developer seeks money from nama

Bob Z

High-profile developers seeking capital from Nama


BARRY O'HALLORAN
TAXPAYERS MAY have to provide money to a company backed by high-profile developers John Ronan and Richard Barrett through the State’s toxic loans agency Nama.
Property investment firm Real Estate Opportunities (REO), whose biggest shareholder is the Mr Ronan and Mr Barrett-controlled Treasury Holdings, said yesterday it owes Nama €997 million after the agency took over loans given to the company by AIB, Anglo Irish, Bank of Ireland and Irish Nationwide.
REO owes €2 billion in total to its banks, while its properties in Ireland and Britain are valued at €1.3 billion. Its accounts state it is not in a position to repay €450 million of debt that falls due next May. It has hired consultants to help restructure this.
The company has asked Nama to provide it with working capital – the cash it needs to fund operations. A business plan it has submitted to the agency assumes this will be provided.
Nama already looks set to waive a key term of a €100 million-plus loan originally given by Bank of Ireland to REO to help fund its purchase of Battersea power station in London in 2006 for €600 million.
One of the conditions of the loan was that REO’s overall value remained above a certain level. As property values slumped over the last two years, it slipped below the level required, which should have triggered the debt’s repayment. According to REO, Nama and Bank of Scotland, which was also involved in the deal, have agreed to waive this, and to extend the repayment date to August next year.
Nama has said in the past it will provide working capital to creditors where this will aid them in repaying money they owe the State. A spokesman for Nama said yesterday that it does not comment on individual cases and added that the business plans submitted to it so far by developers are still being reviewed.
Nama’s priority is to recover money owed the State by developers. It can order them to sell properties and, in worst-case scenarios, wind up their companies or appoint receivers.
Along with Battersea, REO owns a number of valuable properties in Ireland. It is behind the proposed Ballymun shopping centre development – now known as Spring Cross – which will cost €400 million to build.
It owns Central Park, in Sandyford, Co Dublin, one of the country’s biggest commercial properties, for which Vodafone is paying a €7 million annual rent.
Battersea is likely to cost £5.5 billion to develop. The company intends bringing in a partner to help fund this by the end of the year. Mr Ronan and Mr Barrett are two of the country’s best-known property developers. They began building up their business in the late 1980s. Nama is one of Treasury Holdings’ tenants – the agency occupies space in the Treasury Building on Dublin’s Grand Canal Street.
Mr Ronan announced in March that he was taking a break from his business activities for a few months because of media coverage of aspects of his personal life. He said this had “the potential to distract attention” from his business interests.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0624/1224273191283.html


Is that the way nama should be? giving out money as well as getting money back?

sceptre

Bob Z wrote: »

Is that the way nama should be? giving out money as well as getting money back?

Please pop in your own views as thread starter Bob, it's required by the charter. As it's late I'll leave this unlocked to give you the chance to do so until about midday tomorrow.

(edit: moving to Economics as requested by OP)

/mod

Nehaxak

It is behind the proposed Ballymun shopping centre development – now known as Spring Cross – which will cost €400 million to build.

Oh that's just bloody marvellous that is :mad:
After going this far with the whole regeneration, for it all to be pissed away by one developer is just downright criminal. The whole shopping centre development is an absolute integral part of the regeneration project in Ballymun and there would be little hope that the empty, drug infested, crime ridden blocks of flats on Sillogue that even the Garda riot squad are refusing to enter unless they've armed backup and dog squads with them, will even end up being knocked down to make way for the shopping centre if it's not going to be built.

However, the backlash that would be experenced for Pat Carey and Noel Ahern in particular if this all fell through, not to mention Roisin Shorthall from Labour and Tormey from FG, would be so huge as to cause their exit from politics - along with possibly a massive upsurge in SF support, that I don't think this will happen and thusly these two developers along with Treasury Holdings will be approved for the loan(s) from NAMA if only just in the background to protect the political careers of all involved - and they are all involved, deeply.

I'm a little confused here. Considering the state of the economy, the massive drop in consumer spending, the number of foreign stores that have left this country, the high rents, and decreased disposable income for most people... and they want to open another Shopping Center? In a city that already has loads?

I'd be interested to see the business plan, the economic projections for the shopping center and who they have signed up to have stores there.

dan_d

Have to say I'm confused aswell.

