NAMA Bonds, the Banks and some matching numbers...

ok
Lorcan Roche Kelly has an interesting post on his blog here : blog.cornerturned.com/2010/12/30/namabonds-wtf/
Not sure that i fully follow and that I agree w the implied conclusions but the numbers do stack up.

Thoughts?

But isn’t that exactly it? Does the lending figure not represent the NAMA bonds from Government? I.E. a promise to pay actual cash over to the banks in place of the bonds in the future?

It’s not actual lending to government, hence the 2 big hikes in March and August which would represent when the bonds were issued, no?

Sounds kinda like the NTMA…

This was all pre-IMF/EFSF bailout, so my (simplistic) read on it is that it was a way for the sovereign to tap the ECB for liquidity without having the stigma of tapping the ECB for liquidity… until we had to tap the IMF/EFSF for solvency, that is.

It was the quid-pro-quo for bailing out the banks - also explains Lenihan’s reluctance to nationalise AIB and BoI.

He has added an update…

Same thing really… :smiley: