactly are the Government going to come up with the money to replace that lost when the banks collapsed? I assure you it'd be a lot bigger than the cost of NAMA.

They should be going with a toxic bank then I assume if they have the means to proceed with nama then they have the means to backup there promises as far as deposits go.

In any case they should be going with a toxic bank, pick the worst effected bank, nationalize it, buy all the debts off the other banks at under the odds prices(as a slap on the wrist for their sins) and let it go to the wall.

I don't understand why this option isn't being used instead of Nama. From what I can see though Nama is gonna operate in a similar manor, except instead of bankrupted the toxic bank it will break the backs of the tax payer.

Lockstep

Not a fan of Nama; seems to be creating a massive moral hazard.


Also seems to be one hell of a gamble.

hobochris

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not a fan of Nama; seems to be creating a massive moral hazard.


Also seems to be one hell of a gamble.

You have to wonder what their real motive is behind it.

It would be nice if one these government crooks turned decent and spilled the beans, but they're all to well paid for that to happen..

Daftendirekt

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I speak for people with common sense.

The best economic brains in Ireland have endorsed NAMA.

Some have said it's the best worst scenario but most including Dr Alan Ahearne have said that its the best option.

That's good enough for me.

Personally, I'm still unsure what I think about NAMA. Do you have links to any articles written by said economists?

I've Googled it and this is all I could come up with.

ninty9er

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Before you bother wasting too much time talking to ninty9er, he's a member of FF so is just going to tow the party line no matter what you say.

Retract that please. I am a Fianna Fáil member but I have and am perfectly entitled to have my own opinions.

Daftendirekt

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Personally, I'm still unsure what I think about NAMA. Do you have links to any articles written by said economists?

I've Googled it and this is all I could come up with.

LIST OF SIGNATORIES

Prof Brian Lucey, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Prof Karl Whelan, Department of Economics, University College Dublin.
Prof Bernadette Andreosso-O’Callaghan, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Prof Colm Harmon, Department of Economics, UCD.
Prof Frank Barry, professor of international business, Trinity College Dublin.
Prof Gregory Connor, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Prof John Cotter, professor of finance, Smurfit School of Business, UCD.
Prof Kevin O’Rourke, Department of Economics, Trinity College Dublin.
Prof Rodney Thom, Department of Economics, UCD.
Prof Rowena Pecchenino, head of department, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Dr Constantin Gurdgiev, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Dr Alexander Sevic, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Patrick McCabe, senior lecturer in accounting and finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Dr Jenny Berrill, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College.
Dr Anthony Leddin, senior lecturer and head of department, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Helena Lenihan, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Mel Kilkenny, lecturer in finance and taxation, Department of Accounting and Finance, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Sheila Killian, senior lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Stephen Kinsella, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Donal Palcic, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Eoin Reeves, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Eithne Murphy, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Terry McDonagh, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Ashley Piggins, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Cathal O’Donoghue, head of Rural Economy Research Centre Teagasc and Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Thomas Flavin, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Dr Tom O’Connor, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Paul O’Sullivan, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth
Dr Fabrice Rousseau, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth
Dr Cal Muckley, lecturer in finance, Smurfit School of Business, UCD
Dr Frank Walsh, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD
Dr Kevin Denny, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD
Dr Moore McDowell, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD
Dr Sarah Parlane, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD.
Dr Shane Whelan, senior lecturer in actuarial finance, School of Mathematics, UCD.
Dr Vincent Hogan, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD.
Dr Ray Donnelly, senior lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
Dr John Masson, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCC
Dr Declan Jordan, college lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCC
Eoin O’Leary, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCC
Stephen O’Callaghan, lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
John Doran, lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
David Humphreys, lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
Tony Foley, senior lecturer in economics, DCU Business School.
Dr Valerio Poti, lecturer in finance, DCU Business School.
Claire Kearney, lecturer in finance, DCU Business School.

Says it all really. Whenever I hear of someone endorsing NAMA they're always either a direct/indirect beneficiary or a member of FF.

6ix

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I speak for people with common sense.

The best economic brains in Ireland have endorsed NAMA.

