Eurostat accounting guidelines for financial intervention

Earlier today I heard Mr. White of Davy’s talking about the fact that the government may not have to include the cost of NAMA in the National Debt based on a Eurostat decison of 15 July 2009. He, I guess, got the information from the NTMA press briefing: … 230709.pdf

So I thought I’d stop listening to the jockey and have a look in the horses mouth…

Eurostat press release: … -BP-EN.PDF

Which links to:
Eurostat guidance note … 0draft.pdf
Purchase of Assets and Defeasance p.7 (possibly NAMA?)

Exchange of Assets p.8 (e.g. BoE SLS (Special Liquidity Scheme))

Classification of Certain New Bodies p.9 (possibly NAMA?)

So it is not, IMO, clear-cut at all, hence Mr. Somers reticence use of “may” and “possibly” as opposed to Mr. White’s use of “may well” (IIRC). Indeed, it looks to me that NAMA as currently envisaged by Mr. Bacon’s recommendations would fall foul of the Eurostat directive either by not having autonomy or because it is planned to overpay for the loans. The recent valuation of the Sentinel building in Sandyford at €0.5-1 mn with an outstanding loan of €22 mn must give the NAMA planners pause for thought.

In short, I don’t see that NAMA as it has been expressed to us can avoid being part of the National Debt. Not that it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things, but for neatness, you know!

it really really doesnt matter. As was noted on Newstalk yesterday lunchtime , regardless of how one statistically manipulates it, we still owe the NAMA bonds repayment. This is akin to the SIV’s of Enron etc ; and look how well they worked