Will this not mean we are essentially giving more money to the banks to pass on to this pair, to fund their repayment of their debt to Nama, who's debts are essentially owned by the taxpayer???

dan_d

dan_d wrote: »

Have to say I'm confused aswell.

Will this not mean we are essentially giving more money to the banks to pass on to this pair, to fund their repayment of their debt to Nama, who's debts are essentially owned by the taxpayer???

With no guarantee that the investment will be profitable, and therefore need a bailout in a few years time... I can't see an investment in a shopping center to be a sound & profitable venture in these times.

royston_vasey

Deleted User wrote: »

With no guarantee that the investment will be profitable, and therefore need a bailout in a few years time... I can't see an investment in a shopping center to be a sound & profitable venture in these times.

Or maybe Mr. Ronan has promised Rosanna Davison another lavish weekend somewhere in Morocco????:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

dan_d wrote: »

Have to say I'm confused aswell.

Will this not mean we are essentially giving more money to the banks to pass on to this pair, to fund their repayment of their debt to Nama, who's debts are essentially owned by the taxpayer???

Part of the NAMA deal is that NAMA will lend money to developers to finish developments where it thinks the completion of the project is necessary for it to make money, and where both the money already owing and the money lent are thought to be recoverable.

Whether that's a good bet in this particular case is moot, since NAMA haven't responded to the business plan, but there's nothing strange about the request itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nehaxak

Deleted User wrote: »

With no guarantee that the investment will be profitable, and therefore need a bailout in a few years time... I can't see an investment in a shopping center to be a sound & profitable venture in these times.

I've read their business plan and unless it's changed drastically, it was fairly sound at the time anyway, which wasn't that long ago that I read it either. Far as I know, their business plan might well be publicly available from BRL if you really did want to read it yourself or any of the TD's around here could probably get you a copy sent out if you phoned their office.
There's a much bigger plan involved in this and the shopping centre is only part of it, but nonetheless essential to the wider regeneration project.
There is too much at stake for all political parties and individuals themselves involved for this to fall flat on it's face because of a couple of stupid developers.
I can't see their request to NAMA being denied.

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

I've read their business plan and unless it's changed drastically, it was fairly sound at the time anyway, which wasn't that long ago that I read it either.

Can you honestly say to me that building another major shopping center in Dublin can be a sound proposition when shopping centers are having problems getting firstly businesses to set up, and secondly to get shoppers in to spend money. There are a number of successful shopping centers in the city as it is. Adding more isn't a particularly good idea. Perhaps wait a few years until the economy is picking up and unemployment is actually dropping?

Far as I know, their business plan might well be publicly available from BRL if you really did want to read it yourself or any of the TD's around here could probably get you a copy sent out if you phoned their office.

I don't really need to. I can see how the market is atm. With the problem of high rents, high maintenance factors, lower disposable income, a government that needs revenue most likely through taxes, this plan doesn't appear sound. It doesn't have any environmental/market factors to suggest that any new shopping center would be able to recoup the costs of not only the initial outlay, but the operational costs and the interest that NAMA would require.

There's a much bigger plan involved in this and the shopping centre is only part of it, but nonetheless essential to the wider regeneration project.

I'm all for projects which actually boost regeneration, but are profitable. I'm sick and tired of different governments spending money on enterprises which are likely to flop simply to make a few jobs. Ultimately, such enterprises cost more for the country as a whole with rather limited returns.

There is too much at stake for all political parties and individuals themselves involved for this to fall flat on it's face because of a couple of stupid developers.

True, but then I was hoping that this country would start investing in an intelligent manner after the amount of waste it performed during the boom years.

I can't see their request to NAMA being denied.

Probably not. I seriously hope it is though.

I read recently that many requests have been turned down by NAMA due to the suspiciously high "management" costs which the developers in question want to pay THEMSELVES out of the money they're asking NAMA to provide.

I've no doubt that Mr Ronan, who is still living a very lavish lifestyle according to newspaper reports, is one of the above pricks.

Nehaxak

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you honestly say to me that building another major shopping center in Dublin can be a sound proposition when shopping centers are having problems getting firstly businesses to set up, and secondly to get shoppers in to spend money. There are a number of successful shopping centers in the city as it is. Adding more isn't a particularly good idea. Perhaps wait a few years until the economy is picking up and unemployment is actually dropping?

In this case yeah, I would say building this mixed development shopping centre in Ballymun is a sound proposition. That's not to say that it won't take a fair number of years to claw back the initial costs but developments like this should never be taken as anything but long term investments.
With the bigger long term plans in place for Ballymun, it is a sound enough investment.

