The whole thing is about land and interests in it.
Even the assets against which lending is secured may have legally complicated circumstances. The beauty of a CPO is that it’s like a hot knife through butter. You follow procedures to establish the legal interests and then just value them and acquire. If they don’t like the valuation then it can go for 3rd party determination. But the scheme progresses in the meantime.
It may also be useful if other assets eg adjacent land needs to purchased for whatever reason either for the security assets or the actual developments being funded- eg access, better quality and saleability of development.
There is, in my view, zero chance of this. If government start to nationalise, CPO private property on a wide scale then any foreign company, high net worth individual would make immediate plans to get out of what would be perceived as a communist country. A CPO of a small piece of a field to build a road is a lot different that CPOing vast tracts of urban areas etc.
If they can CPO lots of development land it will be perceived that they can CPO any other asset too “in the national interest” so it won’t happen
all they need is an assignment of the debt and then enforce rights of debt holder
Th reason no-one knows how NAMA is going to work is the same reason nobody got any details of how the TARP programme was going to work in the US,quite simply the authorities want the freedom to make the rules up as they go along.
If they published a set of rules or guidelines,when they came across a particularly complex or difficult case, if the rules didn’t allow them to simply throw tax payers money at it, NAMA couldn’t work.
This is why the FEd is refusing to publish details of who has got money,the terms and the amounts,saying they believe the recipients would then be mistakenly judged by the market as being insolvent - it wants to preserve their anonymity to protect them.
Pure hogwash of course,they simply want the taxpayers to hand over the money no questions asked.I believe there will be the same lack of visibility in the NAMA scheme ie zero visibility,with the same weak excuses,national interest,market sensitive data blah,blah,blah…
In Israel 93% of the land is owned by the government or semi-state agencies. No shortage of foreign investment there. One interesting consequence of the artificial scarcity this creates, judging by my totally unscientific perusal of some estate agents in Tel Aviv two weeks ago, is absurdly high property prices (ie, totally out of whack with incomes) despite pretty tight credit conditions. A glimpse of our future, perhaps?
EU Directive implemented in May perhaps with NAMA in mind which will amends directive behind this SI
DIRECTIVE 2009/44/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 6 May 2009
amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims