NAMA - The I told you so thread..... !!!

Raiser

Its early January 2010 - A perfect time to post here just for the record your forecasts and predictions on the inevitable catastrophic failure of NAMA well ahead of this States most assured economic mega-fiasco, and the certain International ridicule it will draw upon us as it becomes widely known the exact manner of the agenda-ridden, imbecilic and utterly illogical manner in which we are being led by the nose to throw 60-90 Billion into an Abyss in order to preserve the lifestyles and earnings of the white collar Criminals within a Banking system that is, was and will be thoroughly rotten to the core.

- Alternatively; If you happen to believe that NAMA is a shrewd and well considered step then why not post your thoughts and we'll simply wait patiently for clarity in hindsight at some point in our bleak future....

EDIT: Just to add - When the Tribunal gets underway, will it be called the NAMA Tribunal or do they always tend to be named after the Man in charge....?

- Am taking bets now on when the NAMA Tribunal will begin, what it will be called and who the main Defendants from Fianna Fail and The Green Party will be in Courtroom 1; PM me for odds, abysmal form and all tawdry specifics....

Nodin

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this 'meant' to lose money, and its just a case of shifting the burden of the Banks dire decisons elsewhere to loosen credit.....?

ei.sdraob

would you trust this guy with 1.5 billion i bet it will all endup in NAMA

Bernard McNamara last night admitted his "head is on a plate" as he revealed he owes €1.5bn

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/my-head-is-on-a-plate-says-builder-in-euro15bn-debt-2012974.html

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this 'meant' to lose money, and its just a case of shifting the burden of the Banks dire decisons elsewhere to loosen credit.....?

Loosening credit isn't going to happen - the banks' CEOs have said as much to an Oireachtas committee. It seems the sole purpose of NAMA has been to transfer the losses from the banks' stakeholders to the taxpayers, with nothing in return.

jmayo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

would you trust this guy with 1.5 billion i bet it will all endup in NAMA





http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/my-head-is-on-a-plate-says-builder-in-euro15bn-debt-2012974.html

Ahh wasn't it sad to see him blubbering on the news last night.
NOT. :D:D

Screw him, he has left the taxpayer carrying the can for his mess ups.
He wasn't blubbring when he pulled the plug on going ahead with the regeneration projects in Dublin city centre, because get it, he would not make enough money out of it and wanted to change the contract.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Loosening credit isn't going to happen - the banks' CEOs have said as much to an Oireachtas committee. It seems the sole purpose of NAMA has been to transfer the losses from the banks' stakeholders to the taxpayers, with nothing in return.

There a few questions i would love answered.
1. Why are we recapitalising a bank (Anlgo) that no longer lends at all, and when it did, it really only lent to high net worth individuals who were mostly involved in the construction industry ?

The only answer I can arrive at it is that the ECB have stated no EU, or rather EUROzone, country will allow a bank to fall.
Failing that the only other answer is that they are very connected to the ruling elite :rolleyes:
Could be both :rolleyes:

2. Why haven't we nationalised the big two (really systemic high street) banks already ?
We have invested more than they are actually worth on paper so why not just take them over ?

Highly Salami

jmayo wrote: »

The only answer I can arrive at it is that the ECB have stated no EU, or rather EUROzone, country will allow a bank to fall.

when did the ECB say that? Why shouldn't some banks fail?
Not allowing any bank to fail just encourages reckless risk-tiking by banks.

ei.sdraob

Highly Salami wrote: »

when did the ECB say that? Why shouldn't some banks fail?
Not allowing any bank to fail just encourages reckless risk-tiking by banks.

considering that larger banks have fallen and/or where nationalised in other eurozone countries

i dont buy the ECB point made above


so that leaves us with the only explanation

gombeenism and feckery between certain ex galway tent buddies in high places

Biggins

ei.sdraob wrote: »

...gombeenism and feckery between certain ex galway tent buddies in high places

Well that helps to explain someone's love of races in the past!

SeanW

NAMA will do little or nothing for the economy.
NAMA will do nothing for to loosen credit markets. Small (and otherwise creditworthy businesses) will continue to go to the wall for the lack of day-to-day credit.
NAMA will lose at least €20bn.
New taxes and spending cuts will be required to pay for the NAMA bonds when they mature.

Colonel Sanders

SeanW wrote: »

NAMA will do little or nothing for the economy.
NAMA will do nothing for to loosen credit markets. Small (and otherwise creditworthy businesses) will continue to go to the wall for the lack of day-to-day credit.
NAMA will lose at least €20bn.
New taxes and spending cuts will be required to pay for the NAMA bonds when they mature.