Of course, I may not be the best person to ask on this as I live here so will always see the brighter side of things

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

Of course, I may not be the best person to ask on this as I live here so will always see the brighter side of things

I used to be like that. However I guess I've just seen too much mismanagement of funds, bad planning, corruption and other "little" offenses by those in power in this country. From the government, the banks, the property developers, to the building trade, this country has had an enormous amount of stupidity in the last few years. And TBH I haven't seen much of it change.

While I can agree that any development will only gain returns in the long term, I have to wonder could the money be better spent in other areas with much quicker returns in both employment and profitability.

noodler

Scofflaw wrote: »

Part of the NAMA deal is that NAMA will lend money to developers to finish developments where it thinks the completion of the project is necessary for it to make money, and where both the money already owing and the money lent are thought to be recoverable.

Whether that's a good bet in this particular case is moot, since NAMA haven't responded to the business plan, but there's nothing strange about the request itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Precisely.

Think it through guys, there has to be a little leighway.

We now own these assets - if they are currently worth €1 but it would only take pumping another €2 into it to give it a value of €5+ then why wouldn't we do it?

Nemi

noodler wrote: »

Precisely.

Think it through guys, there has to be a little leighway.

We now own these assets - if they are currently worth €1 but it would only take pumping another €2 into it to give it a value of €5+ then why wouldn't we do it?

As I understand it, we don't own these assets - yet, at any rate. I thought this stage of the process was that NAMA ask the developers how to they plan to repay their debts. The developer, say, currently has a half-finished project and a debt of €100 million. The developer might suggest that if NAMA gives him €10 million to finish the project, he'll then be able to repay all €110 million.

The obvious question for NAMA (which is what they'll presumably be doing) is whether this is a better option for them than simply foreclosing on the loan, at which stage we would become the owners of the half-finished project. NAMA would then need to decide whether the best way of recovering the loan of €100 million is to sell the project on half-finished, or complete it themselves. Depending on the loan terms, NAMA might or might not be able to pursue the developer if they were unable to get the €100 million back from completing the project themselves.

Isn't this the point about NAMA looking at whether the developers' plans are credible. If the developer is only stringing them along, without any real hope of being able to pay them after completely the project, NAMA would be better off foreclosing now.

The thought that occurs to me is if the developers aren't going to be making a sizeable personal profit, we're better off not having them involved at all. I don't see any developer breaking his ass to turn in a mighty return for NAMA if all he's getting is the average industrial wage.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Precisely.

Think it through guys, there has to be a little leighway.

We now own these assets - if they are currently worth €1 but it would only take pumping another €2 into it to give it a value of €5+ then why wouldn't we do it?

Because there is nothing to suggest that it would increase in value considering the current and even future economic climate. This country has a habit of pumping money into ventures that are unsound. Considering the lack of money in this country, can we afford to be pumping this kind of money into such a venture?

Personally, I'd prefer if they let this development buckle. Completely. At some stage, the government will need to say to developers that if they screw up, nobody will bail them out. Developers and major business needs to return to the realistic use of risk management, research, and project management.

If Nama continues to bail out developers such as this, the mindset of a recovery won't disappear.

noodler

Nemi wrote: »

As I understand it, we don't own these assets - yet, at any rate. I thought this stage of the process was that NAMA ask the developers how to they plan to repay their debts. The developer, say, currently has a half-finished project and a debt of €100 million. The developer might suggest that if NAMA gives him €10 million to finish the project, he'll then be able to repay all €110 million.

You are technically correct - the best kind of correct.

My point still standss though!

noodler

Deleted User wrote: »

Because there is nothing to suggest that it would increase in value considering the current and even future economic climate. This country has a habit of pumping money into ventures that are unsound. Considering the lack of money in this country, can we afford to be pumping this kind of money into such a venture?

Again, I am not talking about pumping money in just in the vague hope there will be a property upturn (they won't even bottom out for another year by all accounts).

I am simply talking about the small (relatively) investments which can be made to a property to increase its value - e.g. a person gets their attic converted for €10,000 but it adds €20,00 onto the value of their property etc.

This is all the more possible (likely) in theory because construction costs are down generally.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Again, I am not talking about pumping money in just in the vague hope there will be a property upturn (they won't even bottom out for another year by all accounts).

