http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2...-to-the-oireachtas-public-accounts-committee/
The gist of the letter is contained in this quotation -
========================
"The accounts from NAMA, both the annual report and the quarterly management accounts do not provide a level of detail which enables you to assess how well NAMA is performing in its disposal of assets.
Specifically you cannot assess the following:
(1) The gross profit on the transaction – sale price less loan acquisition cost
(2) The net profit after consultant/adviser/agent fees, loan carrying costs, foreclosure costs, tax on profit including potentially capital gains tax
(3) Evidence that NAMA has marketed the asset – loan or property – so as to maximise profit (and generally the sales price)
(4) Evidence that NAMA has achieved the best price for a particular asset
(5) NAMA’s expertise to ensure the best price is achieved
(6) NAMA’s expertise to determine the best time to dispose of an asset
(7) Estimated carrying costs for a distressed loan or property [In the UK, the standard assumption is 5% of the value of the asset in insurance, maintenance, management and other costs]
There is a compilation of reported NAMA sales on the NAMA winelakeblog but these are but a subset of NAMA’s total sales - based upon press/industry reporting, contacts and other research – as NAMA does not report individual sales."
========================
I don't know enough about NAMA's terms of reference, management or staffing levels to comment, but some of the points echo my own concerns.
I'd be interested in hearing the views of AAM posters with some competence in this field.
I have no connection to this blog.
The gist of the letter is contained in this quotation -
========================
"The accounts from NAMA, both the annual report and the quarterly management accounts do not provide a level of detail which enables you to assess how well NAMA is performing in its disposal of assets.
Specifically you cannot assess the following:
(1) The gross profit on the transaction – sale price less loan acquisition cost
(2) The net profit after consultant/adviser/agent fees, loan carrying costs, foreclosure costs, tax on profit including potentially capital gains tax
(3) Evidence that NAMA has marketed the asset – loan or property – so as to maximise profit (and generally the sales price)
(4) Evidence that NAMA has achieved the best price for a particular asset
(5) NAMA’s expertise to ensure the best price is achieved
(6) NAMA’s expertise to determine the best time to dispose of an asset
(7) Estimated carrying costs for a distressed loan or property [In the UK, the standard assumption is 5% of the value of the asset in insurance, maintenance, management and other costs]
There is a compilation of reported NAMA sales on the NAMA winelakeblog but these are but a subset of NAMA’s total sales - based upon press/industry reporting, contacts and other research – as NAMA does not report individual sales."
========================
I don't know enough about NAMA's terms of reference, management or staffing levels to comment, but some of the points echo my own concerns.
I'd be interested in hearing the views of AAM posters with some competence in this field.
I have no connection to this blog.