NAMA - are you marching on Saturday?

Jumpy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Better tell that to them.

Thats Lisbon type **** you are talking here.

Dont vote no because terrorists want it
Dont vote yes because the government wants it.

People are marching because they want to, keep "who you will be associated with" out of it.

Amhran Nua

Jumpy wrote: »

People are marching because they want to, keep "who you will be associated with" out of it.

Point taken, and its a good point well made, especially in these times, but the march last Saturday was completely hijacked by the shinners to the dismay of the IPU organisers. They even posted on boards about it. It does matter who you are marching beside, unfortunately, because they are using your presence to bolster an agenda you might want nothing to do with.

onekeano

Lenihen stated that the discount would be 30% ie. paying €54 billion from a value of €77 billion. This was not true, as the Minister knows the €77 billion included €9 billion of interest that had been rolled up. So the real figure, is €54 billion from a value of €68 billion which is a 20% discount!!!:mad:

If NAMA is so independent how come Brian Lenihan reserves the right to tell NAMA to reconsider offers on particular sites, take a site bought in Ballsbridge for say €400 million and NAMA offer €200 million. Mr Lenihan can tell NAMA to reconsider the offer made to a man who is a close friend of the Taoiseach who first appointed Mr Lenihan a minister - can this be right?:(

Given the above, is it any wonder that shares prices in the major banks have already risen by around 2000% since the NAMA scheme was announced? Its hardly because the shareholders & financial institutions are delighted for the taxpayer....:D

The march is being organised by the irishpeoplesunion which is a single campaigning on a single issue ie. No to NAMA

Roy

Amhran Nua

onekeano wrote: »

The march is being organised by the irishpeoplesunion which is a single campaigning on a single issue ie. No to NAMA

I see no mention of the IPU on the SWP website, or PACUB's or the other groups marching on Saturday?

bauderline

Count Dooku wrote: »

If there are any minor possibilities to make money there, we would have queue of investors to make money.
NAMA will ruin economy and as result, it will be no house prices growth for long time.
When 500,000 will leave Ireland next year, country will have supply of houses for 10 years and prices will be not driven by construction cost anymore

If there are any minor possibilities to make money there, we would have queue of investors to make money.
NAMA will ruin economy and as result, it will be no house prices growth for long time.
When 500,000 will leave Ireland next year, country will have supply of houses for 10 years and prices will be not driven by construction cost anymore

Properties, which cost now 200K, next year will cost 100K.
A lot of morons trusted to government in 2007 that fundamental sounds and bought on peak, now another morons trusts to the same liars that we reached bottom.

The argument regarding property values is a two way door in my opinion, if you propose that Lennihan's projected future property values are baseless then how can you claim to accurately predict what property prices will be in 12 months time ? What evidence do you have ?

500,000 will leave Ireland next year ? Again, where is the evidence for this ?

I am not pro NAMA per se but the whole anti NAMA lobby smacks of hysteria rather than reasoned debate.... Listening to Brian Lucey this morning on the radio you would think soneone had nicked his packed lunch....

bauderline

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I see no mention of the IPU on the SWP website, or PACUB's or the other groups marching on Saturday?

I wouldn't worry about these groups getting promoted too much, the turnout will be small.... as usual.....

onekeano

I am not pro NAMA per se but the whole anti NAMA lobby smacks of hysteria rather than reasoned debate.... Listening to Brian Lucey this morning on the radio you would think soneone had nicked his packed lunch....[/QUOTE]

I think if you were one of the 400k and soon to be 500k out of a job you might be a little bit hysterical yourself. If you were getting letters to repossess you might be a little hysterical. If you had taken pay cuts you might be a bit hysterical and if you felt this was down to complete incompetence and negligence by teh government you might be just a little bit angry!

Roy

MikeC101

I'm deeply worried, not necessarily about the theory of NAMA itself, but about the potential for political interference in the process.