I am simply talking about the small (relatively) investments which can be made to a property to increase its value - e.g. a person gets their attic converted for €10,000 but it adds €20,00 onto the value of their property etc.

This is all the more possible (likely) in theory because construction costs are down generally.

First, you are not talking about renovating someone's attic. You're talking about a major development with major costs involved.. there's no point comparing it to something with a 10k cost.

Second, its going to take a lot longer than a year for a serious improvement occurs in either the property market or in the spending habits of consumers. We're not talking about someones house here, we're talking about a shopping center.

Third, constructions costs might be down. There's no guarantee that they would be for this project, that the developer negotiated lower costs, and that any project manager won't continue to the trend of wasting money simply because Nama (or the government) is footing the bill.


lastly, why the again? Its not as if you have a long sequence of posts making this stance clear...

My point still standss though!

imho, your point does not still stand. :P

noodler

Deleted User wrote: »

First, you are not talking about renovating someone's attic. You're talking about a major development with major costs involved.. there's no point comparing it to something with a 10k cost.

Jesus Christ, have you ever heard of scale?

I'll use a bigger example if you are going to make a special effort not to comprehend.

Finishing a retail centre in a very lucractive area, not wasting any valuable licences which have already been granted to properties not yet finished. The list really does go on and on. The point being, and try to stay with me, is that you can make an improvement to the property on some level whcih will lead to a proportionally greater increase in its value.

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, its going to take a lot longer than a year for a serious improvement occurs in either the property market or in the spending habits of consumers. We're not talking about someones house here, we're talking about a shopping center.

Heh, okay maybe you don't fully understand the term I used. 'Bottoming out refers to the floor prices are expected to hit (residentially anyway) over the next year. They may stay low for years to come and we won't see a rise but the initial NAMA business plan allows for a period of 7-10 years to hold onto and dispose of the properties taken. There is no gaurentee either way but one year was only mentioned with regards the time period ahead residential property is still expected to fall.

Deleted User wrote: »

Third, constructions costs might be down. There's no guarantee that they would be for this project, that the developer negotiated lower costs, and that any project manager won't continue to the trend of wasting money simply because Nama (or the government) is footing the bill.

Again, read the business plan.

http://www.nama.ie/Publications/2009/Business_Plan_13OCT09.pdf

I can't say good intentions are all that matters but there is no doubt costs are down in construction - that isn't a might I am afraid. Nama has only allocated €5bn for investment purposes - this is for a range of property and devlopment loans worth €81bn so obviously it would be in their interest not to blow it all on one devloper.

Deleted User wrote: »

imho, your point does not still stand. :P

You don't believe we will end up (the Government) will end up owning a huge amount of these properties?

I do, and therefore my point about ensuring we maximise the value of each one to the benefit of the taxpayer absolutely stands.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Jesus Christ, have you ever heard of scale?

yup. And scale doesn't usually compare a 10k investment with millions....

I'll use a bigger example if you are going to make a special effort not to comprehend.

No need. I understand completely. I just disagree with your reasoning.

Finishing a retail centre in a very lucractive area, not wasting any valuable licences which have already been granted to properties not yet finished. The list really does go on and on. The point being, and try to stay with me, is that you can make an improvement to the property on some level whcih will lead to a proportionally greater increase in its value.

Still so vague, which is my problem with all of this. How are they providing a definite benefit which isn't already covered by the many other developments already operating in Dublin, and secondly, how are they going to recoup the costs in development, rents, salaries, and interest payments?

Heh, okay maybe you don't fully understand the term I used. 'Bottoming out refers to the floor prices are expected to hit (residentially anyway) over the next year. They may stay low for years to come and we won't see a rise but the initial NAMA business plan allows for a period of 7-10 years to hold onto and dispose of the properties taken. There is no gaurentee either way but one year was only mentioned with regards the time period ahead residential property is still expected to fall.

Again, read the business plan.

http://www.nama.ie/Publications/2009/Business_Plan_13OCT09.pdf

You're missing the point. Its a long term plan with dubious returns in the current economic climate. The investment required to build and maintain the site could be better spent in dozens of other enterprises across the country. I have seen nothing in this plan which merits the intervention by Nama.

I can't say good intentions are all that matters but there is no doubt costs are down in construction

From the extremely overpriced contracts that they were providing in the first place. :rolleyes:

You don't believe we will end up (the Government) will end up owning a huge amount of these properties?

