Newstalk Lunchtime 27/08/2009 - Ahearne, Lucey, Deeter

Alan ahearne on Newstalk at 1205 ; Brian Lucey at 1300 (why wont the govt go head to head)
Brian Lucey on Primetime this evening (no DoF rep available …)

Aherne not performing well I’m impressed by Keane

Karl Deeter ( pro nama) bs Brian Lucey ( anti nama ) on Newstalk just now . Brian won I felt .

ding ding ding…NAMA round 5,786,321 coming up

Karl D a bit “passionate”.

brian lucey wins perpetually when you want to believe his hypothesis! :slight_smile:

unfortunately, i can name the people who i have spoken to on a professional basis regarding the bond market reaction to changes to nama at this point,
he can’t/won’t. so either lay it on the line or don’t, you can’t have it both ways.

Topic split from:

I feel that abandonment by the international bond market is not as big a risk as Karl thinks .

Would these people also sell bonds for banks …you know the ones that will most likely be sold by the NTMA instead if the banks are nationalised ??

It’s hard to take Lucey seriously after his 2006 report that dismissed talk of an unsustainable property bubble and predicted growth to continue until 2010.

I also felt the same as Karl, why are there no practitioners on his list of signatories?? You know the saying, “those who can, do, those who can’t, teach”

I’m not saying I agree with NAMA but I just don’t find Lucey very credible (he didn’t exactly help himself here with his “I did ask many practitioners around the world but I can’t name them for you” excuse)

I can’t imagine people getting into trouble for talking the bond market up so I’d say they’d feel alot freer about having their names used.

Though, I’m not sure I’m even talking about the same things as you guys. Can someone post what exactly it is that you are referencing from the radio show?

The problem with practitioners is that they have a vested interest and very few of them are willing or able to be objective.

I’m surprised! I didn’t think there would be a single person here in my corner (no matter how remotely that might be!)

Eh, Alan Ahearne!!! :question:

Any chance you could provide more substance to your posts about the discussion in the newshow. I didn’t get to listen to it so I’d like to know more from both sides.

Possibly but was it not Krugman that said recently that the macro economics taught over the past 30 years had been spectacularly useless at best and positively harmful at worst. Barro described the economics taught at university as an expensive waste of time (or words to that effect). The theorists haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory recently (come to think of it, the practitioners haven’t either).

must call bullshit on that post: in fact, practitioners would likely be more honest because doing so can uncover profit (which is a practitioner motive, unlike acceptance of hypothesis which is an academic one) ie: bond adviser comes out ‘irish debt sucks - we’ll short sell/reverse ETF/put option various elements of it’. Irish banks won’t be nationalised - all out buy calls etc. So by reading into what practitioners say you can actually get a really good idea of where they are putting their faith.

but oddly, on the issue of NAMA they are silent, not because its right or wrong, merely they are waiting to see what occurs and any messing around with the outline given thus far could have serious repurcussions.

people say ‘screw the bond market’ but that is mistakenly thinking that there is an endless wall of money out there waiting to invest in ireland which is europes most insignificant market! there isn’t, you can’t wipe everybody and hope to maintain credibility with the investment world at the same time. unfortunately being a taxpayer here sucks, and it will suck for some time.

funny though: NAMA takes up all this headspace when the one thing we can’t divest of - and that is embedded in our debt - is the structural deficit of 26bn, NAMA will be long cleared up before we see that sorted out!

I think they’re talking about whether pandering to the bond investors is really what Ireland needs to be doing right now. On this subject practitioners are unlikely to be very objective.

Would that also be true of the government and the DoF? And they’re the ones proposing NAMA.

sadly, i fear it might be even bigger than i think.

Again I say Alan Ahearne. I don’t know how you can tar Lucey’s arguments on the one hand when NAMA comes with the Alan Ahearne seal of approval, he contributed to far worse property pumping studies back in the day. We have a choice one lying around here somewhere about condoms and house prices.

Stick to the actual arguments and stop denigrating academics just for the sake of it.

That’s my job. 8)

Jaysus, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of Ahearne and I wouldn’t support NAMA in it’s current format in a million years, I’m just saying that there must be more credible people than Lucey to push the anti-NAMA argument