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

skelliser

capitalism on the way up,
socialism on the way down!

narwog81

kippy wrote: »

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?

governments are reluctant to nationalise banks as a private run banking sector is seen to be more attractive to international investors. a banks main objective is to make profit for its stakeholders and it is generally seen that it is optimal for the bank to be privately run rather than under government control.

government run banks could come under pressure to facilitate social agendas in the country rather than focusing on making money.
can you imagine the calls that will be made from some quarters for a "NAMA for the people" if (and when) the banks are nationalised?

kippy

narwog81 wrote: »

governments are reluctant to nationalise banks as a private run banking sector is seen to be more attractive to international investors. a banks main objective is to make profit for its stakeholders and it is generally seen that it is optimal for the bank to be privately run rather than under government control.

government run banks could come under pressure to facilitate social agendas in the country rather than focusing on making money.
can you imagine the calls that will be made from some quarters for a "NAMA for the people" if (and when) the banks are nationalised?

Indeed.
However, if they banks are protected from folding by the taxpayer, which has happened this time round, and I believe something similiar with AIB, they should be owned by the taxpayer who can at least take the profits whent the times are good as well.....
Investors want profits every year and increasing profits at that, thats been the issue with excessive lending policies which created short term profit for all involved but the bank dont pay in the long term, the tax payers do.
Banks making money isnt the problem for me, the problem arises when everyone has to cover their losses.

A banks main objective should be to facilitate a stable economy (which is what is being spun by government to anyone who will listen).
This does not mean that they have to make ezcessive profits for their stakeholders.

whynotwhycanti

I know that in Japan they set up something simliar to NAMA. It took something like twenty years for property to get back to 70% of its peak price. NAMA is doomed. As is pointed out, it is based on the premise that prices will be something similar to as they were, which was over inflated and over priced due to our government/banks/people. Of course house prices increase over time just like anything does with inflation but what happened in the latter stages of the celtic tiger was unsustainable growth that was fueled by reckless lending that the government knew all about. As has been mentioned, NAMA is based on house prices reaching those crazy prices again, something that could take over twenty years if we look at Japan and also something that might not be a good thing as it was those crazy prices that got us in this mess in the first place.

oscarBravo

I found this in my National Geographic over cornflakes this morning:

It is less than ten years since one of the worst financial crises in Turkey's history precipitated the nationalization or liquidation of more than 20 banks. Under a decade later, those financial institutions that survived appear to be weathering the near-meltdown of the world's banking system with admirable resilience. Even in the face of the current global recession and a 30% drop in the value of the Turkish lira against the US dollar, not one of Turkey's top banks is in the remotest danger of following the likes of Lehman Brothers into liquidation; they are, on the contrary, thriving.

"We have weathered this crisis with the least possible damage - there has been no banking system failure, and no major bankruptcies," observes Mehmet Simsek, Turkey's Minister of Finance. "Manufacturing and exporting have inevitably been affected and unemployment has risen, but in relation to many countries Turkey has handled the crisis very well."

The key to this success and stability lies in Turkey's hard-hitting but effective response to its own fiscal crisis of 2001. The government not only imprisoned scores of senior bank executives from the collapsed organizations; the Central Bank was made independent and a new regulatory body - the Banking Regulatory and Supervision Agency (BDDK) - was formed. Since then, the BDDK has played a pivotal role in underpinning the stability of the Turkish banking sector; bankers who break the rules can still end up in jail and, perhaps more importantly, the agency went against the perceived wiston that prevailed during the 2003-07 bull market by raising minimum capital adequacy ratios to 12%.

Although these measures were not unicersally popular at the time, few would now argue with their effectiveness. Between 2001 and 2008, Turkey averaged an annual GDP growth of 7%; and even the Central Bank's prediction of a 6-7% inflation rate for 2009 pales in comparison to the 70% of the 1990s that many of its citizens still recall with a shudder.

Raiser

So any more takers for the stance that we are pinning all of our future hopes and dreams on a recovery in House prices?

