Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What has happened to developers debts?

  • 11-02-2012 8:12am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭


    Am I correct in saying that the entire default amounts of developers in NAMA have essentially become sovereign debts, there has been no write off with international wholesale lenders on these, and consequently, as it stands the entirety of these debts rest ultimately on the heads of the irish taxpayer and future Irish taxpayers???


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Let us say a developer borrowed €100m from a bank.

    NAMA has bought that debt from the bank for say €50m.

    To pay the bank, NAMA/NTMA has borrowed €50m.

    The developer still owes NAMA €100m, but NAMA realises that it is likely to only be able to recover a smaller number.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Victor wrote: »
    Let us say a developer borrowed €100m from a bank.

    NAMA has bought that debt from the bank for say €50m.

    To pay the bank, NAMA/NTMA has borrowed €50m.

    The developer still owes NAMA €100m, but NAMA realises that it is likely to only be able to recover a smaller number.

    Meanwhile NAMA will only be able to sell the asset for €30m and will be paying interest on the €50m that it will never get back from the developer, who at this stage is either working for NAMA for €200,000 a year, getting rent from NAMA for buildings, or the developer goes bankrupt paying nothing.

    It's a horrendous con.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭SBWife


    NAMA has only bought debt from domestic institutions. The debts held by international lenders are being pursued through the normal legal channels. See for example the monies lent to Dunne for the Jury's site in Ballsbridge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Victor wrote: »
    Let us say a developer borrowed €100m from a bank.

    NAMA has bought that debt from the bank for say €50m.

    To pay the bank, NAMA/NTMA has borrowed €50m.

    The developer still owes NAMA €100m, but NAMA realises that it is likely to only be able to recover a smaller number.

    The idea being that the €50m NAMA bought the loan for was less than the amount the developer will be able to pay. If the property securing the loan is worth €30m, then NAMA needs the developer to pay over €20m before foreclosure in order to yield a profit.

    So in this case, say the amount the developer defaults on is €75m of the €100m. NAMA seizes the asset (property) in question, and sells it for €30m. NAMA makes €55m, having paid €50m for the loan - result, profit of €5m.

    I think the OP might reflect the idea that when NAMA paid €50m for the loan, the state somehow acquired the balance of the developer's debt as public debt. That's not the case. The state has acquired an asset theoretically worth €100m for €50m. The asset in question is the loan to the developer - or to look at it another way, an agreement that the developer pay the bank €100m - which it has bought off the bank for a discount that reflects NAMA's view of how much the developer is actually likely to pay as well as the likely value of the security on the loan.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Victor wrote: »
    Let us say a developer borrowed €100m from a bank.

    NAMA has bought that debt from the bank for say €50m.

    To pay the bank, NAMA/NTMA has borrowed €50m.

    The developer still owes NAMA €100m, but NAMA realises that it is likely to only be able to recover a smaller number.

    The idea being that the €50m NAMA bought the loan for was less than the amount the developer will be able to pay. If the property securing the loan is worth €30m, then NAMA needs the developer to pay over €20m before foreclosure in order to yield a profit.

    So in this case, say the amount the developer defaults on is €75m of the €100m. NAMA seizes the asset (property) in question, and sells it for €30m. NAMA makes €55m, having paid €50m for the loan - result, profit of €5m.

    I think the OP might reflect the idea that when NAMA paid €50m for the loan, the state somehow acquired the balance of the developer's debt as public debt. That's not the case. The state has acquired an asset theoretically worth €100m for €50m. The asset in question is the loan to the developer - or to look at it another way, an agreement that the developer pay the bank €100m - which it has bought off the bank for a discount that reflects NAMA's view of how much the developer is actually likely to pay as well as the likely value of the security on the loan.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    The issue is the "theoretically"

    The developer will declare bankruptcy before forking out the balance.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The issue is the "theoretically"

    The developer will declare bankruptcy before forking out the balance.

    One cannot simply "declare" bankruptcy, and to date only 4 NAMA developers have been declared bankrupt, as far as I can gather. Although I may be missing some, of course, the majority of NAMA developers obviously aren't just "declaring bankruptcy" and laughing all the way to the bank.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The issue is the "theoretically"

    The developer will declare bankruptcy before forking out the balance.

    Meanwhile the frackers have at least €200,000 per year plus bonuses.....only in Ireland. :mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    One cannot simply "declare" bankruptcy, and to date only 4 NAMA developers have been declared bankrupt, as far as I can gather. Although I may be missing some, of course, the majority of NAMA developers obviously aren't just "declaring bankruptcy" and laughing all the way to the bank.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Indeed, the very idea of laughing all the way to the bank whilst going through bankruptcy is a contradiction in terms. Its not a good place to be. You will not be able to get credit. Everything the company has will be disposed off to pay its creditors. There will be nothing left.