Agree apart from thinking the highlighted bit may be on the low side

Tipsy Mac

The problem with NAMA is it is going to keep property prices artificially high which is what actually brought us where we are at the moment. Mortgage control of €175,000 minimum by the big banks is designed to limit the fall of house prices, this though will actually limit the purchase of houses and result in a fall of 30% plus by this year end of house prices

oppenheimer1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Loosening credit isn't going to happen - the banks' CEOs have said as much to an Oireachtas committee. It seems the sole purpose of NAMA has been to transfer the losses from the banks' stakeholders to the taxpayers, with nothing in return.

What was the alternative? Let the banks go to the wall? Well that would have caused outrage, Johnny can't buy bread because the atms are out of cash and not feasible after the blanket guarantee (not that it was beforehand anyway) Nationalise the banks? Well the taxpayer would have to absorb all the losses then. Nama is a vehicle to stall for time in the hope that in the next decade property will recover, and it will if even only modestly.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Nama is a vehicle to stall for time in the hope that in the next decade property will recover, and it will if even only modestly.

What's "recover", though ?

Lots of people would argue that it was grossly overpriced and that the crash has merely brought it back to where it should be.

If that's the case, what other "recovery" is required or likely ?

oppenheimer1

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh wasn't it sad to see him blubbering on the news last night.
NOT. :D:D

Screw him, he has left the taxpayer carrying the can for his mess ups.
He wasn't blubbring when he pulled the plug on going ahead with the regeneration projects in Dublin city centre, because get it, he would not make enough money out of it and wanted to change the contract.



There a few questions i would love answered.
1. Why are we recapitalising a bank (Anlgo) that no longer lends at all, and when it did, it really only lent to high net worth individuals who were mostly involved in the construction industry ?

The only answer I can arrive at it is that the ECB have stated no EU, or rather EUROzone, country will allow a bank to fall.
Failing that the only other answer is that they are very connected to the ruling elite :rolleyes:
Could be both :rolleyes:

2. Why haven't we nationalised the big two (really systemic high street) banks already ?
We have invested more than they are actually worth on paper so why not just take them over ?

Why? Well if anglo hadn't been saved, international investors who have large sums on deposit would have seen Ireland as a risky place to keep their money. There would have been a flight of capital from the remaining banks, sending them to the wall too. When an institution fails it has knock on effects on those around them, like the way Lehmens demise led to the demise of others. The naivety of the people with regardsto a stable banking system is astounding. All people want is their pound of flesh an to hell with the consequences.

I'd be pretty sure you'd be fairly pissed off if you found your atm card didn't work in the morning. You have to remember that what seems like an unlikely scenario almost happened.

oscarBravo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What was the alternative? Let the banks go to the wall? Well that would have caused outrage, Johnny can't buy bread because the atms are out of cash and not feasible after the blanket guarantee (not that it was beforehand anyway) Nationalise the banks? Well the taxpayer would have to absorb all the losses then. Nama is a vehicle to stall for time in the hope that in the next decade property will recover, and it will if even only modestly.

I can't claim that I know what the best alternative to NAMA would have been. What I am seeing is an unconditional, no-catch bailout of financial institutions with all the risk being transferred to the taxpayer. There are two clear problems with this: one, we were sold this pup on the basis that it would make desperately-needed credit available to businesses, which turns out to have been a bare-faced lie, and two, it means that banks have now had it made perfectly clear to them that they can take as much risk as they want in the future with zero downside. They can lend as much as they want to whatever developers they want, and if the property market crashes, the next generation of taxpayers will pick up the tab. We've put moral hazard on a statutory footing, and made "too big to fail" the cornerstone of the banks' business plans.

Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's OK to mortgage our children's future on the hope that we can somehow eventually force property prices back up to the bubble values that we were decrying at the time as making it impossible for young couples to get onto the property ladder.

I just fail to see how, is all.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's "recover", though ?

Lots of people would argue that it was grossly overpriced and that the crash has merely brought it back to where it should be.

If that's the case, what other "recovery" is required or likely ?

I would define recovery as a rise in house prices. And house prices will rise again in about a year at a rate of at least 2% to 3% year on year.(inflation) Currently there is sweet fa development in the country so thankfully the oversupply is being tackled. As NAMA is a long term project with a projected lifespan of 15 or more years. For NAMA to lose €20bn as one poster suggested is laughable, they are implying that prices will continue to fall and stay there for the next 15 to 20 years?

The doom and gloom is boring, the recession is ending, we have turned the corner.

skelliser

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I would define recovery as a rise in house prices. And house prices will rise again in about a year at a rate of at least 2% to 3% year on year.

