Alternative to NAMA

asdasd

Generally, across these here boards I see a lot of hostility to NAMA. Fine. However the whole thing is spitballs from the back of class. FF are corrupt. Greens are devient and power hungry. Blah.

Blah.

Blah.

And Mary harney is fat.

I never see in any of these threads an alternative. And I dont mean that someone should say we should spend less on the NAMA assets. Fine I would agree with that. But thats still in favour of Nama.

So what exactly do people want? And why not campaign for it. I know that McWilliams has ideas but is that what people want? I have an idea but it would destroy the banks, and remove most equity in most peoples housing. But what do I care? I dont own a house in Ireland. NAMA is holidng prices up so it benefits all house owners.

I bet that any solution produced by the Government at the moment would be rubbished.

So what are your - well thought out - solutions? We need a solution that restores credit to the economy.

Hydrosylator

Two alternatives, from each end of the spectrum.

1. Nationalisation. Turn the banks into the milk-cows of the state caufres. Use our position of power over the banks the way a business would. For our gain.
It would only be as good as who's in charge though, and our current government favours kid gloves over an iron fist when it comes to financial regulation.

2. Laizzes-faire capitalism. Let the market decide. Really, all that'd happen would be a change of ownership. The bondholders would become the shareholders, and only the current shareholders would lose. And saying that, they've already lost anyway. No sweat off my brow.

By the way, the whole "Only Show in Town" thing is nothing short of propaganda.

FG put forward a realistic proposal which is better than NAMA.
Labour put forward a realistic proposal which is better again.

I'd be for nationalisation, but FF/Greens haven't the balls to do it properly.

FF love to say no-one has a better idea, even when they do. if they repeat their mantra long and loud enough, they'll always find clowns to believe them.

asdasd

Thanks.

If the Banks need to be recapitalised would they not need the same amount of money as Nama anyway?

Hydrosylator

asdasd wrote: »

Thanks.

If the Banks need to be recapitalised would they not need the same amount of money as Nama anyway?

Indeed. However under NAMA, we only get the ****ty end of the stick. I'd rather have the whole stick. Why only take over the bad debts? Why not the take the good ones too? And all the assets?

hobochris

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Indeed. However under NAMA, we only get the ****ty end of the stick. I'd rather have the whole stick. Why only take over the bad debts? Why not the take the good ones too? And all the assets?

+1

just to add to these points:

The point of Nama is to get credit flowing, this so called "only solution" peddled as the best there is has a huge flaw, there are no guarantee's the banks will start providing credit again as a result of Nama.

In fact it is likely that bank shareholders will see Nama as an opportunity to take their money and run.

lmimmfn

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Two alternatives, from each end of the spectrum.

1. Nationalisation. Turn the banks into the milk-cows of the state caufres. Use our position of power over the banks the way a business would. For our gain.
It would only be as good as who's in charge though, and our current government favours kid gloves over an iron fist when it comes to financial regulation.

2. Laizzes-faire capitalism. Let the market decide. Really, all that'd happen would be a change of ownership. The bondholders would become the shareholders, and only the current shareholders would lose. And saying that, they've already lost anyway. No sweat off my brow.

By the way, the whole "Only Show in Town" thing is nothing short of propaganda.

FG put forward a realistic proposal which is better than NAMA.
Labour put forward a realistic proposal which is better again.

I'd be for nationalisation, but FF/Greens haven't the balls to do it properly.

FF love to say no-one has a better idea, even when they do. if they repeat their mantra long and loud enough, they'll always find clowns to believe them.

+1
1. Nationalisation is the key, however there is no reason that the board of each bank couldnt consist of promminant economists, ideally only having the board comprising of 25-40% state numties preventing the usual Public Service slow decision making and 0 accountability. For accountability the board would have to publish quarterly results as per the private sector.
Also all workers in the banks should have to resign contracts making them equvilent to private sector workers and not coming under the umbrella of public sector help your self pensions.
Pay the board bonuses if they do well and pay nothing if the banks cant be refloated at at least 60% of the value the shares were at last year( whenever that would happen, but it would happen quicker than Nama ).
At least that way the government( us ) get the value of the share price increase when the banks are liquid/refloatable rather than at the moment the shareholders gaining everything while us tax payers get nothing but more and more taxes.
A bank is a business, if it needs to be socialised and recapatilised by the taxpayer then the taxpayer should become the shareholder and reap the benefits.

