NAMA statment on Johnny Ronan well worth reading

NAMA has received a significant level of negative commentary from developers such as JR and others. Obviously these parties have a gripe against the agency and a blinkered view of what they could have achieved themselves given time and funds. This is what makes them developers and facilitates a high risk/high reward strategy;)
Unfortunately this is one of the very rare times that NAMA has bothered to issue a press release defending its actions and facilitates a more balanced view of the rationale behind their decision. It's really the overall reluctance of NAMA to explain it's actions (even post event) that has generated the suspicion that the taxpayer is not getting an optimum service from the Agency. I think we would all like to see more information as ultimately we stand to benefit or lose by the actions NAMA takes.
 
44brendan said:
Unfortunately this is one of the very rare times that NAMA has bothered to issue a press release defending its actions and facilitates a more balanced view of the rationale behind their decision.
Click to expand...

I don't think that NAMA can simply issue a statement about a client when it's bothered to do so. It has done this only in response to a detailed statement made by Johnny Ronan.

The same thing happens with mortgage arrears cases. The borrower spins all sorts of stories, and the bank cannot respond because of client confidentiality. The rules should be changed so that if I discuss my arrears or repossession in public and criticise AIB, AIB should be allowed to publish the full details.

Brendan
 
It's not so much statements about specific clients. more to do with deals done on re-possessed properties. I.e project Eagle sale caused significant controversy with the suspicion touted that NAMA were less than diligent in their process to obtain a purchaser for the package. They are currently in the process of packaging Project Arrow for sale with a fairly low key search for interested parties. This is an 8.4bln package of loans (largest fire sale in history) with little public information available on the rationale for selling a package of loans that would be affordable only to a very limited number of purchasers.
While accepting the need for NAMA to conduct business without in-depth scrutiny on each an every transaction, this particular sale can go spectacularly right or spectacularly wrong, but we won't know this until after the event. I.e. there appears to be no information available as to the current asset value of the security held for these loans. I know personally of a number of properties being sold by receivers that were sale agreed and then suddenly pulled off the market because they were being included in the package. The point I am making is that whatever way this sale goes NAMA can tout it as a success on the basis that they will achieve a better price for the loans than the written down value at date of acquisition. However acquisition date was at the lowest point in the market and assumed a minimal return from assets held.
It's not that I have any distrust of NAMA but I do have a general distrust on any process that is not subject to full scrutiny and accountability.
 
Brendan 44, I could not agree more with your last post.

Was NAMA doing business with criminal bankers

Lloyds management has reached a settlement with British and American regulators whereby it pays fines of £218million to atone for its share in the 2006-09 Libor interest rate-fixing scandal, in which some of the biggest names in banking have been engaged right up to their dirty little white collars.

Among the most shocking aspects of Lloyds’ behaviour is that much of it took place after the 2008 banking collapse, when it depended for its very existence on taxpayer support. By a breathtaking twist, its traders even tried to rig the rescue fund — the Bank of England’s Special Liquidity Scheme. And since we still own 25 per cent of Lloyds’ shares, the British people are ultimately losers from yesterday’s thumping cash penalty.



Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin for "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") maybe Mr Ronan should have fought them on this common law defence.
 
Having read Ronan's article a couple of weeks back I thought at the time that Nama had done a good job. So far I still think so, even as I follow the Cerebus saga.
 
I don't have enough information about the deal, to make an informed decision whether it was good or not, due to the secrecy of the tendering process etc ( Nama's lack of transparency ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top