Row after cramped row of tiny, poorly constructed midget houses where you can hear your Neighbour throwing a switch and your Children don't even have a reasonable garden - not to mention a Green area to play on?

- Whats a fair price for a shoebox built on top of 800 other shoeboxes so small that you couldn't swing a small Hamster and when you open your curtain in the morning you can clearly see your Neighbour pick his nose? 300K? 450K? 500K? 600K?

Have we "recovered" when Developers once again have couples sleeping in their cars outside new Estates desperately waiting to hand some thyroid-troubled Moron half a million for a crappy little roofed cube?

How much money should you draw down on a 35 year 100% Mortgage to hand over to a Man who has just built 1000 houses on a flood plain with the tacit approval of a Planning Office that wouldn't know a recreational facility, parkland or a Bus Stop if they tripped over them?

Or how about the empty Hotels? Dozens of cheap and nasty empty unlit Towers sprawled across the Country, our Golden Calf monuments to a nonsense ideal and the deep desire not to pay ones taxes.....

thebman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

: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 ?

The market. People are willing to pay that. Irish people for some reason will pour all the money they can get including borrow into property.

This is a problem the Irish people have I'm afraid and the attitude needs to change.

Cork Boy

Ireland has had NAMA coming to it since May 2007.

When you re-elect a Taoiseach who didn't have an (on-shore) bank acc whilst he was Minister for Finance - you derserve NAMA.

When you re-elect a Taoiseach who signed blank cheques for Haughy whilst he was Minister for Finance - you derserve NAMA.

When you re-elect a Taoiseach while he is being dragged through a Tribunal and refusing to co-operate, even though he was the one who set it up - you derserve NAMA.

When you re-elect Beverly Cooper Flynn - you derserve NAMA.

When you do all of the above, you are not entitled to respect from your government, and you can completely forget about accountability/integrity/honesty/decency.

Well done Ireland, we are officially the most idiotic/immature (but mostly idiotic) electorate in the world. We would've re-elected Bush for a third term had we the chance.

So please Ireland, stand up and take a bow!!!

PS - I know not everyone voted FF, the above is an open letter style post.

digme

Seems Icelandic people have a spine.Unlike the "fighting" Irish,my arse.

SkepticOne

1. There won't be much in the news that you can point to and say "aha I told you so. The main economic consequence of NAMA will be that several billion a year will need to be coughed up by the state to pay interest on the amount borrowed to bailout the banks but people won't attribute this to NAMA. It will have a general dampening effect on the economy that won't be newsworthy.

2. Lending won't be forthcoming to the extent expected.

3. As pointed out on this forum and by Morgan Kelly and others, there is likely to NAMA 2 as the residential mortgages deteriorate and the underlying properties decrease in value.

4. Billions of tax payers money will end up in the pockets of developers that be better off in the pockets of ordinary people.

The alternative: let Anglo go under. Nationalise the big banks and force them to dispose of their impared assets. Recapitalise as necessary and then privatise again. Let the bond holders and shareholders take the hit to the greatest extent possible.

Sponge Bob

€80bn of loans ( face value) will transfer over.

The state will borrow c.€50bn this year to finance NAMA and more than the startup ( all borrowed some last year) amount will be outstanding in 5 years time.

More than half the largest developers in the first tranche shall not be resident in Ireland by end 2011, Quinlan legged it to Switzerland last year for starters.

hinault

It is an unholy mess : NAMA will end up making this country worse off.

In a so called capitalist system, insolvent banks should be allowed fail.
In a so called capitalist system, insolvent and bankrupt developers/builders should be allowed to fail.
Failure needs to be happen in order for the system to purge itself and to correct itself.

This country is hell bent on privatising profit, while nationalising losses, to try to maintain the status quo.

Crazy stuff.

And before people start chiming in about "we could not let the banks fail",
the banks (AIB and BOI) would have been acquired by other banks and services would have resumed.