2. Yep agree totally, its not like were in the US situation of Goldmann Sachs being unable to fail, the banks will just be taken over at the current share price( maybe slightly below but for AIB that would be upto the government to decide seing as the have such a high ownership percentage ) by another owner/investment company/bank, who cares if that happens, better than Nama.

The FG solution is flawed in that the total cost of it hasnt been calculated, however if those idiots had any cop on they'd have provided some figures by now( they've had several monts since april to get figures together, tbh in the current climate as an alternative party they are completely failing as are Labour in providing alternatives to Nama, theyre simply jumping on a bandwagon of Nama haters trying to drum support ).

Surely the total cost of funding a good bank would be no less whatsoever than Nama, not only that but if AIB or BOI go under whats to stop the 'good bank' buying them out if no other buyer is found, it just means a nationalisation of that bank under the good bank, in the future the good bank could be floated. However the good bank would have to be completely run as a private company even if it ment the government sponsoring it but buisiness heads taking charge, i.e. run as a subdivision of one of the promminent EU banks partially funded privately but mainly funded by government.

voxpop

lmimmfn wrote: »

Surely the total cost of funding a good bank would be no less whatsoever than Nama, not only that but if AIB or BOI go under whats to stop the 'good bank' buying them out if no other buyer is found, it just means a nationalisation of that bank under the good bank, in the future the good bank could be floated. However the good bank would have to be completely run as a private company even if it ment the government sponsoring it but buisiness heads taking charge, i.e. run as a subdivision of one of the promminent EU banks partially funded privately but mainly funded by government.

Does this solution not lead to one super bank emerging and limited competition for that bank, so you are left with a banking wasteland and one state-sponsored bank that is finally privatised and given free reign.

Think an eircom of the banking sector.


Also is NAMA not just the American idea of a "Bad Bank" shrouded in spin

SkepticOne

The attractiveness of nationalisation is that it goes some way to solving the problem of overpaying as well as underpaying for those assets. After the bank is nationalised the assets are simply separated into two institutions. No money changes hands. All that needs to happen is that sufficient impaired assets are transferred that the 'good' institution has a chance of viability when it is put back on the market.

One of the reasons the current NAMA will probably fail bringing the country [further] down with it is that it has too many goals, some of which pull against each other.

I would suggest that a proper proposal should have only one goal, the creation of one or more viable businesses that can be re-privatised quickly.

There should be no hanging about for an improvement in the market that may not come. No trying to make a profit for the taxpayer. No trying to get the banks to lend against their better judgement while at the same time trying to ensure they don't recklessly lend. No trying to put a floor on property prices. No propping up shareholders and bondholders. No paying developers to finish buildings for which there is no market - if there is a market, let the market fund the finishing of the buildings.

None of these things are the reason for NAMA in the first place. They all got added in order to try and sell NAMA to the public and the various vested interests, but along the way started to be confused with the original purpose which was to have viable banks in Ireland.

Therefore:
1. Privatise the banks.
2. Separate the assets.
3. Re-privatise the banks.
4. Sell the impaired assets for whatever can be got.

All these steps should be done, imo, as quickly as possible.

lmimmfn

voxpop wrote: »

Does this solution not lead to one super bank emerging and limited competition for that bank, so you are left with a banking wasteland and one state-sponsored bank that is finally privatised and given free reign.

Think an eircom of the banking sector.

not really, i agree that it has impacts with monopolisation however only short term until the banking sector in ireland is liquid once that happens it can float allowing the government to reap the rewards on the initial float share price.

The other thing is it doesnt prevent competition if the rates of the bank are slightly less competitive than the general EU rates leaving the market wide open for competition to flourish. Also measures could be put in place to ensure the market could be competitive.

Eircom of the banking sector couldnt happen, the reason the Eircon float destroyed irish investors is:
a) its not feasible for regular telecoms operators to provide broadband or telephony services to the most rural irish locations and unfortunately Ireland is a very rural community.
b) due to A we had 0 competition in the market and still dont due to how rural Ireland is.
The banking sector is central. With a good bank BOI and AIB could function as normal unless they would go under, the good bank could finance enterprise but leave customer banking to AIB and BOI. If AIB and/or BOI went under they could be nationalised under the good bank with the good bank taking up local offices and then provide banking for regular consumers.