I do, and therefore my point about ensuring we maximise the value of each one to the benefit of the taxpayer absolutely stands.

Whereas I believe its time to reintroduce sound business planning and the allocation of wealth towards ventures that actually benefit this country and are definitely going to be profitable.

This venture is a shot in the dark. 5 years ago when the country when the country had money available, I wouldn't object to this. But the country does not have the money to burn on such an investment.

noodler

Deleted User wrote: »

yup. And scale doesn't usually compare a 10k investment with millions....



No need. I understand completely. I just disagree with your reasoning.



Still so vague, which is my problem with all of this. How are they providing a definite benefit which isn't already covered by the many other developments already operating in Dublin, and secondly, how are they going to recoup the costs in development, rents, salaries, and interest payments?



You're missing the point. Its a long term plan with dubious returns in the current economic climate. The investment required to build and maintain the site could be better spent in dozens of other enterprises across the country. I have seen nothing in this plan which merits the intervention by Nama.



From the extremely overpriced contracts that they were providing in the first place. :rolleyes:



Whereas I believe its time to reintroduce sound business planning and the allocation of wealth towards ventures that actually benefit this country and are definitely going to be profitable.

This venture is a shot in the dark. 5 years ago when the country when the country had money available, I wouldn't object to this. But the country does not have the money to burn on such an investment.

I don't think another reasoned reply is the way to deal with you.

I don't have any ideological standpoint on NAMA but I do see the benefit of improving porperties if it means we can get a proportionally greater return on them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Third, constructions costs might be down. There's no guarantee that they would be for this project, that the developer negotiated lower costs, and that any project manager won't continue to the trend of wasting money simply because Nama (or the government) is footing the bill.

This is what worries me. What will we do when the project goes massively over-budget? We won't be able to stop putting money in so we'll simply have to fold to any requests for extra money seeing as we'll need the project finished in order to see any return.

I foresee lots of money "going missing", and then lots more money going down the toilet in subsequent *useless* tribunals.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

I don't think another reasoned reply is the way to deal with you

Noodler, you seem to believe that I should accept your stance simply because you say it. You didn't provide any information besides the business plan (which we all saw previously), and a rather condescending tone.

The simple point is that your post doesn't answer my objections considering the state of the economy, the ability to the development to repay the investment by Nama, nor the real benefits of the investment. Instead you're providing vague assurances and expecting me to fall over and accept it. Not going to happen.

I've read plenty of business plans over the years. I even created a few, and implemented one, running the business successfully for 7 years. A business plan is just a plan, and doesn't really reflect the limitations of reality. God knows, we cherry coated our own business plan in order to get funding.. You seem to believe that just because they've done research (a bit dated now, don't you think?), and made some assumptions, that its an acceptable risk.

I don't have any ideological standpoint on NAMA but I do see the benefit of improving porperties if it means we can get a proportionally greater return on them.

Which I can agree with. However I don't see the point in investing in developments that were conceived during the boom times, and don't take account of the changed economic climate. I can appreciate investing in developments which show a high proportion of stability and can provide of measure of controlled risk, and yet, there is a tendency to invest in ventures simply because they exist.

Answer me this. What would happen if this investment was allowed to fail without intervention by Nama or any government institution?

noodler

I am not attempting to provide assurance to you on anything.

I am telling Nama's thinking behind what they are doing and looking at some of the posts on here I think that is necessary as alot of people here seem shocked that Nama is doing this when it has been outlined in the plan for nearly a year at this stage.

There are €81bn worth of loans (lets say €40bn in actualy value if we apply a conservative 50% discount) - I think it is pointless to jump on the first high-profile case of Nama using its allocated €5bn. I can't provide an expert view on what is worth what or what investments or justified and neither can you - that is why umpteen numbers of people have been employed with the necessary expertise.

I am not attempting to persuade anybody of anything other than to be aware that if the people in charge of NAMA (who are supossed to have the relevant expertise) consider something to be a good investment for the taxpayer then surely their informed opinion is worth considering?

Any condescending tone was a result of you misrepresenting my replies for example:

- I talked about the market bottoming out in a year and then you replied telling me there was no chance of a recovery in a year (for some reason you were telling me this?)

- You say construction costs might be down. It isn't debatable - they are. If Nama feel one developer can't give them a good deal then they can opt for a cheaper option - god knows there are 100s of thousands unemployed in the sector.

