Why can't NAMA sell some of it s foreign assets to reduce our Debt?

[Smart_Saver]

All of the talk in the recent days of the proposed sale of the family jewels in the form of ESB, Coillte etc. is slightly bewildering. I presume the reason given to sell these assets is that capital is required to balance books etc. However I can't understand why NAMA at this stage cannot do more to help this situation.

For instance why can't they offload some of the foreign properties or holdings they have on their books in order to bring in some required capital ?
After all they bought them at a massively reduced price so surely they could/should be able to realise some value off these now ?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It's important to understand that NAMA owns loans, rather than properties as such. If the borrower defaults on the loan they can appoint receivers and sell the property to redeem the loan. They are doing this.

In many cases the loans are performing and NAMA has no right to sell the property.

 

[Smart_Saver]

Fair enough - but surely these loans can also be sold on to a third party without affecting the borrower. Isn't that what happened in the setup of NAMA ?

 

[Superman]

Fair enough - but surely these loans can also be sold on to a third party without affecting the borrower. Isn't that what happened in the setup of NAMA ?

They are selling them off - how do you think they are funding the developments they are undertaking?
There is an issue of whether they should be selling it off - where the properties are likely to make significant more in the future.
It is worth keeping an eye on this blog:
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/

 

[Smart_Saver]

They are selling them off - how do you think they are funding the developments they are undertaking?
There is an issue of whether they should be selling it off - where the properties are likely to make significant more in the future.
It is worth keeping an eye on this blog:
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/

Can you explain the first part, what developments are they undertaking? Is it this classification where they are Class I up to IV ?

Either way it still doesn't justify why NAMA should hold onto some properties/loans (whatever you want to call them) in the hope of making a bigger profit down the road.
And on the other hand have the Government of the day sell off primary (and maybe more profitable) assets like Coillte or the ESB.

That's the argument up for discussion here.

 

[Chris]

All of the talk in the recent days of the proposed sale of the family jewels in the form of ESB, Coillte etc. is slightly bewildering. I presume the reason given to sell these assets is that capital is required to balance books etc. However I can't understand why NAMA at this stage cannot do more to help this situation.

For instance why can't they offload some of the foreign properties or holdings they have on their books in order to bring in some required capital ?
After all they bought them at a massively reduced price so surely they could/should be able to realise some value off these now ?

One problem is that the purchases were finance through taking on debt. The other problem is that even with the discount applied, many property prices have continued to go down, with the exception of prime London real estate.