Anti NAMA T-Shirts / badges etc - anyone any ideas for slogans?

gamblor1975 wrote: »

NAMA is not there to protect the developers.
It is there to help the banks - which we all need!

Ahh the mantra of saving the banks

gamblor1975 wrote: »

The developers will have to pay back 100% of the loans they took out.

Bullsh**.
The developers do not have the assets to cover the debts, they will declare bankruptcy and the money they salted away offshore or the assets they transferred to the wife and kids won't be touched.
Then lo and behold we find junior opening up a development company 10 years down the road.
Quel surprise :rolleyes:
100% my ar**.

gamblor1975 wrote: »

The Irish people i.e. the tax payer will then own all of the land which it will have bought at a better price than the developers paid. ( I think this is the most important part of NAMAs job - Value for the taxpayer) The discount for the tax payer must be at least 40-50% The govt. will then use/lease or sell the land as it needs until things start to improve and the land starts gaining in value again. This could take decades.

Firstly if the land was sold right now we the taxpayers or anyone else could get the land at nice knock down prices, prices I bet that will be lower than what NAMA will pay the banks. That would be value for the taxpayer would it not ?

Secondly if we discount the loans too much we will have to pour recpaitlisation funds into the banks to "get them trading again" for the benefit of the state. Thus we cannot discount them too much.
Your premise is that things will improve and probably back to the glory days of 2002-2007 so that the taxpayer can make a few quid or break even.
About the only thing you have stated correctly is this will take decades and decades of where we are paying back for owning these overpriced assets.

Take a look at where Japanese property prices are today in comperison to their boom.
Also since the crash in Japan we have had the dot com bubble and the credit bubble, yet they have not recovered in a country with a large very storng economy when compared to our own shambles.

gamblor1975 wrote: »

Its not about saving the developers; "Its the Economy stupid"

You mean what is left of our economy :rolleyes:

gamblor1975 wrote: »

We need the banks to work and this is the plan - no one is coming to your door looking for E22,000.00. Thank god!

Ah but they will be coming looking for money through more taxes and more cuts.
Add this to the fact that our current deficit is tits up and we will all be paying quiet a lot.
All to make sure the banks continue.
Isn't a bit like cutting off all the limbs and removing half the brain to save the patient ?

gamblor1975 wrote: »

NAMA is not there to protect the developers.
It is there to help the banks - which we all need!

The developers will have to pay back 100% of the loans they took out.

The Irish people i.e. the tax payer will then own all of the land which it will have bought at a better price than the developers paid. ( I think this is the most important part of NAMAs job - Value for the taxpayer) The discount for the tax payer must be at least 40-50% The govt. will then use/lease or sell the land as it needs until things start to improve and the land starts gaining in value again. This could take decades.

Its not about saving the developers; "Its the Economy stupid"

We need the banks to work and this is the plan - no one is coming to your door looking for E22,000.00. Thank god!

You are naive.

The developers will not pay back 100% of what they owe us.

The assets are not valuable, they are worthless. Carroll's brief told the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court accepted that they are worthless and that is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is allowing his application to go ahead.

And no, they won't come to the door looking for our 22,000 they've already started taking it out of our pay-packets and will continue to take it from ours and our children's.

TE, Im sure you dont intend to do so, but you might be in danger of misleading people into believing that the authors of that article dont disagree almost entirely with NAMA as it is envisaged.

As an additional point...the government is willing to spend 90 billion on effectively worthless assets to save Bank of Ireland and AIB...those particular banks. It claims to do so to save Irish banking, but what it really means is Bank of Ireland and AIB.

At what point would you consider the costs of saving Bank of Ireland and AIB to outweigh the benefits to Irish taxpayers? 100 billion? 200 billion? I am just wondering if there is an upper limit to how much saving Bank of Ireland and AIB bond holders is worth to taxpayers. Has a cost benefit analysis been done or is it simply assumed there is no price that can be put on the prosperity of AIB and BoI bondholders?

Sand wrote: »

TE, Im sure you dont intend to do so, but you might be in danger of misleading people into believing that the authors of that article dont disagree almost entirely with NAMA as it is envisaged.

If that's the case I apologise. I was actually trying to prevent a misconception. Some people think that nationalisation would mean no NAMA. That's not true. Nationalisation would mean a different method of valuing the assets and (probably) a better deal for the State (admittedly at the probable expense of some international reputation), but there would still be a NAMA.

As an additional point...the government is willing to spend 90 billion on effectively worthless assets to save Bank of Ireland and AIB...those particular banks. It claims to do so to save Irish banking, but what it really means is Bank of Ireland and AIB.

I disagree with this. If you're going to accuse me of misleading (albeit unintentionally) I'm going to levy this right back on you here. The government are not willing to spend "90 billion" on "effectively worthless assets". There's an upper-limit of a budget of €90bn and most of the assets will be worth less than what the State pays for them, but it's also true that most will still have considerable inherent worth.

At what point would you consider the costs of saving Bank of Ireland and AIB to outweigh the benefits to Irish taxpayers?

After pointing out that the costs are not €90bn (that's an upper limit to the budget) and we will reclaim a large chunk (most estimates are in the region of 60%) back, my honest answer is I don't know.

I am just wondering if there is an upper limit to how much saving Bank of Ireland and AIB bond holders is worth to taxpayers. Has a cost benefit analysis been done or is it simply assumed there is no price that can be put on the prosperity of AIB and BoI bondholders?

The value is not on the AIB or BoI bondholders. Nationalisation, which I think is probably the best option, would (hopefully*) wipe out the bondholders and shareholders. But that's fairly slim pickings to the ~€30bn debt the banking sector is going to bear. €30bn is a lot of cash, it's about €15,000 per worker. Do I think the long-term (say 10 years) effects of letting the banks fall could exceed €1500 per worker per year? Absofrickinglutely.

My point from all this is not that what the govt are doing is spot on by any manner or means. It's that there is huge doubt (to put it mildly) that the banks can be replaced. The government guarantee would need to be changed for it to happen and it's quite possible that any change in that would cause a bank run. At any rate there's little evidence (not say it's not true: I'm saying there's little evidence) that any international bank would have both the means and the desire to enter the Irish market were AIB and BoI to fall. Even Halifax who had a very neat little operation were ordered to withdraw by the Bank of England.

This is why, from my reading off it, that guys like Karl Whelan and Patrick Honohan and Brian Lucey (literally the people who know this area better than anyone else and don't have vested interests) are all against letting banks fall. Whelan and Lucey want nationalisation; Honohan wants a change in NAMA but not nationalisation. So there's consensus on two things: some sort of NAMA is needed and that the current set up is crap. That's a different thing to saying we don't need a NAMA.

*It might be worth our while compensating them a bit to avoid legal hassle and court battles

"VietNAMA"

Deleted User wrote: »

we need NAMA like a hole in the head

Whelan himself, quoting the IMF "Staff noted that nationalization could become necessary but should be seen as complementary to NAMA".

My biggest problem (and fear) with NAMA is the lack of transparency and the fact that, one way or another, the class of people with control of the reins of power at the moment will be the same people who manage and make the decisions with regard to NAMA, now and in the future. Members of the small but sizable section of society that have held power since the foundations of the state - they all know each other, they all went to the same schools together and they all look out for one another, despite the colour of their political affiliations. It is possible for new people to join this 'golden circle' of Irish movers-and-shakers, but they are subsumed into the power structure and nothing really changes.

You wouldn't trust them to organise a piss-up in a brewery without lining their pockets - HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM WITH NAMA?