Like everything it could be subject to corruption but noone can provide any solution based on corruption as its next to impossible

asdasd

Sceptic. I assume number 1 would be nationalise the banks.

All these solutions sound good to me. My radical solution, which I didnt put in the OP in case it became the discussion point is this.

1) Nationalize the banks.
2) Change bankrupty laws to a maximum of one year.
3) Allow people to go bankrupt. The Banks take over the house.
4) House rented back at "market" rates to ex-owner. Expect those rates to fall.
5) The owner can buy back the house when he is out of bankruptcy. 25% deposit for ex-bankrupts.
6) The nationalised banks are re-privatised when economically feasible.

That would remove any floor on the property market. It actually makes no sense for people with negative equity ( and no liquid assets) to pay back a mortgage worth more than a house - economic theory would assume that people would leave the house. The reason they don't is because of the stigma associated with Bankruptcy, and the length of time associated with it.

Of course to be bankrupt you cant have other liquid assets, and have to sell off any other property. If both are underwater quids in.

Obviously this is pretty radical. It is a transfer from wealth owners to income earners. The loss of net wealth is overcome by a massive increase in net income - as the new rents will be far lower than the old mortgages if everybody avails of the opportunity, as so many rental units come on the market.

Tipp Man

SkepticOne wrote: »

The attractiveness of nationalisation is that it goes some way to solving the problem of overpaying as well as underpaying for those assets. After the bank is nationalised the assets are simply separated into two institutions. No money changes hands. All that needs to happen is that sufficient impaired assets are transferred that the 'good' institution has a chance of viability when it is put back on the market.

One of the reasons the current NAMA will probably fail bringing the country [further] down with it is that it has too many goals, some of which pull against each other.

I would suggest that a proper proposal should have only one goal, the creation of one or more viable businesses that can be re-privatised quickly.

There should be no hanging about for an improvement in the market that may not come. No trying to make a profit for the taxpayer. No trying to get the banks to lend against their better judgement while at the same time trying to ensure they don't recklessly lend. No trying to put a floor on property prices. No propping up shareholders and bondholders. No paying developers to finish buildings for which there is no market - if there is a market, let the market fund the finishing of the buildings.

None of these things are the reason for NAMA in the first place. They all got added in order to try and sell NAMA to the public and the various vested interests, but along the way started to be confused with the original purpose which was to have viable banks in Ireland.

Therefore:
1. Privatise the banks.
2. Separate the assets.
3. Re-privatise the banks.
4. Sell the impaired assets for whatever can be got.

All these steps should be done, imo, as quickly as possible.

But don't you still end up in the same situation as you are in now (after NAMA) where you have the banks cleaned out of bad loans (on the most part) but a huge white elephant sitting in the corner which is the bad loans that you took out of the banks before re-privatisation. What do you do with all these bad loans, they are still there??

I really don't see how this is that much different to NAMA apart from the short term nationalisation.

asdasd

I expect the long term effects of my idea would be property ownership rates of 40%. We also need German type laws to protect renters.

Tipp Man

asdasd wrote: »

I expect the long term effects of my idea would be property ownership rates of 40%. We also need German type laws to protect renters.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing, the whole Irish thing of must buy a house asap is just plain stupid to be honest.

You are indeed correct however as the law in Ireland does not suit the long term renter and a structural change needs to take place both in the irish property market and in the law

Personally i don't think i will ever buy a house in Ireland and will be perfectly happy to rent for my entire working life

SkepticOne

Tipp Man wrote: »

But don't you still end up in the same situation as you are in now (after NAMA) where you have the banks cleaned out of bad loans (on the most part) but a huge white elephant sitting in the corner which is the bad loans that you took out of the banks before re-privatisation. What do you do with all these bad loans, they are still there??

I really don't see how this is that much different to NAMA apart from the short term nationalisation.

You are totally correct, and this elephant will still cost the country billions. Unfortunately, there is no way of avoiding innocent individuals paying for the stupidity and greed of others. The only thing you can do is avoid over paying or paying for a whole load of things that have nothing to do with solving the original problem.

Long Onion

No-one has yet been able to explain to me how NAMA buying the loans at a dicount of (say) 25% is over paying, when nationalising the banks and having to deal with the full original values of the loans isn't.