With the corruption and utter contempt for taxpayers money that seems rife in this government, the temptation for them to help out their friends/supporters will surely be too hard to resist? Mary Coughlan was fine with signing off on another 1.4 million for Rody Molloy to make sure he "went quietly".

I can see the attitude, of "ah sure, it's billions, who'll notice a few million let off here or there" and a wink and a nod taking root - especially if it's true the Finance Minister reserves the right to tell NAMA to reconsider offers.

Having said that, there's no way I'm joining in a march if there are banners like there were at the last one - "No To Lisbon" seemed prevalent, nor do I have any interest in swelling the ranks if it's being used as a platform for the usual suspects - hi there Richard Boyd Barrett - to push their agenda.

antrophe

onekeano wrote: »

I am not pro NAMA per se but the whole anti NAMA lobby smacks of hysteria rather than reasoned debate

Great the way the charges of hysteria always come from those that have an almost hysterical and irrational inability to look for solutions beyond propping up the property markets and banks that led us to the situation we are now in. I marched against NAMA and I'll be out on the 30th for march against cutbacks in the community sector. Hope to see some of you there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svgr_5OUQT0

darc

A simple explanation of Nama

House 1 bought for €300k in 2006 & mortgage of €270k
House 2 bought for €400k in 2007 and has a loan of 390k on it,
House 3 bought for €350k in 2005 and has a loan of €330k,
House 4 bought for 500k in 2003 and has €450k mortgage.

Based on a 50% drop from the top and prices being back at 2002/2003 levels, the total value of above today is approx. €950,000

The total mortgage outstanding on the properties is €1.44m

Take a average 30% discount and the amount you can buy all 4 of above properties is €1.1m. (The NAMA rate)


If you owned all above properties and somone said to you they are worth €950k if you sold today, but that we will give you €1.1m for them but not pay you this €1.1m for 10 years, would you think you're getting a good deal.

If you don't think you'd be getting a good deal, NAMA is good.

If you do think getting the €1.1m in the above example in 10 years is a good deal then NAMA have it wrong.

IMHO - Nama is as good as we can get for the situation and hopefully we all learn from it.

MikeC101

antrophe wrote: »

Great the way the charges of hysteria always come from those that have an almost hysterical and irrational inability to look for solutions beyond propping up the property markets and banks that led us to the situation we are now in. I marched against NAMA and I'll be out on the 30th for march against cutbacks in the community sector. Hope to see some of you there.

Onekeano didn't actually make the hysteria comment - he's just quoted the post incorrectly, he started the thread and is anti NAMA.

Amhran Nua

darc wrote: »

IMHO - Nama is as good as we can get for the situation and hopefully we all learn from it.

You know that old saying, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger? Yeah, thats not NAMA.

solas geal

I am neither anti nor pro Nama, but I am happy that the government are doing SOMETHING. You cannot nationalise the entire banking system without losing all credibility on international markets and noone would lend to us. You also can't really just bail out AIB & BOI and let the others go - again this would lead to a complete loss of credibility in the Irish banking sector across international markets. With Nama we may actually make some money from it, property prices WILL rise, to suggest that they won't is just folly.
There is too much complaining for the sake of complaining going on in Ireland. Yes loss of jobs is terrible, yes things probably haven't been managed as well as they could have been- that doesnt mean you just sit back and do nothing and complain about any option put on the table. Ireland needs to have a credible economy to get itself out of this recession, the cornerstone of a credible economy is a credible banking system. We are where we are, let's try and move on from it.

bauderline

antrophe wrote: »

Great the way the charges of hysteria always come from those that have an almost hysterical and irrational inability to look for solutions beyond propping up the property markets and banks that led us to the situation we are now in. I marched against NAMA and I'll be out on the 30th for march against cutbacks in the community sector. Hope to see some of you there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svgr_5OUQT0

1. keano didn't make that comment , I did, he was quoting me.
2. For reasons that have been explained ad infinitum we just can't let the banks go to the wall. The current theory is that it was the Bush administrations decision to let Lehman to go to the wall that sparked off the current banking crisis.
3. I cannot see how NAMA will have a substantial effect on property prices, please explain your assertion above.

