Nama’s worst nightmare comes a step closer - → irishtimes.com/opinion/john- … -1.2723803
Well, well, well as many neutrals suspected it seems that SF were just playing politics with this all along. And please I don’t want anyone to seriously suggest that the implicated SF ex-Chair of the Finance Committee was doing a solo run on this.
So what was really a story about buy-side shenanigans among EAs in NI ballooned into a false scandal when SF started manipulating loyalists, and agents with their own agendas such as Mick Wallace, to assist them in flinging political mud and thus diverting attention away from their own political troubles, with not a care about the collateral damage to any non-combatants such as NAMA in doing this.
Lovely to see such progress in The North, what with both sides now working so closely together.
Sorry to spoil Sunday morning
You wait ages for a crisis and then three come along at one. Typical
Daly and McDonough are up against it here
Nama can bullshit and bully loads of people but bluster only goes so far. I expect a blustering appearance from Daly in which every word will be parsed and aggressive but equivocal and full of blithe non sequiturs.
Yes in a manner of speaking. You achieved the ‘best result’ given the process you followed. The result of a flawed process.
Is that as one portfolio ? And with all the whiff about the process. You might be damn right again ! No one would touch your process
Pure distraction tactics. The question is - Why one big loan sale ? Did you sell all your London loans in one go ? Did you sell all your Scottish? Might there have been a political reason for this monster sale of all NI Loans ? Is there a clause about ‘political reasons’ in the NAMA Act that allowed you to do this ?
I’m only on page 1 and 2 of the report and you see the amazing lack of arse covering by Daly and McDonough
audgen.gov.ie/documents/spec … _Eagle.pdf
There was literally no formal scenario analysis
Where is that allowed in the NAMA act as a factor for the board in its decision making? oh I remember now. Nowhere
Fire the board
Fire the CEO
C&AG have said this morning they do not talk to the Media outside of Press releases.
So free rein for NAMA…Daly and a board member called Brian McEnerny on the radio this AM out fighting. Eoghain Murphy Junior TD on also (Noonan went into hospital this week and won’t be back until Monday was the main point I took from his blather).
Mick Wallace is putting up the counter-arguments on a very bad phone line…me thinks he’s in the ‘brothers’ vineyard outside Turin
that’s the SF shill NWL
all this talk about valuations and 190mln lost is a side show, the valuations were all subjective and the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding (willful or not) in the media today has been unsurprising - the process and criticism of it is the important thing to focus on
The government’s aim now will be to keep Noonan’s role and all talk of “political and cross jurisdictional context” that the CandAG referred to away from any inquiry. You can be sure that just like the DoJ and Shatter, Noonan doesn’t document any decision making process (or anything at all)
It’s all about the terms of reference baby
What a load of codswallop.
The only NAMA-created possible problem that the report seems to have highlighted is a disagreement of £190m over the price achieved. On one hand we have NAMA who were active in the property market and received the price they felt achievable to get a curates egg of a portfolio off their hands, and with all the problems of the usual array of snakes in the grass hustlers in NI. On the other hand we have the theoretical price proposed by the C & AG.
Daly has made the important point that 8 parties were invited to bid and the fact that in the end 6 did not bid suggested that they didn’t see any great value on offer. Why not let a couple of independent property specialists look at the 2 valuation figures and make a determination on the sale price in the context of the market at that time? We don’t need a frigging enquiry in the Republic over this issue.
So on the sell side (NAMA) there is no suggestion of impropriety whereas on the buy side the NI police are looking into the shenanigans of various parties there trying to extract fees from the Yank buyers. Let’s see what they come up with and let them pursue anyone guilty of any impropriety.
As Observer35 has pointed out the real meaty issue affecting the ROI, and causing probable loss to the Irish taxpayer, is the Section 110 structure of winning bidders for NAMA portfolios, which should be the subject of an inquiry, not the freaking sale price.