I'm not being sarky here, I just can't follow the logic and wish someone would explain to me the following:

Developers Bank Inc made stupid property loans of €1bn and are now on their arse because many of them are now in default. Useless government Inc. set up a proxy to buy the loans for €750m, allowing the share and bond holders of Developers bank deal with the other €250m.

McWilliams institute of economics says "you crazy fools, you are paying too much for the loans, we should just nationalise the bank and take over the liability for the full €1bn and all the personal mortgages which are falling into arrears too - this is much cheaper"



Please help me?

SkepticOne

Long Onion wrote: »

No-one has yet been able to explain to me how NAMA buying the loans at a dicount of (say) 25% is over paying, when nationalising the banks and having to deal with the full original values of the loans isn't.

Discount against what? The market value? That is the only value that counts.

Tipp Man

SkepticOne wrote: »

You are totally correct, and this elephant will still cost the country billions. Unfortunately, there is no way of avoiding innocent individuals paying for the stupidity and greed of others. The only thing you can do is avoid over paying or paying for a whole load of things that have nothing to do with solving the original problem.

So is your non-happiness (for want of a better word) with NAMA down to pricing then or is it to the whole NAMA concept??

Long Onion

SkepticOne wrote: »

Discount against what? The market value? That is the only value that counts.

But it is not the property that NAMA is buying right? They are buying the loan from the bank, so they are buying (to revert to my example for the sake of roundness) €1bn of loans for €750m so we are faced with the potential write off of €750m, if the bank were nationalised, we would be left with the potential write off of €1bn.

thebman

The reason people think NAMA is the only show in town is the government keep saying it and RTE won't give proper coverage to anyone that says anything else.

Where is the detailed examination on public television of the various options open to us with respected economists telling us which way they think we should go. Why is so much information being held back from the public and only available in private media?

And we pay a license fee for this privilege :rolleyes:

Nody

Long Onion wrote: »

But it is not the property that NAMA is buying right? They are buying the loan from the bank, so they are buying (to revert to my example for the sake of roundness) €1bn of loans for €750m so we are faced with the potential write off of €750m, if the bank were nationalised, we would be left with the potential write off of €1bn.

You're making a basic fault in your calculations and that lies in the valuation of the loan.

The loan is worth 250M (this is what the market is willing to pay and this is the actual value); the loan was originally 1BN and NAMA buys it for 750M. The bank now has netted 500M by selling it at a to high price to us. This means that with Nama we risk to lose 750M directly and another 250M needs to be gathered for the Bank from some where else (most likely the state coffers any way). On top of this we still have to pay to have the place finished up for a better sales price (those developers brown envelopes needs to be paid of after all).

With nationalisation we risk the 1BN but we also take over the ALL the good assets and wipe out the shareholders (with NAMA we take the risk and stakeholders reap the benefit). This means the over all loan book of the bank was 100BN loans, 30BN bad loans and 15BN assets (cash, credits etc.). This means we have now 70BN loans we can sell directly (at say 90% value for 63BN), 15 BN assets we can sell directly and 30 BN bad loans (valued at say 25% so 7.5BN) at netting us a 85.5% value in the bank itself AND the money we get from selling the whole bank again back on the market (say another 5BN).

On top of this we also can tell the bank to start lending (reason behind NAMA) instead of hording cash for future problems/BS balance purposes (actual effect of NAMA).

I.e. we get the result we want faster, cheaper over all and most importantly the risk in the market is reinforced (shareholders are wiped out). This has been done successfully in Sweden and this is what should be done; not the current NAMA way of "If we reap profit give it to shareholders and if we make a loss ask the taxpayers to cover it".

SkepticOne

Long Onion wrote: »

But it is not the property that NAMA is buying right? They are buying the loan from the bank, so they are buying (to revert to my example for the sake of roundness) €1bn of loans for €750m so we are faced with the potential write off of €750m, if the bank were nationalised, we would be left with the potential write off of €1bn.

It still has a market value even if it is a loan. If we pay over the market value, we are overpaying regardless of whatever the book value is or was.

With regard to your example. Let us take the 1 billion book value. Let us say it is worth 250M on the open market but that NAMA will pay 750m. That is a loss to the public of 500M. No one knows exactly what the market value is on these loans but we do know that NAMA will be overpaying.

