Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Time has come for Nama's critics to put up or shut up
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:45 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Aug 20, 2009
Posts: 5159
Article by Frank Daly, NAMA Chairman in today's Times

Time has come for Nama’s critics to put up or shut up

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/time- ... -1.2378519


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Time has come for Nama's critics to put up or shut up
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:56 am 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 11735
Location: Multiverse
I wonder if Michael Somers read that with a smirk on his face.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Time has come for Nama's critics to put up or shut up
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:23 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11764
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Frank Daly seems to be dancing around a very interesting issue.

Quote:
We have explained that we ran a robust, competitive sales process that delivered £1.3 billion for the Irish taxpayer, the amount of the highest bid submitted from the nine global investment groups who entered the bid process.


Quote:
Some claim we should have raised red flags about the role of advisers to Pimco (the bidder we excluded from consideration) who went on to advise the successful bidder. The logic of this is that we should have accepted £1.1 billion from the runner-up bidder instead of the £1.3 billion that we achieved for the taxpayer.


BUT, the sale to Cerberus wasn't £1.3 Billion. Part of the portfolio was removed and sold separately for £60 million. This left the remainder of the portfolio with a reserve of £1.24 Billion, and how much did it sell for? €1.241 Billion, less than 1 tenth of 1% above the reserve. It would be the same as bidding for a house with a reserve of 124k and exceeding it by €100.

Wallace, 15th July 2015 wrote:
Brendan McDonagh asserted at the PAC hearing that Cerberus bought the Northern Ireland loan portfolio for £1.241 billion sterling. We have been consistently told by Nama that the portfolio was sold for significantly more, ie, £1.3 billion sterling. Mr McDonagh at the PAC hearing continuously erred in outlining that the ultimate sale price was £1.3 billion sterling subsequent to conceding at the very same hearing that the actual number realised was in fact nearly £60 million less.
-Question 19.

Wallace, 29th September 2015 wrote:
Taoiseach, the reserve price for Project Eagle was €1.3billion. This was adjusted to €1.24billion, in April 2014, to reflect, Nama told us, asset disposals which took place in the intervening period between the launch of the loan sale and its closing. Can you find out, Taoiseach, what are the details of these disposals? Can you tell me Taoiseach, why the reserve price was reduced by €60million? Could you find out if this is connected to reports of a developer whose loans were in Project Eagle and he came to Nama to complain about being approached by fixers who were looking for a backhand in order for him to buy his loans back at 50p in the pound from Cerberus in the autumn of 2013, months before Cerberus even bought it. Can you find out, Taoiseach, if Nama actually done a deal with this developer? Can you tell us what disposals were involved with this €60million?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Time has come for Nama's critics to put up or shut up
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:10 pm 
Offline
Holiday Home Owner

Joined: Dec 13, 2008
Posts: 305
Don't see the issue to be honest ... if the winning bid was £1.3bn and it was subsequently adjusted on closing to £1.241bn because £60m had been taken out of the portfolio, where's the problem? That happens all the time on distressed asset disposals. The time delay between bidding and closing is significant. He says they "achieved £1.3bn for the taxpayer", not that it came from a single source.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Time has come for Nama's critics to put up or shut up
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:38 pm 
Offline
IMF'd

Joined: Sep 13, 2007
Posts: 31767
Location: Tullamore
Put up what?

Much as I dislike the banks, letting them manage their own distressed assets while nationalising/recapitalising still seems a cheaper solution than setting up an external entity to do it. The banks were not fundamentally restructured (or at all?), consolidated, remanaged even, barring the basket cases. Credit did not flow as a result of clearing out the distressed assets and recapitalising the banks because the solution chosen was to reflate the housing market. In that instance, choking credit and maintaining a phoney stand-off and at the same time restricting supply was the appropriate solution. If you want to stick a nail in it, you need to invent a hammer.

I don't particularly blame FG/Lab for this, they were stuck with it. Governments, as we see with Syriza, have a difficult time with inherited problems. Beside which, I've plenty of fuck-ups that they made all on their lonesome to blame them for.

Once you build a NAMA, once you pin your strategy (and the solvency of the state) on long term economic value, you have to see it through. What will be interesting is what happens when NAMA ends. Beware of those looking for NAMA to be some sort of government land agency; like an uber developer, it's only rationale will be high land and property prices...

_________________
"It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good."

So long and thanks for all the fish.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS   

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster

  

Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!