    An argument can be made for individuals trading under their own names, who attempt to hide funds in secret accounts, or offshore accounts or with personal relatives. Or if company assets are stashed away in related companies or whatever. But I work in a law firm and I have chased debts before, even if not on this scale. We chase long and we chase hard. If you make us work, if you bleed our clients trying to get their money back, we have instructions to bleed you harder. Its an unpleasant line of work.

    Anyone who has been through bankruptcy or has been chased by debt collectors will understand just how terrible it is. You have to get those threatening letters in the mail, you have to go through the process of living between court dates and having to prove to the satisfaction of a Judge that you are so stone f**king broke that there are no alternatives but to write off whatever debts are outstanding. And believe me, if there are alternatives, if there is a secret account, we will follow the string until it runs out. We will hound you until you crumble.

    I feel lucky that I don't have to do that very often, since I work primarily in insurance and professional indemnity. I feel luckier still that I don't have firms hounding me for every cent I've got left. I feel luckier that I don't have to watch a company I built from nothing get picked apart until not even the bones are left. And in these cases its not just company assets up for grabs because most banks providing developer loans required some form of personal guarantee.

    Make no mistake, those developers are going through hell even if it may arguably be a hell of their own creation. Some derive a sense of schadenfreude in this. I don't necessarily disagree with this position but you really have to go through this process yourself to understand how bad it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Meanwhile the frackers have at least €200,000 per year plus bonuses.....only in Ireland. :mad:

    Do you mean the ones that are employed by NAMA at a huge discount over what it would cost to employ someone else to do it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭Slideshowbob


    meglome wrote: »
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Meanwhile the frackers have at least €200,000 per year plus bonuses.....only in Ireland. :mad:

    Do you mean the ones that are employed by NAMA at a huge discount over what it would cost to employ someone else to do it?

    They are employed to do what exactly?

    Where are the demonstrable outcomes to their works?

    Are they working full time on NAMA projects?

    Have NAMA sought prices for alternatives???

    I'd say NAMA are wasting money paying them as long as the market is in decline.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    They are employed to do what exactly?

    Where are the demonstrable outcomes to their works?

    Are they working full time on NAMA projects?

    Have NAMA sought prices for alternatives???

    I'd say NAMA are wasting money paying them as long as the market is in decline.

    I don't know the answers to some of those questions but unlike you I am not assuming it is one thing or another.

    What I have read and it appears to be correct that on a portfolio where NAMA is paying say 200k to the Irish developer they would have to pay 5-10 times that amount to bring people in. It might be unpalatable to see these developers get paid fairly big money but it would cost far more to bring someone else in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    What I have read and it appears to be correct that on a portfolio where NAMA is paying say 200k to the Irish developer they would have to pay 5-10 times that amount to bring people in. It might be unpalatable to see these developers get paid fairly big money but it would cost far more to bring someone else in.

    If you really think it would cost 2m a year to run some of these 'portfolios' you should take a walk in Docklands, Heuston or Smithfield. Not much 'managing' to be done, more like just making sure the doors are locked. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Regardless of whomever wins from NAMA, the taxpayer is the chump losing out.

    Developers may be hard hit comparatively, but for them losing 95% of what they had can still equate to a €200,000 a year salary.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    Regardless of whomever wins from NAMA, the taxpayer is the chump losing out.

    Developers may be hard hit comparatively, but for them losing 95% of what they had can still equate to a €200,000 a year salary.

    So you'd argue that it's OK to take away 95% of what one person has worked to achieve, simply because they've achieved more than average?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    meglome wrote: »
    I don't know the answers to some of those questions but unlike you I am not assuming it is one thing or another.

    What I have read and it appears to be correct that on a portfolio where NAMA is paying say 200k to the Irish developer they would have to pay 5-10 times that amount to bring people in. It might be unpalatable to see these developers get paid fairly big money but it would cost far more to bring someone else in.

    Yes it is unpalatable. Having their cake and eating it. Who here is on 200K per year for causing the biggest F**k up in our history. It is fantastic money for the rotters, when most everybody else has to emigrate or go without. Its disgusting and tbh I would rather on principle that NAMA had employed people even if it cost more. A big club for the rotters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yes it is unpalatable. Having their cake and eating it. Who here is on 200K per year for causing the biggest F**k up in our history.


    The one fundamental that an awful lot of people seem to want to ignore is that people wanted to buy the properties that these people were building. If there wasn't demand for houses, apartments etc the developers wouldn't have gotten into the position they did.

    So are you going to start telling people to give up homes etc?
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    It is fantastic money for the rotters, when most everybody else has to emigrate or go without.