Nationalising means that we only pay what the asset is worth on the open market. We will be acquiring the zomby bank for nothing (although it is really worth less than nothing), separating it from the impaired assets and then selling everything on the open market. We will be down money at the end of it but only by the true market value not some dodgy "future long-term value".

SkepticOne

Tipp Man wrote: »

So is your non-happiness (for want of a better word) with NAMA down to pricing then or is it to the whole NAMA concept??

Not quite. If you priced the assets correctly then you would leave the banks undercapitalised. So it is not an option to simply pay the market price and leave it at that.

The other thing I'm not happy with is the fact that these assets will be 'managed' over the course of 10 to 15 years largely in secret. How much is that going to cost?

lmimmfn

Long Onion wrote: »

No-one has yet been able to explain to me how NAMA buying the loans at a dicount of (say) 25% is over paying, when nationalising the banks and having to deal with the full original values of the loans isn't.

Theyre not at a 25% discount, theyre 25% less than the original market price paid when bought, there is no longer any market for these assets and there wont be for a very long time bar international investors buying them up. The total book value last year before the crisis was 120billion, marked down to 90billion and again to percieved future market value of 56billion. The problem is a lot of these assets are half finished projects requiring more investment to even finish, not only that you have the bottle factory where the land is contaminated, you also have apartment blocks that cant be rented due to saturation in that market and also a small percentage are foreign investments

Theyre not worth 56billion in any shape or form for the simple fact that if the government bails the banks out via Nama it will be a very very long time before Ireland gets back to property values of 2007. Were expected( so the economists say, im not one so take it at that ) to come out of recession in 2011/2012 expanding at 2% per year every year after that but were contracting at 6% per year currently. By 2012 we will have so much ground to make up that it will be 2020 before were back to 2007 levels( and property prices ), thats without Nama, add another 5-10 years if Nama is implemented due to a high tax ecomomy( to fund Nama ) with little consumer spending preventing the economy from expanding due to very little dispossable imcome.

The difference between that and nationalising the banks is thus. If all the bad assets of a bank are bought by the government then the banks become nigh on completely risk free. The share price of the banks last year was ~15-17euro, currently at ~3euro. With nama and the bad loans offloaded the share price of the banks will skyrocket, meaning while the taxpayer is left with a lump of $hit to pay for over an extremely long period but the investors in banks will make an absolute fortune( or make them ripe for a takeover making the board of directors and the majority shareholders a fortune and screwing your average shareholder aka what happened with Eircon ). That fortune should be made by the government on reprivatisation.

Its already begun - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1012/breaking26.htm

If a bank had 0 risk it will be worth a fortune( look at Goldmann Sachs again which is basically a more advanced stage than our banks are currently at before being bailed via Nama )

voxpop

The whole point is to recapitalise the banks - so saying that NAMA is overpaying for loans is beside the point of what NAMA is supposed to achieve. If NAMA paid less for the loans, the gov would have to put more in to recapitalise - so johnny taxpayer still gets stung.

We have to recapitalise the bank (again) whether NAMA pays 35bn and the government puts in a further 10bn or NAMA pays 25bn and the government pays 20bn its all the same in the end, i.e. the tax payer is taking the hit.

lmimmfn

voxpop wrote: »

The whole point is to recapitalise the banks - so saying that NAMA is overpaying for loans is beside the point of what NAMA is supposed to achieve. If NAMA paid less for the loans, the gov would have to put more in to recapitalise - so johnny taxpayer still gets stung.

We have to recapitalise the bank (again) whether NAMA pays 35bn and the government puts in a further 10bn or NAMA pays 25bn and the government pays 20bn its all the same in the end, i.e. the tax payer is taking the hit.

exactly so: bank risk recapitalisation + Nama = close to total value of banks
so being that it should be nationalised and reprivatised later whereby the country gains from the hardship of increased taxes.

Long Onion

Sceptic One & Nody - thanks very much, the most coherent explaination I've heard. What you are saying makes sense, but I am still sceptical about the long term effects of nationalisation whne looking at the current (and still rising) bill for Anglo.

Immimfm - your post is of the kind that has confused me by constantly referring back to the market value of the assets against which the loans were secured. NAMA is not buying the assets - it is buying the loans, regardless of the book value of the assets, should the developer pay back the loan there will be no loss.