Amhran Nua

solas geal wrote: »

You cannot nationalise the entire banking system without losing all credibility on international markets and noone would lend to us.

Actually the rumblings from the bond markets are that they would much prefer a strong government and clean banking system than the hobbled affair NAMA would produce.

bauderline

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Actually the rumblings from the bond markets are that they would much prefer a strong government and clean banking system than the hobbled affair NAMA would produce.

WTF !!??

Okay so Ted... What IS the solution for a clean banking system !?

Of all the proposals I thought NAMA was giving us the cleanest system ?

A strong government !? Who a FG / Labour government led by Enda ? Strong ?

SLUSK

So we should bail out bad banks in all eternity? This will lead to worse excesses and worse problems in the future, but who cares about the future? In the long run we're all dead right?

Amhran Nua

bauderline wrote: »

Okay so Ted... What IS the solution for a clean banking system !?

David McWilliams suggested one, Dermot Desmond another, Amhrán Nua (us) have a third.

bauderline wrote: »

Of all the proposals I thought NAMA was giving us the cleanest system ?

Lets get one thing straight here, NAMA is based on a successful model that was used in the Scandinavian countries. Its translation to Ireland however has seen the parts that make it work removed from the process, and a fairly shady arrangement of backroom deals replacing it. Its about as far from clean as it is possible to get.

bauderline wrote: »

A strong government !? Who a FG / Labour government led by Enda ? Strong ?

Strong in the sense that it does not allow itself to be pushed around by private for-profit corporations.

bauderline

SLUSK wrote: »

So we should bail out bad banks in all eternity? This will lead to worse excesses and worse problems in the future, but who cares about the future? In the long run we're all dead right?

No....

The one lesson that needs to be taken from this whole debacle is that financial institutions and markets needs strong, decisive and transparent regulation. Forget NAMA ! This is the real crux of the problem and it hasn't had much debate. You cannot trust politicians or civil servants with this stuff either, you need an independant body...

bauderline

Amhran Nua wrote: »

David McWilliams suggested one, Dermot Desmond another, Amhrán Nua (us) have a third.


Lets get one thing straight here, NAMA is based on a successful model that was used in the Scandinavian countries. Its translation to Ireland however has seen the parts that make it work removed from the process, and a fairly shady arrangement of backroom deals replacing it. Its about as far from clean as it is possible to get.


Strong in the sense that it does not allow itself to be pushed around by private for-profit corporations.

Didn't McWilliams suggest to let the banks fail ? He has finally lost the plot IMO !

I am not convinced by Desmonds theory either... and that's all it is a theory...

Also, I don't buy the whole NAMA is bailing out the developers argument, HOW IS IT ? By all accounts they will still be pursued for their debts by NAMA as the original lender would have done !

I do not see how this enhances the position of most developers !

optocynic

I would like to be there... but it will be hijacked by the no to lisbon yahoos..

Amhran Nua

bauderline wrote: »

Didn't McWilliams suggest to let the banks fail ? He has finally lost the plot IMO !

Here's his take on it.

A much cleaner and fairer idea would be to wind down the banks now. Before we do this, we’d have to go to the ECB and argue that Nama is the wrong way of going about things. We value the ECB’s liquidity and believe there is amore productive way of using it.

When the guarantee goes next October, or when we announce that we will not continue it, the foreign banks that have provided liquidity to our domestic banking system will run for the door. To prevent the system seizing up, we need liquidity from somewhere else.

So why not say to the ECB: forget the Nama bonds, just replace the short-term liquidity that will flee the country. This way we can negotiate with the bank creditors in an orderly fashion and create a new banking system out of the old one. The shareholders, unsecured, and senior bond holders would take the hit.

The ECB injects liquidity into the system so that the system doesn’t freeze up and, in return, it is off the hook from the nonsense that is the Nama bonds. We institute a deposits guarantee and begin to wind up our banks.

It is at this stage that we go to the foreign banks and ask them would they like to be partners in a new bank. The government is therefore a broker in the deal, rather than a principal.

We sell the banks’ branch network and some other assets. The creditors get this cash. Then we start again. The developers are declared bankrupt and off we go.

No Nama, no old banks, no debts, no problem. By the way, it’s not radical, it’s called capitalism.

Not at all bad in my opinion.

bauderline wrote: »

Also, I don't buy the whole NAMA is bailing out the developers argument, HOW IS IT ? By all accounts they will still be pursued for their debts by NAMA as the original lender would have done !

I do not see how this enhances the position of most developers !

Very good question, all I know is Zoe is moving earth and sky to stay intact until NAMA can take it over. This not only speaks of backroom deals but collusion on a breathtaking scale.

average_runner

Look stop moaning about NAMA, we created the mess ourselves. People bought houses at stupid prices not thinking how they could afford them if the worst came to worst or they had families.

Developers only kept building and putting up prices because us muppets were willing to buy them.

Banks offer people money way beyond their means but that doesnt mean the people had to take it. Just buy the house a bit further out from the city. God common sense is something the general public lacks

As for idiots you bought appartments from more than 4 miles from the city, well congratulations people, ye fools kept buying them and developers kept building them.

So at the end of the day its the banks, developers and us that cause it all. It was a free market and we would of all went mad if goverment tried to control it back then.


Now we have to bail the banks because for money to come into the system it has to come from the banks and no where else!!

SLUSK

Let it crash and start over fresh.

average_runner

let it crash and the brains will leave the country. And i aint talking about the Td's.

Talking about the IT, Accountants, Doctors, every profession where the top brains are!!

NAMA will not make money.

Make no mistake about it, we are buying fields/unfinished estates in the middle of nowhere that are worth...close to zero. We are buying commercial property that is worth...close to zero.

Now, I can see the 'hysteria' card is being thrown in here so I'm sure you're already thinking "Worth close to zero? What a loon". "Property prices can't be worth zero". If nobody is ever going to want to buy the crap, it's worth zero.


Now secondly, I would propose that if we owned the banks that in a couple of years the government would own serious amounts of land to get all sorts of infrastructure etc built for next to nothing.
Now to me that sounds good. But as far as I can see the government would prefer to sit on the land until it is "Worth a bit more". Why? So it can be sold to us at a higher rate?



Now there's been lots of talk about NAMA in the last few weeks in the media and on boards. In the media, it's all university economists, and people who've generally been right SO FAR who are trying to warn us what a bad idea NAMA is. While it is the banks, the investors and the FFers and their vested interests who are telling us what a wonderful plan this all is.

Why do you think this is?
Why is it the people who have ruined this country with their terrible, greed based decisions think this is such a good idea, when everyone else with nothing to gain thinks that NAMA is one of the worst options on the table.

I've posted why I dislike NAMA in a few threads so if you'd like to rebuke some of this go ahead:



1 - The fact that the banks have very little incentive to clean up their acts.
2 - Nobody gets fired over the whole debacle.
3 - The transfer of wealth from tax payers to PRIVATE investors (who took a risk investing - lets remember).
4 - No reason for the banks to all of a sudden start lending.
5 - Plenty of reason for them to invest a lot of their freed up money outside of Ireland.
6 - Bank fee's/rates pretty much guaranteed to rise as soon as nama is (and hopefully it wont be) implemented - screwing over the same people bailing them out.
7 - the secrecy of the whole thing. This seems to be the only option that keeps all of the dodgy deals secret, and also the only option that totally lets the developers off the hook.
8 - if ANY of this supposed good land that will rise again in price is *so* good then why aren't AIB holding onto it?




