NAMA is forced to change its business plan

Just remember folks, no one could have seen it coming, best available advice, etc.

If this doesn’t destroy the myth that Brian Lenihan is competent then nothing will.

Yea no one, not even Peter Mathews had a clue! :unamused:

Videos here, viewtopic.php?f=50&t=30293&p=389933

His own blog, bankermathews.com/the-alternative/

Loved this

:angry:

Not a great piece of journalism on many levels that article from Emmet Oliver. Section 30(2) of the NAMA Act states

“(2) If a member discloses an interest pursuant to subsection (1),
the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the
Board or otherwise duly recorded. The Board may, at its discretion,
refer to the disclosure in NAMA’s quarterly report.”

The only mandatory requirement is that NAMA record the conflict, not that they report it.

You got that backwards.

Lenihan is clearly extremely competent.
He has done exactly what was required of him; push the problem 20 years down the road.
Anyone remember much about 1990? Anyone care?
Lenihan and his cohorts will be long gone, making appearances on RTE retrospectives about how they ‘got it wrong’.
And no one will give a shit.

In addition, the level of analysis on the Pin wouldnt be comprehended by the majority of the population.
If you drew it in crayons 30ft high it wouldnt sink in.
Its over.

The support of NAMA in the streets was on the basis that it would sort out the big developers and force them to go bust while saving the country and the banks from collapse, the politicans and particularly FF were given the benefit of the doubt, only showe in town and all that. For NAMA to be struggling already when it has only transferred a portion of the loans and supposedly the better ones will shock some and might finally wake a few people up to the suicide bombers sitting in the Dail

From the Irish Times article in the OP

Could be wrong here, but I thought that particular ‘levy’ never actually made it into the final Nama bill.

No levy in the Bill. There is suppose to be a clawback provision for overpayment or misrepresentation for assets transferred but the enforcement mechanism is a bit sketchy to say the least.

And that levy will be passed onto the customer.