May I respectfully suggest that you amend your explaination as to why you do not like NAMA to take account of this fact, I think you will have much more success in informing others.

asdasd

Can we nationalise for free? The Market is pricing the shares at £3, up from cents a few months ago ( I assume, because of NAMA). However do all these organisations owe the government so much money that we can swap loans for equity, or does the government have to pay market rates?

BTW, I was on the fence before I read this thread but I think the anti-Nama guy are sweeping the argument.

lmimmfn

Long Onion wrote: »

Immimfm - your post is of the kind that has confused me by constantly referring back to the market value of the assets against which the loans were secured. NAMA is not buying the assets - it is buying the loans, regardless of the book value of the assets, should the developer pay back the loan there will be no loss.

May I respectfully suggest that you amend your explaination as to why you do not like NAMA to take account of this fact, I think you will have much more success in informing others.

Sorry for the confusion, no Nama isint just buying the loans, Nama is paying for the loans which in turn means they get the assets. The government will own a huge amount of assets( buildings, land, bottle factories, greenfields ).

The loans were taken out to pay for assets, paying off the loans means the assets are being bought which is what Nama is for( National Asset Management Agency ).

The developers will never pay back the loans as the asset it being transferred to Nama, Nama pays the bank the remainder of the loan at the marked down value( but still future percieved market value of the asset ). The bank gets off scott free, the developer gets off scott free but the taxpayer is left with a load of unsellable assets and overvalues assets in the current market( of course some are good also but they'll just take time to sell ).
The problem is to recoup money with Nama it will take many years while the government( us ) pays the international loan rate + the original lump sum off.
Currently were still a AA rating loan country( i think anyway, may be AAA but we got downgraded recently ), if we get downgraded again the interest on the ECB loan for Nama will increase and also the ECB rate is extremely low at the moment, Europe is supposed to come out of recession next year meaning ECB rates increase and our cost of Nama increases.

I dunno if that explains it ok?

asdasd wrote: »

Can we nationalise for free? The Market is pricing the shares at £3, up from cents a few months ago ( I assume, because of NAMA). However do all these organisations owe the government so much money that we can swap loans for equity, or does the government have to pay market rates?

BTW, I was on the fence before I read this thread but I think the anti-Nama guy are sweeping the argument.

Sweden Nationalised in the 90's, as the banks couldnt continue without government intervention they offered a % of the current market rate( basically ment shareholders got something rather than the bank going under and their shares being worthless ). Therefore the government could offer 1.80/2Euro per share with absolutely no more money whatsoever from the government, if the shareholders disagree their shares will become worthless anyway without government guarantees of bailing them out.

Thats still a lot of money to buy the banks but banks make a lot of profit and a refloat through reprivatisation would get the proper market value of a liquid bank. This of course would only EVER work if the bank was being run in a private manner even though it was nationalised( i.e. quarterly results, bonuses for performing well etc. etc. ) and with neglible interference from the government other than through the regulatory body.

voxpop

asdasd wrote: »

BTW, I was on the fence before I read this thread but I think the anti-Nama guy are sweeping the argument.

Im not for NAMA, but something has to be done now. The longer we wait the worse things will get. The US waited after Lehmans went down, to-ing and fro-ing over different ways to bolster the economy and bring back confidence. This arguably made things worse, and accelerated the crisis.

This(nama) or some solution should have been started months ago - a year has passed since the sh1t hit the fan and still we have yet to make a decision while all around us have put their plans into action months ago.

lmimmfn

voxpop wrote: »

ways to bolster the economy and bring back confidence.

Thats the problem, Nama will kill the economy as it will kill confidence in it, both for the individual( seeing years of increasing taxes and less disposable income will kill consumer spending ) and for corporations( they have to pay uncompetitive wages due to a large majority having such large negitive equity coupled with lower and lower disposable income to pay their mortgages ).

THe irish economy will remain uncompetitive for years because of the cost of living( including negative equity mortgages ) and very little disposable income to fuel the economy and indirectly the government tax/vat purse.

Without Nama and with nationalisation + good bank at least there will be an end in sight whereby the huge taxes subside( government makes a fortune from refloating ) and we can start spending again and kickstart the economy again.

voxpop

lmimmfn wrote: »

Thats the problem, Nama will kill the economy as it will kill confidence in it,

But everytime it seems like nama is moving on, the ISEQ moves up. Is this not a sign of investor confidence returning or is it just greedy stockbrokers looking to make a quick buck on banking shares.