Instead we now have bank/developer insolvency being picked up by the State.
Which will imperil this states ability, to borrow to fund sovereign expenditure, in the future.

Fcuking crazy.

Raiser

Could someone please point me to the link to Alan Ahearne's amazing contradiction of his own economic axioms?

To paraphrase, and if I remember correctly, he sparked controversy by enthusiastically backing NAMA to the extent that he was personally contacting leading Irish Economists urging them to get behind this flawed, corrupt, puerile plan and did so from a platform as a paid economic Advisor to FF.

- However, contrary to the terms of the NAMA we are being force fed, some months before he joined the FF rich list Ahearne was on record on a UCG hosted web page in a blog-type format stating that the NAMA valuations should not be taken at peak, looney-fringe, Idiot Speculator prices....

This is a staggering change of opinion & in my opinion its a change of heart as logical and understandable as Barrack Obama suddenly deciding to endorse the Ku Klux Klan......

hinault

Brian Lucey of Trinity College has not been as prominent in the media recently.
He opposed NAMA.

Has he been told to remain quiet and to wear the green jersey also?

serfboard

SkepticOne wrote: »

Let the bond holders and shareholders take the hit to the greatest extent possible.

We can't let the bondholders take the hit. Who would we get to buy our government bonds if we did?

hinault

serfboard wrote: »

We can't let the bondholders take the hit. Who would we get to buy our government bonds if we did?

Stop trying to scaremonger.
This was the rally call of the clowns who say "we can't let the banks fail".


Lets de-mystify this once and for all.

Bank bond debt and sovereign debt are mutually exclusive.

Under NAMA though, this govt seem intent to fuse bank debt on to our national debt : in order to keep the show on the road.

madness.

let the bank bond holders swing : they took a risk by betting on the banks.
They should be allowed lose on that investment.

Bondholders in govt debt - is a different, and separate, issue.

jmayo

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.

Look to all intense and purposes the ECB now run this country.
Everytime Lenihan takes a pi** he ask Trichet for permission.
This has probably been the case ever since Ireland went on a solo run with the bank guarantee.

The ECB has been consulted all the way on NAMA, the ECB is keeping the country ticking over.
The ECB's biggest concern is protecting the Euro and if Ireland went into meltdown then the euro suffers.
Maybe letting Anglo go would trigger this, but I think what we have done is tied the sinking Titanic to the back of one our lifeboats.
It will cost too much in the long run.
Look how the ECB talked up how Ireland were making the right decisions to bring it's deficit back in line, while at the same time havign a swipe at Greece.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

Ok what large banks in Eurozone have failed, when I say large I mean a major bank in the home country's banking system ?
There is a difference between going bust and being nationalised.

BTW I believe there was a lot of gombeenism involved in the Irish banking rescue decisions.

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.

Why not drop Anglo and IN from initial guarantee and guarantee the others, throwing in immediate capital injection or even nationalisation ?
Anglo was not systemic and if you think it was then you must be high net worth individual or a developer. :rolleyes:

Dod you call our current banking system stable.
Zombie banks, insolvency, no lending and nothing happening.
And do you call us having a stable economy where we are now affectively tied to a zombie bank with 30 off billion of toxic assets and where we are pouring capital into a bank that never really lent to ordinary people or ordinary bsuiensses, which has a very select customer base and which is totally insolvent ?

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.

Well for someone that claimed earlier I am the one that is naive, you follow in this post with this utter dross.
Claiming recovering house prices means recovering economy.
Ever hear of Japan, a big economy - one of the G7, massive eocnomic clout and their property prices haven't risen since early 90s after their bust ?

Even worse naivety is claiming that property will start rising in one or two years.
Yeah right, care to give us a reason for this optimism ?
Oh wait the over supply is being tackled.
It must be with all the property sales that we never hear of and those half built apartment blocks nad empty housing estates must be figment of my imgination. :rolleyes:
What about high unemployment figures, low investment returns or high costs of lending, that is if there is any real lending at all ?
How will these all lead to price recovery ?

