Comments on: An Emerging Consensus on NAMA Overpayment?

By: Peter L Griffiths

Peter L Griffiths — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:03:35 +0000

The Irish economy needs to be reflated, but the politicians will say that they do not have the euros to do this because the Irish government has been so extravagant and retrenchment is needed. Ireland under these circumstances will have to ditch the euro and return to its own currency. Any devaluation will have to be regarded as achieving balance of trade equilibrium.

By: lost

lost — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:15:02 +0000

Surely the taxpayer is going to get screwed either way. If the banks are nationalized via NAMA ( government equity stakes over 50% in the banks) this requires government cash put into the banks - supported by taxpayer. If things go well the taxpayer may get their money back on the share price rise and payments over time. If things go badly , they lose.

If the NAMA route does not lead to bank ownership in equity percentage, i.e a smaller haircut, then less money goes to the banks and more risk covering the toxic loans.

If NAMA is dumped and nationalization as per Anglo goes ahead, taxpayer is hit with the bank debts, then we have trouble funding sovereign debt, IMF may grab us by the balls, drops in ratings etc..

So do you want to be screwed by the devil you know or the devil you know or the devil you don’t.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:59:21 +0000

Machholz Comment
This is exactly the type of tripe I was talking about on a previous article .These people are engaged in the hard sell of the concept of NAMA remember !

There is a lot riding on this new state run Toxic Bank.
A lot of people are hoping to make big bucks out of this entity.
It is going to make all the previous tribunals the state has ever had look like a picnic
All of the new directors will be appointed by the state so jobs for the boys at a massive scale
I suspect that NAMA will need 4000 to 5000 staff and they won’t be paid peanuts neither!
We are going to end up having so called financial experts come from all over the place and these are the self same Gob***** that probably have being thrown out of their last jobs as a result of their incompetence
The Irish financial institutions will be looking after their own no need to worry about that!
We the people are going to get screwed and that is a fact!
Help stop this monstrous betrayal and take action get organized now.

By: The Irish Economy » Blog Archive » World Leaders in Moral Hazard?

The Irish Economy » Blog Archive » World Leaders in Moral Hazard? — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:13:16 +0000

[...] nationalisation, which in the absence of any kind of debt-for-equity swap (which I discussed here but would be ruled out by the Minister’s bond-holder comments) means that he is imposing a de [...]

By: Banks telling shareholders NAMA discount will be only 20% - Page 2 - Politics.ie

Banks telling shareholders NAMA discount will be only 20% - Page 2 - Politics.ie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:21:31 +0000

[...] Being discussed along with other anglo things here The Irish Economy Blog Archive An Emerging Consensus on NAMA Overpayment? [...]

By: zhou_enlai

zhou_enlai — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:27:46 +0000

Bloomberg forecast overpayment by NAMA for assets.
Quoted on http://www.thepropertypin.com at
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=22754

By: bill hobbs

bill hobbs — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:50:57 +0000

ECB may provide sufficient constructive ambiguity in addressing the asset valuation issue - Nama will probably overpay hiding an implicit subsidy that won’t dampen a sovereign credit rating. By the time the dust has settled we shall be living in another time and place with differing issues. When the final bill is estimated, old heads, wiser, greyer and balder will recall jousts in the media and rue the cost.

By: Highway to hell « Liberty in Ireland

Highway to hell « Liberty in Ireland — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:57:15 +0000

[...] is now clear that the NAMA solution for the rest of the banks will be another taxpayer steal, the government plans to overpay massively for the assets of the banks when they are transferred to [...]

By: Brian Lucey

Brian Lucey — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:46:50 +0000

Just off Newtalk, talking on Anglo, with Oliver G also on the line. Interestingly, Oliver and I are ad idem that Anglo needs to be wound down, disagreeing only on timing and the consequent need for a capital injection

By: Eamonn Moran

Eamonn Moran — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:54:28 +0000

Economic consesus as reported in the media is corporate economic consensus. Independent economic consensus is something completely different.
As Lefournier puts little more PC than myself ‘What do you expect from a donkey, only a kick’

By: zhou_enlai

zhou_enlai — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:54:49 +0000

After NAMA was announced, Brian Lenihan said that the Government is not opposed to Nationalisation on grounds of principle and that he has demonstrated this by announcing that the Govt will take ordinary shares when injecting equity and that existing preference shares may be converted to ordinary shares. I hope he sticks to his guns on this.

Overpaying for the assets is a direct subsidy to the banking classes. It pumps more money into the banks for employee remunaration and for shareholder dividends. At least if we own the shares the taxpayer can get the value ofthose shares back rather than it going to board members, stock brokers and shareholders.

Ultimately, I think the Government will be guided by international best practice as it evolves and by the EU Commission and ECB. As has already been pointed out on this site, the asset valuation debate is an international debate rather than a national debate. As long as our credibility and credit-worthiness hangs in the balance, the Department of Finance will be determined to stay away from the bleeding edge of banking innovation insofar as possible. Commentators from Goodbodys and elsewhere should find outthat they have less influence than they hoped for.

By: Pat Donnelly

Pat Donnelly — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:50:43 +0000

What is appalling is the disconnect between apparent economic consensus, as on this site, and the attitude of the government, having bought all of the services of Mr Bacon, they seem to think they can plough ahead, wasting public money for some poorly explained, but probably still secret, purpose.

Where is the accountability?
I note Mr Bruton’s article of today,rebuking the government’s plan and the tireless work of Brian Lucey, in another article today, explaining why it appears a scandal that we pay with our childrens’ future for faulty commercial decisions by well connected bankers.

We are socialising the losses of the rich while not taxing their profits. There will be an inevitable backlash. I await that day.

By: Lefournier

Lefournier — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:47:30 +0000

I find it entirely predictable that economists employed by the main stockbroking firms what NAMA to overpay for assets i.e. want the taxpayer to bail out the banks and their shareholders. After all. who sold those bank shares to small investors as “money in the bank”?

Will we ever learn the full story of Goodbody’s dealings in AIB shares?
http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0521/aib.html