where are the figures?

ei.sdraob

Im quoting Moore McDowell's comment in last nights prime-time (http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1069755 @ 35:10)

Moore wrote:

"one of the things about these numbers trotted out ... ive never seen on a piece of paper why it is (costing so much) ... i just dont know where its coming from"

so a question to our resident NAMA/banking experts

where are the figures written? where are the accounts??

links and info is appreciated!

all we have is the word of the failed FF govt to go by and bankers who have vested interests in this.

so please do post any references you can find,
would any of you sign a mortgage without knowing the exact (or close to exact) figures?

Laminations

Good luck man, you will never get the figures, not until its too late, at which point no one will be held accountable instead they'll use the regular lines.

'Lehmans....'
'We needed a banking system....'
'It was the only way....'
'nobody else had a better plan, they just knocked ours....'
'How could anyone have known....'

etc.

woodseb

Anglo Irish Bank 2009 Accounts

BOI 2009 Report

NAMA Tranche 1

i'm not sure what figures Moore was looking for but these are a good start for anyone who wants to look at what's happening objectively

hinault

I see Deloittes carried out the audit and preparation of Anglo's 2009 statement of accounts.

Ernst & Young didn't get the gig:D

ei.sdraob

woodseb wrote: »

Anglo Irish Bank 2009 Accounts

BOI 2009 Report

NAMA Tranche 1

i'm not sure what figures Moore was looking for but these are a good start for anyone who wants to look at what's happening objectively

thanks that's a start!

when voting in the Dail, what figures did the ministers base their decision on?

where they given a brief? if so is it public? how to find out who voted which way??


anyone see this from the intro

The 15 months to 31 December 2009 has been an
exceptionally difficult period for Anglo Irish Bank and for
all its stakeholders. The Bank, which was nationalised on
21 January 2009, is reporting a loss of €12.7 billion for that
15 month period. This loss is primarily due to an impairment
charge of €15.1 billion which reflects the very significant
deterioration in asset quality since September 2008, offset
somewhat by the profit of €1.8 billion realised on buying back
some of the Bank’s subordinated debt.
Of the impairment provision, €10.1 billion relates to the
€35.6 billion of loans that are expected to transfer to the
National Asset Management Agency (‘NAMA’). This represents
a provision of some 28%, which means the Bank has taken a
significant proportion of the discount expected to be applied
to these loans. However, impairment provisions are not
intended to predict future loan discounts on transfer, which
are subject to a separate valuation process directed by NAMA.

wow there it is in black and white


because the "assets" were transferred at large discount, the difference "impairment" will have to be paid for by the taxpayer
if the taxpayer pays to cover this "impairment" of 10 or so billion (which they are seeking) then there is no discount for Anglo/Nama crap :eek:

please read the above again, the discount to NAMA was written of as an impairment, and now we will have to pay for it directly
so effectively Anglo got no discounts
this is the sort of scenario that we were talking about in NAMA threads


and then there's this

an
additional €1.5 billion for every 10% reduction in the value
of land and development assets

havent prices dropped by about 10% since october 2009 (NAMA d date)?

am i only one who is worried by this, its incredible

hinault

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thanks that's a start!

when voting in the Dail, what figures did the ministers base their decision on?

where they given a brief? if so is it public? how to find out who voted which way??


anyone see this from the intro

wow there it is in black and white

because the "assets" were transferred at large discount, the difference "impairment" will have to be paid for by the taxpayer
if the taxpayer pays to cover this "impairment" of 10 or so billion (which they are seeking) then there is no discount for Anglo/Nama crap :eek:

please read the above again, the discount to NAMA was written of as an impairment, and now we will have to pay for it directly
so effectively Anglo got no discounts
this is the sort of scenario that we were talking about in NAMA threads

and then there's this

havent prices dropped by about 10% since october 2009 (NAMA d date)?

am i only one who is worried by this, its incredible

Anglo transferred €35.6b to NAMA : Anglo created a provision €15.1b of which €10.1b relates €35.6b.
Which means that €4b impairment charge relates to non-NAMA assets.

Or am I missing something?