Now I've been talking about NAMA with friends/family and on here for the last few weeks and although I'm almost getting sick and tired of the 4 letters I'll be out on Saturday and the Saturday after that, and the Saturday after that. Under my own banner.

bauderline

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Here's his take on it.


Not at all bad in my opinion.


Very good question, all I know is Zoe is moving earth and sky to stay intact until NAMA can take it over. This not only speaks of backroom deals but collusion on a breathtaking scale.

Yeah, that was the article from McWilliams I read. You know what, it would be real nice if it was just that simple, now you and I both know that that real life is never that straightforward. I don't have time just now to go into it, but there are a lot of if's and's and but's in that solution. Not least of which is getting liquidity back into the system....

How do you do this when you have wound up all of your banks ?
How long would all this take ?
What degree of confidence would people have in this "brand new" bank ? What about the massive exodus of money into UK banks if the government where to announce such a solution ?
How easy would it be to get foreign own banks back into this country after winding up the old banks in such a brutal fashion ?
Would the EU evenly remotely tolerate all this ?

As for the whole Zoe thing I think its more of a case of sheer desperation, I can come to no other conclusion, moreover if I read things correctly they are going to run out of "runway" very shortly, likely long before NAMA gets running.... There is no reason to suggest that this isn't their very final "bite of the cherry" ... or have I missed something ?

Amhran Nua

bauderline wrote: »

Not least of which is getting liquidity back into the system....

Thats the one thing NAMA doesn't guarantee.

bauderline wrote: »

How do you do this when you have wound up all of your banks ?

With a new bank, as he states.

bauderline wrote: »

How long would all this take ?

If it takes ten years its better to be in good shape and owing nothing in ten years than being in good shape and owing €70 billion in ten years.

bauderline wrote: »

What degree of confidence would people have in this "brand new" bank ? What about the massive exodus of money into UK banks if the government where to announce such a solution ?

Guarantee the deposits up to a certain level, people will accept that.

bauderline wrote: »

How easy would it be to get foreign own banks back into this country after winding up the old banks in such a brutal fashion ?

An invitation into a market of 4 million people like Ireland? You'd have to beat them off with a stick.

bauderline wrote: »

Would the EU evenly remotely tolerate all this ?

If they can stomach the giant interefence in the market that is NAMA, this should slide down easy.

bauderline wrote: »

As for the whole Zoe thing I think its more of a case of sheer desperation, I can come to no other conclusion, moreover if I read things correctly they are going to run out of "runway" very shortly, likely long before NAMA gets running.... There is no reason to suggest that this isn't their very final "bite of the cherry" ... or have I missed something ?

Maybe, we shall see I'm sure.

LostinBlanch

bauderline wrote: »

Also, I don't buy the whole NAMA is bailing out the developers argument, HOW IS IT ? By all accounts they will still be pursued for their debts by NAMA as the original lender would have done !

I do not see how this enhances the position of most developers !

1. NAMA overpays for worthless assets using newly invented jargon such as "long term economic value" to attempt to justify vastly overpaying for said assets.
   
2. Section 148 of NAMA legislation states that the minister:

   “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.”

   So developers (who as a group have been acknowledged in the past to have been major backers of FF in the past) find themselves in debt and an FF minister can enter into agreement with the same developers and pay them to develop property that noone is in a position to, or wants to buy. Never mind the oversupply in the property market.

So not only does NAMA overpay for worthless "assets," it also provides a means of further transferring taxpayers money directly to developers to finish developing such "assets." In other words bailing out developer friends of FF.

Clear enough for you?

Blackjack

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Both David McWilliams and Dermot Desmond have proposed workable alternatives. Amhrán Nua, my own group, have done likewise.

People should be aware that the march on Saturday is being organised by the Socialist Worker's Party, the same ones that protested to close down the Galway airshow, its their banner you'll be marching under.

Do tell us - what do Amhrán Nua propose?. Is this how you propose we deal with the current Financial crisis?.