NAMA sells portfolio with €1.5 billion face value to US firm for €450m - -> rte.ie/news/business/2017/0 … -for-450m/
Articles like this - which fail to mention that Nama paid a substantial discount to par for these assets - are really poor.
Not at all. There should be more of them. They make a mockery of Nama’s rhetoric, particularly Frank Daly’s. ‘We’ll chase every penny’ ‘it’s all due and owing IN FULL’
Also given we were on the other side of the transaction in what they paid for them (bailing out domestic banks) spending any time dwelling on ‘what they paid for them’ is kinda asinine
In what what does this make a mockery of that? Do you have some reason to believe this bundle of loans was sold for below market price?
If something is being sold at 30% of par in today’s market, is it not more likely that the quality of the underlying loans is just really low?
For example, let’s say a bank lent €50m to a developer in 2007 to buy some land and then the developer went out of business. Land prices subsequently fell by 90% but have recovered somewhat. If Nama could now sell that loan for only a 70% discount, they could potentially be receiving 3x the value that was applied to the loan when it was moved into NAMA.
I really dont think prices fell 90%
just as a question are there any published figures for development land
it seems bizarre even after a major recovery in land and property they can still only be getting 30% of the original loan value
Is the opaque ‘loan market’, a market like the property market ?
Development Land fell 95% in places like the Midlands actually . Did Alanis and Paddy Kelly own lands in Longford ?
Why would you engage in the entire Nama years long process, allow developers cross the Ts on the asset transfers, spend monster amounts on professional fees etc ?
Given how half assed their hold vs sell decision was on the Northern Ireland book (the only one that there’s really been prodding on) why would we listen to anything Nama says ?
Land prices in large parts of the country fell by 90%
Remember, the bubble was not just in areas of potential future development, it was in wild, untamed, aboriginal places like Cavan.
Nama did two things:
- Took bad loans from banks
- Financed them cheaply using a taxpayer guarantee
So it should be judged on two criteria:
- Did it maximise value in dealing with the debtors and selling on the loans?
- Was the impact on sovereign borrowing costs (very large pre-bailout) worth it?
You forget the third - bailing out the squirearcy from a disorderly firesale of loans. That was it’s true purposes. Buy the loans as cheap as possible, then let the debtors pay back a fraction of their borrowings, but still have NAMA make a profit. Nothing to do with the people who run NAMA, it’s just the way it was set up.
Are you not surprised at how few bankruptcies there have been given the scale of borrowings?