The doom and gloom is boring, the recession is ending, we have turned the corner.

lol just lol!

so as long as house prices increase we are back on track! regardless of the nearly 500,000 on the dole!
Seems you have learnt nothing from this recession

kando

Overall, I think any solution to the present crisis is going to be a major risk, so we should just accept NAMA and hope it works out.

oppenheimer1

skelliser wrote: »

lol just lol!

so as long as house prices increase we are back on track! regardless of the nearly 500,000 on the dole!
Seems you have learnt nothing from this recession

You're quoting me out of context. This is a discussion about NAMA not the wider economic recovery (although intrinsically linked). For Nama to be a success there has to be a long term increase in the value of property. It is a certainty that prices will rise in the long term. They don't make land anymore you know.


When GDP starts to rise again we will see a stabilisation in the numbers of those unemployed, and two maybe three quarters later the numbers starting to fall. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic performance.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I would define recovery as a rise in house prices.

I wouldn't.

A massive part of the reason Ireland is uncompetitive is the fact that Irish people have to pay about a grand a month in mortgages, and that's even at a low interest rate, in order to have a modest, basic, feck-all local facilities with badly-planned roads and infrastructure, home.

Houses were NEVER worth the amount that was being charged for them, and now that they're heading back to realistic prices, there is no guarantee that they will rise significantly again - and if things are done right, they won't.

A home should be just that - a home. Not an "investment" and not a step on a ladder.

The problem that NAMA creates is that in order to be a success, house prices have to return to the crazy levels that they were previously at (what you appear to view as "recover", but what I view as "more of the same crap").

So - rather than accept the current realistic prices - FF have now created a scenario whereby they have to impose an economy where that happens, and in doing so have signed up to making Ireland uncompetitive in the future, with a return to crazy mortgages and rent, and the resulting costs which will need to be reflected in wages.

Keep house prices realistic, and we (the taxpayer) lose through NAMA.
Let FF and their developer buddies have their way, and we lose through competitiveness and wages.

FF have a lot to answer for. :mad:

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I would define recovery as a rise in house prices. And house prices will rise again in about a year at a rate of at least 2% to 3% year on year.(inflation) Currently there is sweet fa development in the country so thankfully the oversupply is being tackled. As NAMA is a long term project with a projected lifespan of 15 or more years. For NAMA to lose €20bn as one poster suggested is laughable, they are implying that prices will continue to fall and stay there for the next 15 to 20 years?

The doom and gloom is boring, the recession is ending, we have turned the corner.

the prices have dropped
* close to 50% now for residential
* god knows how much for commercial
* and 90% for land


assuming they start growing at 2% as you predict, how many years to recover back to peak?

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't.

A massive part of the reason Ireland is uncompetitive is the fact that Irish people have to pay about a grand a month in mortgages, and that's even at a low interest rate, in order to have a modest, basic, feck-all local facilities with badly-planned roads and infrastructure, home.

Houses were NEVER worth the amount that was being charged for them, and now that they're heading back to realistic prices, there is no guarantee that they will rise significantly again - and if things are done right, they won't.

A home should be just that - a home. Not an "investment" and not a step on a ladder.

The problem that NAMA creates is that in order to be a success, house prices have to return to the crazy levels that they were previously at (what you appear to view as "recover", but what I view as "more of the same crap").

So - rather than accept the current realistic prices - FF have now created a scenario whereby they have to impose an economy where that happens, and in doing so have signed up to making Ireland uncompetitive in the future, with a return to crazy mortgages and rent, and the resulting costs which will need to be reflected in wages.

Keep house prices realistic, and we (the taxpayer) lose through NAMA.
Let FF and their developer buddies have their way, and we lose through competitiveness and wages.

FF have a lot to answer for. :mad:

Bizarrely I agree with most of what you say, but you don't seem to get the concept that in the long term property prices have to rise. If property prices were to stay at current levels, then over time there would be a real loss in value through inflation. Therefore as long as the rate of property inflation is greater than the yield on a government bond Nama will be profitable. (In the long term)

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They don't make land anymore you know.

classic :rolleyes:

FYI we have enough land zoned to keep demand for better part of this century and Ireland has a fairly low population density

not to mention a gigarmous amount of empty houses > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64002680&postcount=7

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Bizarrely I agree with most of what you say, but you don't seem to get the concept that in the long term property prices have to rise.

Why ?

You buy a car because you need it, you use it, at the end of its life it's worth feck-all.

But if you needed it, there's no "loss".

You buy a house because you need it, you use it, at the end of its life it's worth the same amount that you paid for it.