You have to be banker or another vested interest or maybe you are really frank the wa** fahey.
NAMA will not lose money folks because guess what property always rises :eek:
The thougth of Nama losing anything upto 20 billion is laughable, we are saved, well according to oppenheimer anyway.
PS not a very apt nickname to chose me thinks.
Why do I think your rose tinted future view of Irish property prices is the one that is laughable ?

Again please check out Japan to see how prices can stay stagnant for years, decades even and then tell us all how the Irish bubble burst will of course be different.
Ah shure our bubble was different so why shouldn't our recovery :rolleyes:

Raiser

I'd like to have a new Law brought in making it illegal to refer to the NAMA Billions in abbreviated form.

The sums involved are staggering - especially for a Country that can't afford to pay Nurses, Teachers, Gardaí, maintain our Hospitals and Infrastructure or properly care for our Senior Citizens who have paid their taxes for 65+ years :mad:

60 Billion should be given its true magnitude...

60,000,000,000

Its mind-boggling and too easy to get accustomed to because its bandied about so much.

- What is the best way to explain away 60 Thousand Million to a Nation where there's 197 People left actually working and our Healthcare revolves around a rusty MRSA ridden Trolley in a draughty corridor?


Why stop there? To even use a term such as NAMA is ridiculous in itself.

Assets management?

Its being set up to manage assets is it?

Sounds fúcking Peachy.....

They should have called it Bail Out My Buddies

B.O.M.B

SLUSK

If there were profits to be made from NAMA surely private banks from different countries would flock to buy these debts?

Let everyone fail and the stupid ones who bough houses they couldn't afford be homeless. Unlike alot of other commentators I'm opposed to private gains and socialized losses.

Sand

Sadly, this thread will need to be stickied for many years before the true horror of NAMA becomes apparent. Saint Brian Lenihan has ensured the operation of NAMA is so hidden and secretive that it reports to him as Minister of Finance alone, and he can, by law, choose not to report any detail he thinks damaging to NAMA/Fianna Fail/Banks/Developers - such as its complete and total failure. IIRC, 2013 is the first time NAMA must prepare a public account we will have access to: after the next election so either Fianna Fail are in opposition anyway and can tear the government apart for their disatrous handling of NAMA, or theyre in government when theyve got another 5 years anyhow.

@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.

In fairness, this is probably the most intellectually sound reason for supporting NAMA. Its wrong, but I cant criticise its honesty. Oppenheimer, look and learn

@Jmayo

The ECB's biggest concern is protecting the Euro and if Ireland went into meltdown then the euro suffers.

Realistically this gives us a little more scope for free action than the government have taken advantage of. Sure, the ECB doesnt care so much about Ireland, but it does care about the Euro and a Eurozone member melting down would be bad news politically - the markets believe very deeply that there is some unspoken assumption that the EU wont allow any member of the Euro go bankrupt and all sovereign debt in the EU is priced with that in mind.

If Ireland went under, and was allowed to go under, then the markets would react and Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and all the other sovereign issuers on the edge of respectability would take a massive hit as the market repriced their ability to meet their obligations. Thats not to say Ireland has the carte blanche to act an eejit, but the incredible decision to guarantee bank bonds is not a requirement of the ECB that theyd be willing to gamble the farm on. Denmark is the only other Eurozone member to guarantee its banks bonds. No one else has taken that step.

The states responsibility could have been summed up as 1 - protect depositors as much as *possible*, 2 - preserve the payments system. Thats it. The Sept 2008 guarantee and NAMA arent products of the ECB, theyre products of AIB and BoI dictating to Lenihan the terms of their own rescue.

The ECB would happily see an Irish bank fail, if the Irish government was strong enough to demonstrate that letting the bank fail was a lesser evil than letting the state fail.

Ok what large banks in Eurozone have failed, when I say large I mean a major bank in the home country's banking system ?

