C&AG's Report On Project Eagle

FrancieBrady

Why, if Michael Noonan stressed that there is nothing

that suggested anything illegal, nothing improper or any irregularities in the way that Nama behaved”

...in the report would Nama

strongly rebut the findings of the report.

Doesn't quite make sense.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

I'm leaving this open because its an important topic but as per the charter something a bit more substantial is required to start a thread.

Chips Lovell

The Irish Times has published a piece by Frank Daly today, outlining why Nama is disagreeing with some of the C&AG findings:

The C&AG report assumes that Nama should apply the same discount rate to poorer-quality Northern Ireland and regional UK loans as it did to much higher-quality prime assets in Dublin and London.

The Nama board’s view is based on valuation assumptions and appropriate discount rates largely accepted by the market. The C&AG version is based on assumptions not supported by experts in the loan sales market.

It appears to be a small technical point, but it has very significant implications that underpin the price we were prepared to accept.

Good summation of Daly's entire article in one sentece

In essence, the report says Nama may have been able to obtain more for Project Eagle if it had not sold it or if it had found someone else – unknown to Nama and our adviser, Lazard – who was willing to pay more.

Effectively he says that the report has an "If my Auntie had b........" feel to it.

Of course (absolute utter truism) NAMA would have made more if they'd sold it for a higher price. Was a higher price achievable though?

Nama has to operate in the real world, dealing with real bids, not hypothetical suggestions.

NAMA can absolutely be operating fully to its mandate and still be losing money on deals btw.

I find it quite strange that the C&AG refused expert help. Quite a 'Govian' choice imo.

We are certain that the report would have been very different if it had proceeded with the plans it announced last year to hire external market or loan sale specialists. But it did not do this.
The C&AG opted instead to use its own in-house staff, who are very capable and professional but who do not have any experience of loan sales.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

Good summation of Daly's entire article in one sentece


Effectively he says that the report has an "If my Auntie had b........" feel to it.

Of course (absolute utter truism) NAMA would have made more if they'd sold it for a higher price. Was a higher price achievable though?



NAMA can absolutely be operating fully to its mandate and still be losing money on deals btw.

I find it quite strange that the C&AG refused expert help. Quite a 'Govian' choice imo.

None of that will make the habitual "anti-everything" class on the opposition benches even pause and think. The "everyone is corrupt" thesis will be put out there again and again.

FrancieBrady

So the thinking here is there should be no inquiry?

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the thinking here is there should be no inquiry?

I don't think anybody has said that, where did you get that idea from?

So far, I have only seen two positions publicly from politicians, one is the knee-jerk "we must have an inquiry" at great cost to the State but to find out what?, the other is that the C&AG report should go the normal route to the PAC first to be examined.

Given what the Irish Times article has said I favour the latter approach based on what I have heard (but then again neither I nor most of the politicians commentating have had time to read the full report) but I am open to being convinced otherwise if someone could advance arguments based on the contents of the report (not just the rantings of politicians).

Either way, because there is a majority of lunatics in charge of the Dail asylum, I expect that we will have an inquiry, which may turn out, like a few before it, to be a monumental waste of time and money when it could have been simply dealt with by the PAC.

If there are to be any enquiries funded I want them to be about whether or not any insider trading took place, about whether or not any deals were taken instead of demonstrably preferable offers, if anybody ripped off the demonstrably vulnerable nature of Nama and its portfolios and procedures.

Not "we sold at X when if we'd waited 6 months we could have made Y" type stuff. That's utterly false and unfair analysis and benefits us how exactly?

Akin to people looking at their 3/6 Lotto numbers and saying "well if only I'd chosen 6 instead of 5 and 27 instead of 26, I'd have made €250,000 more".

FrancieBrady

I don't see any point in an inquiry that cannot compel witnesses. That would be pointless.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't see any point in an inquiry that cannot compel witnesses. That would be pointless.

Nobody has said that there shouldn't be an enquiry.

All that is being said is that we shouldn't rush into a knee-jerk enquiry. Have you read the C&AG report yet? What exactly does it say?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Nobody has said that there shouldn't be an enquiry.

All that is being said is that we shouldn't rush into a knee-jerk enquiry. Have you read the C&AG report yet? What exactly does it say?

I said there shouldn't be an inquiry if it is toothless.
And I had misgivings and questions about Nama before the C&AG report.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said there shouldn't be an inquiry if it is toothless.
And I had misgivings and questions about Nama before the C&AG report.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0914/816409-nama-report-government/


There is a link to the C&AG report in the RTE news item.

On the one hand:

"NAMA has outlined the strategic and commercial rationale underpinning the decision to sell the loan portfolio. This report draws no conclusion about the merits of that decision."

On the other:

"As a result, the decision to sell the loans at a minimum price of £1.3 billion involved a significant probable loss of value to the State of up to £190 million in NPV terms."

I would love to know what questions people want answered by an enquiry.

FrancieBrady

I would like to test Mr McNally's claim that no confidential information was given or disclosed by its agents.
We have the allegation from the Spotlight programme that one of Nama's agent Frank Cushnahan, accepted 40,000 from a developer and the previous cases against two of it's employees for passing on sensitive and confidential information and the subsequent allegations one of them made about widespread internal abuses.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would like to test Mr McNally's claim that no confidential information was given or disclosed by its agents.
We have the allegation from the Spotlight programme that one of Nama's agent Frank Cushnahan, accepted 40,000 from a developer and the previous cases against two of it's employees for passing on sensitive and confidential information and the subsequent allegations one of them made about widespread internal abuses.

I'm curious: why should such allegations be investigated by an inquiry, rather than the police?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious: why should such allegations be investigated by an inquiry, rather than the police?

I will take either. As long it has the necessary teeth to get to the bottom of what was going on.
We have 3 cases now of employees or agents allegedly disclosing confidential information and allegations being made that this was widespread practice within the organisation.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will take either. As long it has the necessary teeth to get to the bottom of what was going on.
We have 3 cases now of employees or agents allegedly disclosing confidential information and allegations being made that this was widespread practice within the organisation.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0512/787912-nama-enda-farrell/


The Gardai have dealt with previous leaks and secured convictions. Why should this allegation be a politicial football rather than a garda investigation like the previous ones?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0512/787912-nama-enda-farrell/


The Gardai have dealt with previous leaks and secured convictions. Why should this allegation be a politicial football rather than a garda investigation like the previous ones?

I would like to know why it keeps happening, we have at least two more instances in an organisation where the allegation has been made that disclosure of sensitive info was widespread.
How is it a political football when the Taoiseach also thinks an inquiry is warranted?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will take either. As long it has the necessary teeth to get to the bottom of what was going on.

Fair enough, but if it's teeth you want, then AGS have all the statutory powers you could want. Faffing around with inquiries into what's allegedly a criminal matter makes no sense to me.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, but if it's teeth you want, then AGS have all the statutory powers you could want. Faffing around with inquiries into what's allegedly a criminal matter makes no sense to me.

Gardai would only be interested in instances were the law is known to have been broken. Are they the agency for a root and branch look at Nama. I am not so sure.