- Scale: you dismissed my example of a household investing in improvements in their house, saying it was not comparable. Do you dismiss the idea that a property could rise in value by more than is invested in it under the correct circumstances?

noodler

noodler wrote: »

I am telling Nama's thinking behind what they are doing and looking at some of the posts on here I think that is necessary as alot of people here seem shocked that Nama is doing this when it has been outlined in the plan for nearly a year at this stage.

This isn't about the role of Nama. This is about this particular case.

There are €81bn worth of loans (lets say €40bn in actualy value if we apply a conservative 50% discount) - I think it is pointless to jump on the first high-profile case of Nama using its allocated €5bn. I can't provide an expert view on what is worth what or what investments or justified and neither can you - that is why umpteen numbers of people have been employed with the necessary expertise.

If this was the second high profile case would that be better? I'm jumping in because of the type of development, the amounts required, and the risks involved. Something which you seem content to ignore, since you have not replied directly to any of my points.

I am not attempting to persuade anybody of anything other than to be aware that if the people in charge of NAMA (who are supossed to have the relevant expertise) consider something to be a good investment for the taxpayer then surely their informed opinion is worth considering?

Of course its worth considering, but I reserve the right to object based on the limitations/benefits of such plans.

Any condescending tone was a result of you misrepresenting my replies for example:

Not really... the manner of the sentence structure was condescending. Its not a misrepresentation.

- I talked about the market bottoming out in a year and then you replied telling me there was no chance of a recovery in a year (for some reason you were telling me this?)

I spoke about it in regards to the difficulties of such a development to gain and maintain profitability.

- You say construction costs might be down. It isn't debatable - they are. If Nama feel one developer can't give them a good deal then they can opt for a cheaper option - god knows there are 100s of thousands unemployed in the sector.

And I agreed that they are lower than during the boom time when the construction industry overcharged on everything... which you did not respond to... Nor did your respond to the point of mismanagement of funds, bad planning, etc.

You seem to believe that lower construction costs is a wonderful point in itself. That everything else is secondary.

- Scale: you dismissed my example of a household investing in improvements in their house, saying it was not comparable.

Your example of scale is like the purchase of a hundred jelly bellies compared to buying a luxury sports car...

Do you dismiss the idea that a property could rise in value by more than is invested in it under the correct circumstances?

Nope. It could indeed. I just don't believe its likely in the current economic climate, nor even in the next 5 years.... Also, while the value of the property might rise, who is going to buy it? Who is going to rent it? The value of a property does not automatically translate into profitability.

I have pointed out a number of problems with this development. You have not responded to any of those problems. I am tired of eternal optimism regarding investments. Its time to look objectively at projects and determine the true potential gains based on realistic estimates. Your could scenario just doesn't cut it anymore.

noodler

I am speaking generally.

Why you feel you have the expertise over the people hired by NAMA in this one case is beyond me but I am speaking generally.

You mention 5 years again but the business plan is 7-10 as I have already said.

The rest of your points are fairly entrenched - nothing more I can do there other than to say I have no ideological bias.

EDIT: If you haven't read the Business Plan then you should, it is full of optimistic assumptions but I think it would still serve you well for the basis of discussion.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

I am speaking generally.

I am too in a way. I would be just as skeptical on any development of a shopping center in Dublin or many other towns/cites in Ireland that require investment by Nama.

Why you feel you have the expertise over the people hired by NAMA in this one case is beyond me but I am speaking generally.

Did I say that I had more expertise over the people in Nama? Nope. So why do you have to introduce it?

Ahh, its not what I'm saying but rather that I'm not accepting everything at face value.

You mention 5 years again but the business plan is 7-10 as I have already said.

Yup, but this country needs to be investing in developments/enterprises which show short term (1-5 years) returns otherwise recovery will take forever.

The rest of your points are fairly entrenched - nothing more I can do there other than to say I have no ideological bias.

Not really entrenched. You just haven't addressed any them directly.

EDIT: If you haven't read the Business Plan then you should, it is full of optimistic assumptions but I think it would still serve you well for the basis of discussion.

I already said that I had read the business plan...

oceanclub

noodler wrote: »

Why you feel you have the expertise over the people hired by NAMA

After all these are the people who didn't foresee a crash or though there would be a soft landing.

They're experts.

P.

Hasschu

It will only take a few more ill advised moves by this gov't to move chasing down TDs' in the streets as a national sport ahead of greyhound and horse racing. The big bet will be on whether they survive until the 2012 election.