Austria nationalised Hypobank, their 6th biggest lender, on the orders of the ECB no less.

Theres a lot of myths being peddled by our political class regarding the ECB and NAMA - firstly that NAMA was some sort of gombeen sidedeal with the ECB for free cash. Now, as NAMA becomes vastly unpopular its that the ECB is forcing the poor fellahs in the Dail to do this terrible thing.

NAMA is Guaranteed Irish in corruption and costly failure.

@OscarBravo

The key to this success and stability lies in Turkey's hard-hitting but effective response to its own fiscal crisis of 2001. The government not only imprisoned scores of senior bank executives from the collapsed organizations; the Central Bank was made independent and a new regulatory body - the Banking Regulatory and Supervision Agency (BDDK) - was formed. Since then, the BDDK has played a pivotal role in underpinning the stability of the Turkish banking sector; bankers who break the rules can still end up in jail and, perhaps more importantly, the agency went against the perceived wiston that prevailed during the 2003-07 bull market by raising minimum capital adequacy ratios to 12%.

This is the difference moral hazard makes. If the banks are uncertain that theres a bailout for free, they manage their own risk better. If the bank heads are worried about jail time, they keep their recklessness limited.

Ireland already bailed out AIB back in the 1980s when it didnt have the resources to do so. AIB has rewarded that bailout with continued corruption, tax evasion, overcharing, and recklessness. We are now bailing them out again, when we do not have the resources to so. I can be 99.999999% certain that under the current policy we will be rewarded with more AIB corruption, tax evasion, overcharing and recklessness - and another bailout, even greater than NAMA.

Unless we finally face down the banks and convince them that the risks they take are *their* risks, not ours. And that if their executives act in a corrupt, reckless fashion they will be led out of their institutions in handcuffs.

So, even if NAMA somehow manages to breakeven or minimises its loss to 20 billion or less ( its going to be far more actually) we still lose when the costs of the next bailout are included.

Raiser

Why does nobody in Ireland feel the natural need to leave the scene of a Corporate Crime? They stand there casually peering at the smoking Gun, size 13 shoes an inch deep in blood, dropping cigar ash on the Corpse.

I suppose it might be that we reward such brazen stubbornness when 6 weeks later they get handed 500K in goodbye money and a pension package worth €1,000,000.

How could the framework, machinations and ethos of NAMA possibly be conceived, thrashed out, honed and finalised while leaving 90% of the Neanderthals who merrily created the Banking Crisis still at their desks idly picking at their rectums and waiting for their next colossal fúck up to hit the headlines? I can picture them right now promising some odious Developer his next €12,000,000 to buy some swamp - assuring them that NAMA is going to make it all happen Baby.

- Its equivalent to happily Bankrolling the Manson Family on the understanding that Charles is safely out of the picture.....

Liam Byrne

Raiser wrote: »

60 Billion should be given its true magnitude...

60,000,000,000

It should indeed, which is why I'm going to correct you.

It's actually 60,000,000,000,000

The Americans use "one billion" to refer to "one thousand million"; in Europe it's "one million million".

jmayo

Sand wrote: »

@Jmayo

Realistically this gives us a little more scope for free action than the government have taken advantage of. Sure, the ECB doesnt care so much about Ireland, but it does care about the Euro and a Eurozone member melting down would be bad news politically - the markets believe very deeply that there is some unspoken assumption that the EU wont allow any member of the Euro go bankrupt and all sovereign debt in the EU is priced with that in mind.

If Ireland went under, and was allowed to go under, then the markets would react and Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and all the other sovereign issuers on the edge of respectability would take a massive hit as the market repriced their ability to meet their obligations. Thats not to say Ireland has the carte blanche to act an eejit, but the incredible decision to guarantee bank bonds is not a requirement of the ECB that theyd be willing to gamble the farm on. Denmark is the only other Eurozone member to guarantee its banks bonds. No one else has taken that step.