But no, we have the usual ragbag alliance of Wallace, with a personal financial interest and vendetta against Cerebus, and SF with their witness-coaching and local NI political interests, stirring shit on this non-issue. And the press here seemingly cant judge what is important and what is a big to-do about nothing.
What an absolute racket NAMA is.
A sovereign (even one without its own currency) has one big advantage over a normal investor … timeline… an ability to sit and wait for decades and decades …
But not in Ireland, bundle them up and sell, sell, sell. A completely hypocritical approach that is clearly founded on the idea of an efficient market pricing mechanism, despite the fact that NAMA exists because the market FAILED SPECTACULARLY as, oh, an efficient pricing mechanism.
I think you’re forgetting how precarious the State finances were when Nama was established, and how much pressure there was to refund Nama bonds to the State (or ECB). They couldn’t just sit around waiting for the market to recover, but had to start covering their costs from day one, and then proceed according to a schedule toward full disposal. Plus, many (including many on here) thought that the market would take decades to recover, so again waiting indefinitely wasn’t an option. (That’s not to say Nama operated perfectly - I’m sure it didn’t.)
Doing nothing was not an option - unless billions of assets sitting unproductively in limbo is a strategy
Selling by the way was what enabled prices to recover - they did not recover independently of asset sales but at least partially because of asset sales
Sales moved assets from the hands of the bankrupt and moribund to the well capitalised and active
Waiting 5 years to obtain a 20% better price is a flawed approach - duration is the enemy of IRR
You clearly don’t understand what this is really about. The valuation difference is merely an estimate of the cost of what happens when a political decision is made (with no commercial examination of alternative disposal methods or lot types or sizes) And then interference in the process (which they were advised was occuring but pressed ahead anyway)
A modelling exercise is of limited benefit and doesn’t address the political or process causes for the fuck up.
Bidders pulling out of an auction is not at all a sign that you got best price and scared them off with your AMV . If I’m selling a farm but refuse to also offer it in smaller lots and ignore what frauds and lies my local agent is doing in the background (despite the main bidder telling me) then I fucked up.
NAMA fucked up here hugely
The state should not be focussed on IRRs so duration is not the enemy of the state.
“Assets sitting unproductively” is your designation of what would have happened, not mine.
Listen every “pro market” argument, which yours effectively is, is completely dismantled by the fact that the market enabled a massive mispricing of assets higher, followed by a massive crash lower, followed by the Taxpayer paying in excess of the now vaunted “market price” (LTEV), followed by NAMA shovelling state assets out the door as fast as possible to predominately foreign purchasers (domestic purchasers can’t get the finance) … followed by same foreign purchasers utilising questionable tactics to completely avoid Irish tax on their Irish gains!
Not just a racket, but a corrupt racket.
You say IRR is not the ‘focus’ - but suggest waiting ‘decades’ to achieve the best price. Either getting a return is important or it’s not. Considering the time value of money is logical on the part of Nama.
Assets sitting unproductively is exactly what would have happened. 50bn of property assets in possession of a near bankrupt state with no funds or capability or expertise to put them to use. A recipe for stagnation.
The fact that markets are prone to extremes or mispricing is not an argument for or against Nama.
Was every commercial decision made by Nama correct? If your standard is that everyone Nama sold to must then have lost money, then clearly not.
But second guessing those decisions now from a vantage point of recovery is utterly invalid. Two minutes reviewing your previous posts indicates that you held super bearish viewpoints at exactly the wrong time - viz April 2011 – “I fully expect that anybody who bought last year — at 55% “off peak” — will have to endure the moniker of “knife-catcher” and will have their ass handed to them.”
But having been an apostle of doom – and there were many of us - you now claim that it was obvious that Nama should have actually held on to everything and run the price to the sky. It doesn’t stand up.
Based on the evidence I’ve seen the Nama timeline and approach remains probably the least worst way of dealing with the mess created in 2002 – 2007. The counterfactuals of Portugal, Italy and Spain point in that direction and your ‘decades’ strategy looks even worse.