IrishTonyO

I think Moore McDowell was referring to the figures for closing down Anglo. he seems to think it would be a lot cheaper than the figures stated by the government and Dukes and was of the opinion that Anglo should be let close.

woodseb

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so effectively Anglo got no discounts

we own all of Anglo assets and liabilities, Anglo and NAMA is nothing much more than an accounting transaction between government institutions (one by which we can part recapitalise Anglo with cheap ECB borrowing). This was obvious from the day NAMA was announced last year - it should be no suprise to anyone

as for the other quote, it would help if you took in full context

In our Interim Report, we indicated that impairment losses
were likely to reach €7.5 billion with disclosed stress scenarios
of an additional €3.5 billion on post NAMA loans and an
additional €1.5 billion for every 10% reduction in the value
of land and development assets. Unfortunately, our stress
scenarios have been more than realised and reflect the very
severe deterioration in asset values in the marketplace since
March 2009.

Anglo had 15.1bln in impairments, 11bln is already detailed there (7.5+3.5) and the remaining 4.1bln can be put to reductions in value of development assets since March 2009 until Dec 09 - around 27% (4.1/1.5*10%) if my calcs are correct....

now i'm off to watch the football:)

ei.sdraob

hinault wrote: »

Anglo transferred €35.6b to NAMA : Anglo created a provision €15.1b of which €10.1b relates €35.6b.
Which means that €4b impairment charge relates to non-NAMA assets.

Or am I missing something?

they are now going cap in hand for a large amount directly from taxpayer (4 bln down, 8.3 bln to go and another 10 bln down the road)

by this money being injected directly, Anglo is in a similar position (on the books) to what would have happened if NAMA took assets off them at no discount (and some little more)

we-been sold a porky

while the ministers harp on about discounts of NAMA, by giving the money directly they effectively do the same thing as not giving a discount in first place

hinault

Woodseb & ei : €15.1b impairment.

This existing impairment charge does not take account of further deterioration in the "good" loanbook.

In other words, €15.1b bad debt provision is only for loans which are recognised as being bad/doubtful, at balance sheet date.
It does not take account of loans which may become bad at a future date.

If Anglo begin to experience difficulty collecting monies due on the "goodloan" book, then further provisions will have to be charged to the P&L, which means that the taxpayer will be called upon to fund these additional impairments.

woodseb

hinault wrote: »

Woodseb & ei : €15.1b impairment.

This existing impairment charge does not take account of further deterioration in the "good" loanbook.

In other words, €15.1b bad debt provision is only for loans which are recognised as being bad/doubtful, at balance sheet date.
It does not take account of loans which may become bad at a future date.

If Anglo begin to experience difficulty collecting monies due on the "goodloan" book, then further provisions will have to be charged to the P&L, which means that the taxpayer will be called upon to fund these additional impairments.

i know, that's one of the reasons why it will need the 10bln more capital in the future to keep it going - it's one of the hazards of owning a bank. However if you were to sell this 'good' loan book now to avoid any potential future problems you'd have to offer a fair discount to whoever buys it, which would have to be funded by the taxpayer - harsh but true

IrishTonyO

woodseb wrote: »

i know, that's one of the reasons why it will need the 10bln more capital in the future to keep it going - it's one of the hazards of owning a bank. However if you were to sell this 'good' loan book now to avoid any potential future problems you'd have to offer a fair discount to whoever buys it, which would have to be funded by the taxpayer - harsh but true

And don't forget Alan Dukes today said numerous times that he could not guarantee that even if another 10 billion would be required that that would be the end of it! They could require more

hinault

IrishTonyO wrote: »

And don't forget Alan Dukes today said numerous times that he could not guarantee that even if another 10 billion would be required that that would be the end of it! They could require more

That was my point.

The "goodloan" book that sits in Anglo at 31/12/2009 - could well deteriorate as the wider economy contracts further.

And if Anglo is still owned by the taxpayer, the taxpayer will pick up the tab.



The worry in all of this is that as the economy contracts, a second wave of defaults from credit cards, to mortgages, to job losses, will make the wider economy more fragile.
This could feed through to each banks loanbooks - especially Anglo.

And by diverting more and more funds in the Anglo, rather than the wider economy, we create a self feeding loop.