Some have said it's the best worst scenario but most including Dr Alan Ahearne have said that its the best option.

That's good enough for me.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true, and it's a lazy lie.

46 leading economists wrote an open letter to the Irish Times disagreeing with NAMA. These are prominent academics from all the major universities. I'm sure at least some of them are among the best economic brains in the country. They don't stand to gain anything by putting their name to such a letter, so their opinion should be at least considered IMO.

Furthermore, I've read a number of articles by David McWilliams, who disagrees with NAMA and has proposed some alternatives. I'm sure there have been a lot of others disagreeing, I just haven't read the papers as much as I'd like.

I really don't have much faith in the economists employed by the government. You'd imagine that some of the "best economic brains in Ireland" might include those at the ESRI.... who have been consistently wrong in their economic predictions over the last few years. All the while, people like McWilliams and even posters on other forums have made much more accurate predictions.


Edit: Adding a recent article link for the poster above who wanted to read some economist's views.

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/dissenters-may-call-it-right-again-44142.html

ninty9er

I would not read too much into that letter. 46 signatories from the major universities...hmmm, wonder if they've had to take a 5% pay cut and another one coming?? Might leave a bitterness.

5 of those signatories have taught me, but interestingly their boss' name does not appear on the list and he has also lectured me in economics, furthermore, he has been considered more suitable to appoint as a Dean.

There is no way in hell they all have the same opinion in relation to NAMA. It's a "look at us" attempt. A failed one.

Daftendirekt

ninty9er wrote: »

There is no way in hell they all have the same opinion in relation to NAMA. It's a "look at us" attempt. A failed one.

Maybe it indicates NAMA might just be a really bad idea?

6ix

ninty9er wrote: »

I would not read too much into that letter. 46 signatories from the major universities...hmmm, wonder if they've had to take a 5% pay cut and another one coming?? Might leave a bitterness.

Every worker in the country has had to take a pay cut, and we're all bitter about how the country was ran into the ground for the benefit of the few. Still, I think there's little for them to gain by signing that letter, but that's just my opinion.

Yes, you're right that there are differing opinions on NAMA among economists, but the point of my post is that I really didn't like the dismissive tone of the previous post, which flatly suggested that all the major economic brains were in support, and that anyone against it lacked common sense.

gnxx

Interesting. This is my own theory on how NAMA will operate:

a) Developer owes Bank €50 Million on property now valued at €10 Million.

b) NAMA acquires loan. Developer no longer in debt to Bank.

c) Since developer now has clean loan book with Bank - Bank lends developer more cash

d) Developer uses new loans to prevent defaulting on NAMA loans

In 10 - 20 years we will need a NAMA 2 to fix the problems of NAMA.

Four-Too

There is something definitely smelly about this NAMA. Money cannot be created out of thin air. This is pure n simple logic. These developer SCUM might not owe the banks anything after NAMA, but someone else WILL, the taxpayer/government. The billions we gave to the banks is gone forever, it was thrown away basically, but not ALL the money is gone, there still are rich people in Ireland, but it is the elites/illuminati's agenda to make everyone poor, and there more than likely won't be anyone rich in Ireland soon. Money is simply printed, everyone knows that, but the money is not backed by any precious metal. Gold is getting more and more expensive, so one concludes that our money is becoming more and more worthless. It should be that an ounce of gold is worth so much euro, and that should be steady. The people who print this money have all the power obviously. They can print more, or less, to suit themselves.

nesf

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Says it all really. Whenever I hear of someone endorsing NAMA they're always either a direct/indirect beneficiary or a member of FF.

It does, however that letter was written before the current changes to the draft legislation so it's hard to tell whether their views would be different now.

A Dub in Glasgo

Weather looks good, hopefully there will be a big turnout

cbweb

Hi,

Sorry, can't make it today. But I do try to help the anti Nama campaign, see 'Pig in a poke!' at

http://www.colmbrazel.wordpress.com

or http://www.namasayno.com

There's plenty there to help you make your mind up!

rgds


Colm

Darragh29

ninty9er wrote: »

NAMA allows for future revenue to the state, current lending to small business and opportunity for state ownership of important landbanks.

