Anglo and AIB accounted for 65% or so of the loans by number , 800 of them between them.
However Anglo and AIB accounted for over 75% of loans by value so Anglo and AIB gave bigger loans than the rest.
Frankly the paperwork for the developers ( not the investment syndicates) IS SUCH COMPLETE SHITE that NAMA has hardly touched them yet, eg the €670m out of €7bn or €9bn of INBS they took over.
Anyhoo, it is such a bunch of baloney to trot out the 47% average haircut, it’s totally meaningless unless weighted against the proportion of loans transferred! You need the average discount on the money, not the average of the percentages!
Balls anyway, it’s either recap or NAMA, punter pays principle…
Quinlan syndicates own the Savoy and Claridges amongst other having spent €1bn on them some years back.
At least we got some well known hotels for our investment and not some 300 room monstrosity extruded from a Castle out the Back of Ballivor …Oh! WAIT!!
So you don’t think this was all the loans of the top ten borrowers? That they had more than 1,200 loans? With an original book value of more than 16 bn?
No, but I think that the banks would be stricter with the smaller fry, so I expect the standard of paperwork to improve the lower down the food chain you go, but the quality of assets to disimprove. And I said so on the other thread.
What I don’t see is that you can say the next batch will have a higher, same or lower discount percentage applied. It is almost entirely random.
The real fun comes when they actually start transferring land and commercial/residential developments, not just these “associated loans”: ronanlyons.com/2010/03/31/eu … s-through/
This may not be the case. The reason being given that many of these securities are crap is that the banks let the developers own lawyers draft them. If this practice persisted lower down then who knows, there may be a higher proportion of dodgy deals lower dow.
In anglo and Irish nationwide in particular paper work may be non existant.