DEFINITELY no "loss".

I'd be OK with having a house increase in value because you improved it, or maybe even if there was a new bus stop or shopping centre built near it.

But there is no reason for it to increase for no reason.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why ?

You buy a car because you need it, you use it, at the end of its life it's worth feck-all.

But if you needed it, there's no "loss".

You buy a house because you need it, you use it, at the end of its life it's worth the same amount that you paid for it.

DEFINITELY no "loss".

I'd be OK with having a house increase in value because you improved it, or maybe even if there was a new bus stop or shopping centre built near it.

But there is no reason for it to increase for no reason.

Right well I'll try and explain it Because the money supply is almost always increasing your €1000 euro today will buy you 1000 widgets however because of inflation (at say 5%) you will only be able to buy 950 widgets for €1000 next year. If the inherent value of a house doesn't change, a house bought for €100,000 will be worth €105,263 in year two without doing anything to it. Basically the value of the house stays the same but money becomes worth less as time goes on.

JonathanAnon

The doom and gloom is boring, the recession is ending, we have turned the corner.

I work part time as a web designer, and I can see a lot of positivity from people this year that was not there last year. Got contacted from two people starting up new businesses, which I think is very brave in this environment. So I'm not sure about the recession ending but there is certainly positivity coming back.

I do work for many different areas, a private investigator, an architect, a kitchen salesman... and all have the same problem... getting paid. This is a combination of the fact that a) businesses cant get paid by other businesses to pass it on b) businesses cant get credit and c) businesses going in to examinorship/liquidation.

NAMA will do nothing to help this situation. Like the guy on with Vincent Browne said last nite, the bankers will have no patriotic leaning that would encourage them to give back to the people that have saved them. They will put the money into safer option and the credit situation will stay the same.

NAMA will ensure that the people who fkd up the banking system all keep their jobs and ride the taxpayer again. Of all the stupid things this government has done, I think they're lack of moral courage to stand up to the bankers is what makes me most apathetic about the country.

Mr.Micro

I have seen a few new 2010 cars an Audi, Mercedes and a Ford. Must be the developers spending their money even before Nama dishes it out, that is optimism.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Right well I'll try and explain it Because the money supply is almost always increasing your €1000 euro today will buy you 1000 widgets however because of inflation (at say 5%) you will only be able to buy 950 widgets for €1000 next year. If the inherent value of a house doesn't change, a house bought for €100,000 will be worth €105,263 in year two without doing anything to it. Basically the value of the house stays the same but money becomes worth less as time goes on.

:rolleyes: I know what inflation is. Did you read my post ?

My question was what makes a house so different to a car, or shoes, or a TV; you buy those, you get use out of them, they depreciate. We accept that.

So why should houses (with nothing done to them or improved) "have to" increase in value ? Who says ?

If you're not moving/selling (i.e. if it's a home) who cares ?

hinault

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Why? Well if anglo hadn't been saved, international investors who have large sums on deposit would have seen Ireland as a risky place to keep their money. There would have been a flight of capital from the remaining banks, sending them to the wall too. When an institution fails it has knock on effects on those around them, like the way Lehmens demise led to the demise of others. The naivety of the people with regardsto a stable banking system is astounding. All people want is their pound of flesh an to hell with the consequences.

I'd be pretty sure you'd be fairly pissed off if you found your atm card didn't work in the morning. You have to remember that what seems like an unlikely scenario almost happened.

It's YOU who do not understand what happened and is happening.

The banks did suffer a flight of capital - after the deposit bank guarantee was given!

The Irish banks are insolvent - period.

gaf1983

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

... but you don't seem to get the concept that in the long term property prices have to rise. If property prices were to stay at current levels, then over time there would be a real loss in value through inflation. Therefore as long as the rate of property inflation is greater than the yield on a government bond Nama will be profitable.

I don't understand this concept either, that property prices have to rise. Why? Looking at it from a long-term historical perspective, property prices have always fluctuated. Shouldn't property prices just respond to market forces and go up and down as the supply and demand dictate?

One of the things I dislike the most about NAMA is for it to be profitable property prices must rise.

kippy

What amazes me with all this talk of banks being of critical importance, why arent they all nationalised? As someone stated, we've already pumped more money than the are worth into them.....
The make the banks concentrate on core business.....deposits and lending of a standard nature?

I suppose capatilism forces the banks, while privately owned to make massive profits year on year (short term profits at that) and now with so many private pension funds tied up in the stock market and hence banking shares, we live in a vicious circle.

I dunno, I am grossly confused and dont know who is screwing whom at this stage.