    There are 50% more people in employment now as there were 20 years ago. So most of the 1.8 odd million people still in employment are going without what exactly? I don't see any evidence of it with the amount of smartphones, flat screen tvs etc being bought.

    I know more than one woman (who are always skint but), still manage to spend a few hundred euros on a new outfit every other week, so maybe we need to reevaluate what's really important and stop trying to keep up with the Joneses.
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    NAMA had employed people

    Employ whom to do what exactly? It's most likely that anyone brought in would have been involved in the boom, either here or abroad. In in that context, who would be acceptable to you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So you'd argue that it's OK to take away 95% of what one person has worked to achieve, simply because they've achieved more than average?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'm fairly successful in my own life. But I didn't build what I have on a casino of debt heaped on debt far outstripping any assets I eventually owned when it all went pop.

    Developers lost a huge amount because so many of them didn't realise how they got rich, let alone how it all came tumbling down. The accidental millionaires who now don't believe they should personally take responsibility for their actions.

    A line of these people bleating that it was someone else who fooled them.

    Well, a fool and their money. And our money, unfortunately.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    I'm fairly successful in my own life. But I didn't build what I have on a casino of debt heaped on debt far outstripping any assets I eventually owned when it all went pop.

    Developers lost a huge amount because so many of them didn't realise how they got rich, let alone how it all came tumbling down. The accidental millionaires who now don't believe they should personally take responsibility for their actions.

    A line of these people bleating that it was someone else who fooled them.

    Well, a fool and their money. And our money, unfortunately.

    So, would you argue that here's little or no actual work involved in development, and that taking risks is morally wrong?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The one fundamental that an awful lot of people seem to want to ignore is that people wanted to buy the properties that these people were building. If there wasn't demand for houses, apartments etc the developers wouldn't have gotten into the position they did.

    So are you going to start telling people to give up homes etc?

    There was demand of course, based on massive borrowed money that people could not really afford, at massively inflated prices. Add to this the over development in every County in Ireland, estates everywhere ( now many ghost estates), then add the thousands of second homes. Greed in the end overruled basic sound economic principles.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    There are 50% more people in employment now as there were 20 years ago. So most of the 1.8 odd million people still in employment are going without what exactly? I don't see any evidence of it with the amount of smartphones, flat screen tvs etc being bought.

    So there is no mass emigration, big unemployment, austerity? I cannot quite see what a smartphone or flat screen TV has to do with anything....
    antoobrien wrote: »
    I know more than one woman (who are always skint but), still manage to spend a few hundred euros on a new outfit every other week, so maybe we need to reevaluate what's really important and stop trying to keep up with the Joneses.

    I find that story hard to believe. So the Government has got it all wrong then....we as a nation are not in debt and there is no austerity or cutbacks?
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Employ whom to do what exactly? It's most likely that anyone brought in would have been involved in the boom, either here or abroad. In in that context, who would be acceptable to you?

    Employ qualified people , not the rotten chancers who helped cause this mess, even if it does cost. It would perhaps, alleviate some of the unemployment instead of giving jobs and a good salary to the chancers in the boys club.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So, would you argue that here's little or no actual work involved in development, and that taking risks is morally wrong?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Not at all on either count.

    Re: Work involved in development, there is much and it is a skill. But these lads became uber-rich compared to previous times thanks to cheap credit being thrown at them. They didn't stop to understand the nature of a bubble.

    A smart man would have gotten out a few years and a few million in and invested his real profits somewhere more diverse.

    Re: Risk taking, it's very positive. But I don't consider it risk taking when you walk away from debts and do not feel they were yours, personal guarantee or not, to service.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    Not at all on either count.

    Re: Work involved in development, there is much and it is a skill. But these lads became uber-rich compared to previous times thanks to cheap credit being thrown at them. They didn't stop to understand the nature of a bubble.

    A smart man would have gotten out a few years and a few million in and invested his real profits somewhere more diverse.

    Re: Risk taking, it's very positive. But I don't consider it risk taking when you walk away from debts and do not feel they were yours, personal guarantee or not, to service.

    I'm not sure either of the above make a good argument for developers who haven't defaulted being morally culpable, rather than unfortunate/foolish. If they're still servicing enormous loans on developments that are realistically unlikely to make them money, is that not them accepting their responsibility for their debts?

    Assuming NAMA doesn't employ those who have actually defaulted on their loans, what reason can be offered for not employing their skills and experience?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    Not at all on either count.

    Re: Work involved in development, there is much and it is a skill. But these lads became uber-rich compared to previous times thanks to cheap credit being thrown at them. They didn't stop to understand the nature of a bubble.

    A smart man would have gotten out a few years and a few million in and invested his real profits somewhere more diverse.

