The immorality and unfairness of Nama … 01191.html

Brian Lucey strikes back against Alan Aherne’s limp pro NAMA article on Saturday

OUch! Is BL implying that Dr A is now a DOF mandarin, maybe a subtle riposte to Dr. A’s previous “ivory towers” comments?

ya think… :angry:

Excellent article.

There are gross assumptions and even grosser assertions at the heart of NAMA. No evidence has yet been provided for any of them. International comparison seems to show that many of the assumptions are false at first glance.

I am still waiting for someone to show me a bad bank that made money.

I am still waiting for someone to show me how it is possible to predict that we are at a trough in prices when unemployment is still rising and net emigration is expected.

I am still waiting for some examples of viable businesses that can’t get credit.

I would still like to know why Irish yields are below benchmark yields in the rest of Europe.

The answer so far seems to be “because this time it’s different”…

I was half listening to something on the radio on Thursday morning about Germany, where in the administration of the financial toxic assets, they valued them at zero, transferred them, administered them and any upside in the sale/administration is given back to the banks.
DMcW also points out the fact that we can pay either 1 of 2 prices for the toxic debts - either current market value, or greater - which assumes that the current market value is the lowest it can go, and ensures the state has a vested interest in high property prices.
Is there any way of making the state be a disinterested actor in the administration of the toxic assets by not buying them from the banks as such? e.g. transfer the toxic debts to NAMA, sell them on - as slowly as the banks like. Recapitalise the banks on the basis that it is all worthless, and allow the banks to buy out the recapitalisation (pro-rata) with whatever money they make on the sale/administration of the toxic debts.
This also means that issues regarding transparency in the pricing of the assets is no longer an issue - and one doesn’t have to worry about FF not being able to tell us how much they bought stuff for “for commercial sensitivity reasons”.

I think you are right. This is something the state could do - I put forward an idea that a state agency act as an honest broker to allow the banks to trade loans to consolidate the loans/assets.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


It doesn’t have to be staffed by Irish people… or regulated or inspected or overseen or, oh, bugger, it’s just not going to work, is it?

did Tubridy put this question to Cowen on Friday night?

But does that matter?
If the banks are the ones who administer their own loans, and they have an interest in making sure that these are administered well (e.g. they can only buy back government recapitalisation with money raised through the administration, or they get preferential treatment/a discount if they do so) - the taxpayer/state shouldn’t really care how they administer them.

of course he didnt.
Anyhow, one interesting issue is that to date Cowan, Lenihan and Ahearne have refused, point blank , to actually engage in a debate with anyone who is critical of nama. They wont debate…why?

I heard on der lunchtime radio that Cowen says risk sharing will be included in the next draft of the bill.

I expect it will be a token amount. It wouldn’t surprise me if they restrict the risk sharing element to the difference between the current market valuation and the Long Term Economic Value. Cue the fanfare.

This needs to be highlighted by the anti-draft nama side every time they talk on radio, newspaper etc. General public need to realise this.

did’nt Mark Little did ask Lenihan why an bord snip were saying “take what you can get” or words to that effect regarding selling some national assets … nama is different

it wont even be that much CC. Small single digit billions in sub debt (not shares) to the banks (not the shareholders).

Patrick H outlined the plan here, p226

not that what he said matters a whit ; its what the govt will say he meant that counts

Does Brian Lucey read the pin ?
Sounds like everything we write here … is coming out there !

Nah, its all on

Like the pin, but without the nutjobs. :wink:

in fairness lads, post about the topic without speculating on pin users

Expecially given the rules on this thread “On User names, Signatures, Avatars & Rankings” - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1048

particularly this bit:

There’s a lot of moving parts. The LTEV could be a significant amount or a red herring. It’s just as easy to manipulate the Current Value Calculation. Make the controversial LTEV small and link it to a rish sharing mechanism.

And yes, you’re right I’m guessing :angry: . But just showing how it could tie up a couple of loose ends. I’ll be amazed if the risk sharing is anything more than token.

not near as much fun tho…