This myth that Receivers sit on their arse and collect a monthly fee for doing nothing has been put about a lot by wanker bankers and particularly by NAMA.
It is the wanker bankers and NAMA who are stopping stuff getting sold and slowing down the process of resolving problems that need to get resolved to bring an asset to the market.
Traditionally Receivers got in and out quickly and liked it that way. The wanker bankers and Nama have decided they don’t like this and they want the Receiver to “add value” and hold stuff for years. They want the benefits of a SPV type propco but moan about the implications of it.
And you think the receivers are protesting loudly ? Its an open secret that insolvency work is paying a lot of mortgages at KPMG, Grant Thornton, Deloitte etc. and keeping those firms afloat. There ain’t much audit or tax work right now, is there ?
The bankers who appoint receivers get to hang on to their jobs for a few months longer and accountancy partners get to feed off the rents for a while. Nama gets to pretend LTEV is still relevant and avoid repossessions.
Meanwhile prices continue to fall and the greater fools become scarcer.
I’m not disagreeing with you. But accountancy firms are not the reason why things are not getting sold. You’re correct that most Receivers will not tell a bank/NAMA that they’re wrong.
Receivership is just the wrong process for what the banks and NAMA want to do. But they are scared of the alternatives - immediate sale or a re-imagining of enforcement. We need a new NAMA act that tramples on borrowers constitutional rights even more.