    Re: Risk taking, it's very positive. But I don't consider it risk taking when you walk away from debts and do not feel they were yours, personal guarantee or not, to service.

    What I find abhorrent re risk taking, in Ireland there appears to have a been a huge safety net for the developers ie NAMA, where Joe Public pays for all that risk. Where is the real risk, when there is a big big cushion at the end of it all? Risk taking where one ends up winning big time, or some or losing the lot, on personal money or proper vouched collateral, and taking the responsibility win or lose. Not here though, in many cases where the money risked was not even backed up with any collateral or guarantees. Lose the money and NAMA helps you out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    What I find abhorrent re risk taking, in Ireland there appears to have a been a huge safety net for the developers ie NAMA, where Joe Public pays for all that risk. Where is the real risk, when there is a big big cushion at the end of it all? Risk taking where one ends up winning big time, or some or losing the lot, on personal money or proper vouched collateral, and taking the responsibility win or lose. Not here though, in many cases where the money risked was not even backed up with any collateral or guarantees. Lose the money and NAMA helps you out.

    How does NAMA help the developer out?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Assuming NAMA doesn't employ those who have actually defaulted on their loans, what reason can be offered for not employing their skills and experience?

    What "skills and experience" would that be that makes them worth €200,000 a year ?

    Because anyone who took over-the-top risks and ridiculous loans isn't the type of person I would wish to have in charge of decision-making with our money, let alone being paid some of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭Slideshowbob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Nijmegen wrote: »
    Regardless of whomever wins from NAMA, the taxpayer is the chump losing out.

    Developers may be hard hit comparatively, but for them losing 95% of what they had can still equate to a €200,000 a year salary.

    So you'd argue that it's OK to take away 95% of what one person has worked to achieve, simply because they've achieved more than average?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No one "took" it away, they misread the markets they operated in and the government and regulator did nothing to prevent these practices


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭Slideshowbob


    antoobrien wrote: »

    The one fundamental that an awful lot of people seem to want to ignore is that people wanted to buy the properties that these people were building. If there wasn't demand for houses, apartments etc the developers wouldn't have gotten into the position they did.

    You're wrong.

    There was no established demand, it was speculation.

    These were property speculators, (Ray Grehan was an ex tiler for pears sake) when they bought land there was no guarantee that people would want to but a dwelling there at a later date. They misread the economy and market yet the taxpayer is now paying the price

    They got to keep their profits in the good times, why should we bear their loses now?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭Slideshowbob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    What I find abhorrent re risk taking, in Ireland there appears to have a been a huge safety net for the developers ie NAMA, where Joe Public pays for all that risk. Where is the real risk, when there is a big big cushion at the end of it all? Risk taking where one ends up winning big time, or some or losing the lot, on personal money or proper vouched collateral, and taking the responsibility win or lose. Not here though, in many cases where the money risked was not even backed up with any collateral or guarantees. Lose the money and NAMA helps you out.

    How does NAMA help the developer out?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    By offering them a big salary to manage their failings for one


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    How does NAMA help the developer out?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Slideshowbob got there before me. Payment for massive failings plus bonuses. It begs the questions what exactly is the 200k for? Is it a bribe, sweetner or just a made up reason to help the poor developer out? I for one am very skeptical about paying these people. There is a fair bit of secrecy about the way NAMA operates and who it pays, all very civilized for the poor distressed developer gentlefolk. I could not imagine my bank paying me to get their hands on my bad loans/assets if I owed them. It was the best wheeze that FF ever thought up, and a hedged bet for the future and thanks from their grateful pals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm not sure either of the above make a good argument for developers who haven't defaulted being morally culpable, rather than unfortunate/foolish. If they're still servicing enormous loans on developments that are realistically unlikely to make them money, is that not them accepting their responsibility for their debts?

    Assuming NAMA doesn't employ those who have actually defaulted on their loans, what reason can be offered for not employing their skills and experience?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    NAMA at its outset represents a state-structured path to redemption for the property market and all those who circulated around it. The state took huge risks out of the system and that has been to the benefit of many except tax payers.

    These boys and girls played greedy buggers. They weren't entrepreneurs, they were playing a credit game with an easy in. In this instance, it's morally wrong to give them any assistance.

    But we run round in circles back to the banking guarantee and the establishment of NAMA. All those steps taken to return solvency to the system and keep us out of an IMF bailout.

    The whole lot should have been let go.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Lovely story in The Sunday Times about Comer.
    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/comers-sell-up-german-empire-to-fund-buying-spree-at-nama-2996193.html

    Can't get the ST article online, anyway it looks like this shrewd business man has just snapped up €20m worth of property for €0.9m. The original developer joined NAMA and has now of course filed bankruptcy in the UK.

    Total loss to the exchequer then. Lovely.


Advertisement