Discussion in 'The great financial debates' started by Duke of Marmalade, Oct 13, 2017.
That is a brilliant summary of the issues.
Funny you should say that because, Nama had to employ the very people they took the property from in order to show them what to do with it. Nama also used a former boss of the revenue commissioners to lead the way, I wonder why? Most people know NAMA did some good, but we'll never know what underhand methodology was used. I've no doubt but some will say, "needs be" but as Mick Wallace found, it was a closed shop with powers that surpassed anything this Irish state has ever seen. It still has those powers, uses them, abuses them when they have to, and nothing you or me or indeed anyone can do about it. Do people really believe Daly and McDonagh were the property management gurus in NAMA , AS THE ABOVE STATEMENT WOULD SEEM TO SUGGEST? SERIOUSLY?
I wish the massive write downs on the loans "sold" to NAMA would be remembered and mentioned, each time there is mention of NAMA potentially making a profit.
Discounts on the loans acquired from AIB, BoI, IBRC etc. all varied, but ranged up to 60% (or possibly even a little more) of the face value of the various loan portfolios !
Hi Mr Earl
These loans were sold at a discount to their face value.
But they were sold well above their market value, which was the complaint in the academics' letter.
There were sold at their long term economic value which is why the academics thought that the taxpayer would lose €30 billion.
Hello Mr. Burgess,
Yes, I fully appreciate that - but they are two different points
Basically, I'm saying that we should not forget how much was lost on the back of these loans, not just how much NAMA may ultimately make in profit.
Separate names with a comma.