I don't understand this - NAMA judgment orders

High Court today.

If I have read this correctly and cognitive dissonance is casting a large shadow over that, I have some issues understanding what BoI were doing here.

we are where we are :sick:
when future generations ask for an explanation of the crisis this will be the only answer

I have difficulty in how the media say that only 5% of the €280m loan on the Beacon South Quarter has recourse and then go on to say that the orders in respect of the €280m are €37.5-50m depending on how you interpret what is written, but regardless represents more than 5%. Either I have the wrong end of the stick or our media are unquestioning and don’t display curiosity.

I took it that the 280 represesented only a portion of the loans under which judgements were secured.

Lot of renegotiation of terms at the height of the bubble due the the availability of aggressive refinancing. To be honest, would it have made any difference if guarantees were in place for more? :stuck_out_tongue:

Limited recourse was fairly common in big development deals in 04-06. Remember that banks were competing fiercely against one another to close these deals and Anglo would always be hovering in the background with a juicy offer. The bank’s attitude would be to, at a minimum, get sufficient recourse to the developer personally to ensure they have some skin in the game i.e. so they can’t walk away free and clear if things don’t go top plan and the remainder of the debt would have recourse only to a particular asset(s), presumably in this case to the Beacon development.
In the absence of sensible regulation you will inevitably have a race to the bottom in credit standards. This is a direct result of having no regulation and Anglo’s attitude to risk.

wv

Interesting :slight_smile: , makes one wonder what kind of skeletons the real banks have in their closest that they didnt complain to the financial regulator regarding Anglo’s practices.

If a bank looks for personal guarantees of €800 million off someone they know is only worth €20 million, they are acting irresponsibly and in fact probably negating the actual guarantee that they are seeking obtain. How can you enforce or justify an €800 million guarantee when you are aware that the guarantor is only worth a fraction of that amount - and that on a good day! It is arguable that it is voidable.