[turly]

Originally Posted by P. Breathnach

Yes, I believe that at the shakeout NAMA will probably cost us a large amount, but nothing like the scale of €54bn. And I don't accept that your simplified statement is accurate and, if it is not accurate, it cannot be reasonable either.

So what is "nothing like the scale of €54bn?" What's that, an order of magnitude less?
Go on, tell us how much you think it will cost us. Perhaps your enlightened guess will be more "reasonable" and "accurate"?

[P. Breathnach]

Originally Posted by turly

So what is "nothing like the scale of €54bn?" What's that, an order of magnitude less?
Go on, tell us how much you think it will cost us. Perhaps your enlightened guess will be more "reasonable" and "accurate"?

I have already indicated that I don't know the realisable value of the assets to be acquired by NAMA, so your question is no more than an invitation to get drawn into a game of silly buggers.

Their total value will be considerably greater than nothing. The government estimates that in the medium-to-long term it might be as much as NAMA is advancing to pay for them, or even a bit more -- but I believe that is wildly optimistic.

[Boskowski]

Originally Posted by P. Breathnach

I have already indicated that I don't know the realisable value of the assets to be acquired by NAMA, so your question is no more than an invitation to get drawn into a game of silly buggers.

Their total value will be considerably greater than nothing. The government estimates that in the medium-to-long term it might be as much as NAMA is advancing to pay for them, or even a bit more -- but I believe that is wildly optimistic.

However, as we're taking it off their books with immediate effect (more or less) and we do not know how much we're ever going to get back, we're giving them 54 billion. I'm not saying its a gift and its entirely free money or anything, but we're giving them 54 billion. Period.

[vinylbomb]

Originally Posted by realcam

we're giving them 54 billion. I'm not saying its a gift and its entirely free money or anything, but we're giving them 54 billion.

Nah mate, you've got it wrong here.

NAMA is buying loans from the banks, and paying them with government securities (bonds).
Hence, they/we are not giving away anything, there is an exchange taking place.

This means that the banks clean their balance sheet, because they have a solid guaranteed bond that has a definite value. They are not given a big whack of cash. The bonds will be payable over a fixed term, but I'd say it would be a minimum of ten years.

Then the government can sell the asset (loan) at a later date - hopefully at an increase on what they paid. Also, the banks have taken a significant loss on these loans (30%), they don't view it as good business but its necessary to stabilize cash flow, liquidity and share price.

[Johnboymac]

Originally Posted by kmick

People keep mentioning the 7% pay cut. Was that not a pension contribution?

Not a pension contribution....it is a levy...there is a difference as this levy wether it is 1% or 7% is exactly that..a levy!!

if it were a contribution then it would be in a kitty for further pensions etc...which it IS NOT.
if it were a contribution, then I would see some extra benefit in my pension, which I will not.
I pay full PRSI along with my contributions. what I am paying into my pension fund is only to top up the state pension to which every PRSI payer is entitled to. (Yes! including the private sector!¬).
I will get no extra benefits because of this levy...
so call it what you will...to me it is a pay cut!!