It has its flaws, but I'm yet to hear a better idea.

Isn't that exactly what we were told when they introduced the state guarantee for the banks, that it would do all of these things that you are now saying NAMA will do???

They were wrong when they said the state guarantee for the banks would result in credit flowing again to businesses and many many jobs have been lost since... Now we are expected to believe that where the guarantee has failed, NAMA will succeed???

ninty9er

gnxx wrote: »

Interesting. This is my own theory on how NAMA will operate:

a) Developer owes Bank €50 Million on property now valued at €10 Million.

b) NAMA acquires loan. Developer no longer in debt to Bank.

c) Since developer now has clean loan book with Bank - Bank lends developer more cash

d) Developer uses new loans to prevent defaulting on NAMA loans

In 10 - 20 years we will need a NAMA 2 to fix the problems of NAMA.

Banks won't lend to these people as their debt:equity ratio will be the same (or maybe even worse) as it is now. That is the basis for lending decisions to business

hobochris

ninty9er wrote: »

Banks won't lend to these people as their debt:equity ratio will be the same (or maybe even worse) as it is now. That is the basis for lending decisions to business

Unless the government are pulling some strings for them...

lostexpectation

2000 at it via @revahealth

lostexpectation

http://pixelpipe.com/item/df7e282f-46f2-4a63-88c7-0821bc566482

Kev_ps3

Fair play to those protesting. I'll be there in spirit:pac:

gnxx

ninty9er wrote: »

Banks won't lend to these people as their debt:equity ratio will be the same (or maybe even worse) as it is now. That is the basis for lending decisions to business

Maybe it was just me, but I could have sworn that banks including the state run Anglo offered to extend further lending to Liam Carroll during the week.

ninty9er

gnxx wrote: »

Maybe it was just me, but I could have sworn that banks including the state run Anglo offered to extend further lending to Liam Carroll during the week.

If it meant them getting the rest of their money back too. With NAMA this isn't going to be an issue.

Anyhow. Liam Carroll is a goner thankfully.

schween

hobochris wrote: »

And why would that be a bad thing if our banks collapsed? the government have guaranteed deposits, so peoples money is safe, a federal bank can be started from the ashes and assets worth having can be bought up cheep by this bank. Also foreign banks many of whom are already in a position to take over day to day duties from our popular big name banks, will have more room to move into the Irish market, Bring with them a tiddle wave of investment.

a Fire Sale would mean cheap assets up for grabs, which would also spark investor interest.

As far as Nama goes the government have given no real reason why the banks shouldn't be nationalized first, Which would make more sense as they can force the banks to lend if they own them, which means that they can then guarantee lending after Nama has swooped in and taken the bad debts.

As Nama stands now, I am against it.

Right. So instead of paying about €90bn for NAMA, we let the banks collapse and pay €400bn?

ninty9er

ninty9er wrote: »

If it meant them getting the rest of their money back too. With NAMA this isn't going to be an issue.

Anyhow. Liam Carroll is a goner thankfully.

Lovely paradox there. You support them lending more to Carroll to keep his companies afloat until NAMA takes over the burden, yet also admit he is a goner - AKA will be unable to pay back squat.

thecornerboy

schween wrote: »

Right. So instead of paying about €90bn for NAMA, we let the banks collapse and pay €400bn?

Don't let the banks slide. Offer the bondholders a deal, they'll take something over nothing, offer the shareholders a deal, they'll take something over nothing. Nationalise the banks in the short and medium term. Disentangle them from the mess of the property bubble and shake down developers for every cent that they owe you and take their land. Bring that land into a portfolio that can be micromanaged by a modern dynamic State agency. In 5-7 years time refloat the banks and guess who is now the biggest landowner in the State and will make loadsamoney over the next 20 years with it's massive property portfolio?

What's wrong with that?

That seems to me to be a better option than stuffing tens of billions into the pockets of private investors in order to main ethereal concepts such as "investor confidence" and "reputation".

Yes to a healthy banking system. No to Nama as it stands.