The states responsibility could have been summed up as 1 - protect depositors as much as *possible*, 2 - preserve the payments system. Thats it. The Sept 2008 guarantee and NAMA arent products of the ECB, theyre products of AIB and BoI dictating to Lenihan the terms of their own rescue.

The ECB would happily see an Irish bank fail, if the Irish government was strong enough to demonstrate that letting the bank fail was a lesser evil than letting the state fail.

Austria nationalised Hypobank, their 6th biggest lender, on the orders of the ECB no less.

Theres a lot of myths being peddled by our political class regarding the ECB and NAMA - firstly that NAMA was some sort of gombeen sidedeal with the ECB for free cash. Now, as NAMA becomes vastly unpopular its that the ECB is forcing the poor fellahs in the Dail to do this terrible thing.

NAMA is Guaranteed Irish in corruption and costly failure.

Did I ever say these things were brianchilds of ECB ?

No I believe it was after the initial bank guarantee scheme that the ECB got heavy with Lenihan to make sure any of his bright spark ideas were first run past Frankfurt.
The Brtis didn't like it and the other Eurozone countries didn't like Ireland pulling sh** without their approval.

Yes I do beleive the NAMA idea was started here and forumlated here, but ultimately the government had to get it past ECB.

IMHO the ECB couldn't give too sh**s if the Irish taxpayer is lumbered with billions of debt so long as the system is safeguarded i.e. there are no major banking shocks where banks go bust, countries go the way of Iceland and thus no major shocks to the euro.

The ECB couldn't care less that the citizens of Ireland are going to be responsible for the debts, just so long as someone is and it is not them.
Thus they faciliate the bonds but utlimately the bucks stops with Paddy and Mary the Irish taxpayers.

But saying all that the ECB is pushing hard for the governmnet to get control of the current deficit and it will make interesting viewing as to how they deal with Greece who appear not to be giving two sh**s about theirs.

j1smithy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It should indeed, which is why I'm going to correct you.

It's actually 60,000,000,000,000

The Americans use "one billion" to refer to "one thousand million"; in Europe it's "one million million".

He is actually correct, when referring to sums of money the american convention is used. Think about it, have you ever heard of a sum of say two thousand million ever being discussed in the media?

Sand

@Jmayo

Well you did say in response to a comment about letting the banks fail that the ECB practically runs the country, that Lenihan cant take a leak without permission from Trichet and you restate in your reply that the ECB doesnt want to see banks go bankrupt - whatever one thinks about the guarantee, it was issued to try prevent banks going bankrupt.

At the very least, the implication is that the ECB approves of NAMA ( they run the country...)

If I have misunderstood your view based on the above, apologies.

aDeener

j1smithy wrote: »

He is actually correct, when referring to sums of money the american convention is used. Think about it, have you ever heard of a sum of say two thousand million ever being discussed in the media?

Is the american convention used all over europe or just the uk and ireland? is a trillion a billion millions???

stumpypeeps

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It should indeed, which is why I'm going to correct you.

It's actually 60,000,000,000,000

The Americans use "one billion" to refer to "one thousand million"; in Europe it's "one million million".

Americans refer to 1 Billion as 100 million. We say 1000 Million is a billion. 60,000,000,000,000 is 1 trillion.

Liam Byrne

j1smithy wrote: »

He is actually correct, when referring to sums of money the american convention is used.

So "one billion, say, seconds" = 1,000,000,000,000 seconds

But "one billion euro" = 1,000,000,000 euro

Sheesh! No wonder those poor bankers got confused!!!

Liam Byrne

stumpypeeps wrote: »

Americans refer to 1 Billion as 100 million. We say 1000 Million is a billion. 60,000,000,000,000 is 1 trillion.

Well that's definitely incorrect.

http://www.answers.com/topic/billion
http://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/billion.html

100 million is 100 million. Always.

stumpypeeps

Yeah, it is incorrect. I stand corrected. But don't we always refer to as a billion as 1000 million here in europe. Financially speaking.