Lenihan will publish discounts on toxic loans, but will not reveal who is involved.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ill-publish-loan-discount-list-1891239.html

FINANCE Minister Brian Lenihan is prepared to publish the discounts on individual toxic bank loans to boost public support for NAMA -- but will not reveal who is involved.
Mr Lenihan indicated yesterday he was open to this, given the huge degree of public distrust of the previous valuations given by the banking sector.
"I've made it clear I'm open to any amendments that generate and sustain that degree of confidence," he said.
The list would omit the names and exact location of the properties, but would show the discounts involved.
This is likely to range from 30pc for those with good sales potential to 90pc for rezoned sites outside rural towns with no prospect of development.
Mr Lenihan said the issue of providing information about loan valuations had to be "factored into the legislation".
But the Government is opposed to publishing the precise values of the toxic loans because it could make it harder to sell them at a higher price in the future.
Mr Lenihan also admitted the NAMA plan would be more "dangerous" if it took loans exclusively from the ailing Irish property market. More than one third of the loans to be taken up by the agency are overseas, with 20pc in Britain, 6pc in the North, 2pc in the US and 6pc in Europe. "It would be a more dangerous operation if we were stuck exclusively with the Irish property market side, which has seen such a steep decline," he said.
Recovering
"For example, UK property is clearly recovering at present. And that will give NAMA opportunities to realise UK assets more readily and quickly, and equally in the US."
Fine Gael has highlighted the fact that if interest rates rise, as forecasted over the next 10 years, to 3.8pc, the potential cost to the State could be an extra €15bn in interest.
However, Mr Lenihan insisted yesterday that he did not see this as a real danger because rising interest rates would signal a return to economic growth.
However, the ECB could raise interest rates for the Eurozone countries, even if the Irish economy was still struggling, rather than recovering.
It comes among growing concerns about the potential of NAMA to overpay for sites such as one highlighted on RTE's 'PrimeTime' show. The 16.5-acre site in Edenderry, Co Offaly, was worth €11.5m with planning permission -- and is now worth just €1.1m. But Mr Lenihan said every loan would be valued individually by NAMA.
"And if a field is worth €1m and it's not going to be developed in the next 10 years, the value is €1m," he said. Mr Lenihan said there was a group of people determined to "stir up" concerns about NAMA rather than have a debate "based on the facts".
"Again you see the public commentary is trying to insinuate that we will have very high interest rates, that it will be 5pc-6pc; that's not going to happen," he said.
Fine Gael's Richard Bruton said it was complete nonsense for ministers to peddle the myth that the ECB was providing "cheap money" to the State for NAMA. "The Government is acting like a salesman from a subprime bank offering a family a 115pc loan-to-value mortgage with a cheap introductory rate to buy a dodgy investment property," he said.
- Michael Brennan Political Correspondent

I wonder why he's refusing to name who is involved. Or what they're paying for the sites. I mean, if it's going to be worth more than what they're paying for it now in 10 years, then surely it makes no difference to tell us what they're paying now. Goes to show that they don't have much faith in NAMA themselves.....

And I'm loving the FG point of how we could be saddled with another 15 billion in 'sneaky debt' as I like to call it. Willie O'Dea nearly shat himself when Richard Bruton brought this up on Prime Time.

I wonder how many FFers and their mates these loans belong to. I can't see any other reason as to why they would be protected.

thebman

public money they should be on public record, we should at least know what property we own.

Seems kind of odd to suggest the public shouldn't know that information.

starbelgrade

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I wonder how many FFers and their mates these loans belong to. I can't see any other reason as to why they would be protected.

This country is corrupt to the bone.. Charlie Haughey opened the floodgates for this type of behaviour & we've not only allowed it to fester ever since, but have come to expect it.

Look at Ahern... the f*cker was taking backhanders & brown envelopes for years, then p*sses off just before the ship sank, and how do the public react? "Ah, Bertie.. feicin* chancer"

There is no accountabilty for anything in politics these days. Scandal after scandal, followed by more scandal.

We should swap the criminals in our prisons for the ones in our government - they couldn't surely do a worse job.

AlekSmart

Probably the most chilling aspect of NAMA leglislation is how easy it is for the Government to suspend the admittedly lax oversight mechanism`s currently in force and to essentially devise and run NAMA as some form of Financial "Secret Service" with at least 5 years of oversight free head-start to get itself all geared up.

One thing is absolutely certain and that is how Bernie Madoff must be rightly cheesed off that he did`nt base his operation in Dublin`s Docklands rather than Manhattan.......Jeebus He`d be still able to play a round at Greysteones instead of stitching mailbags now !!!

is_that_so

thebman wrote: »

public money they should be on public record, we should at least know what property we own.

Seems kind of odd to suggest the public shouldn't know that information.

It should indeed but given the "response" there has been to NAMA, individuals/businesses involved could end up in the same category as child molesters. Within the group there will some who will not survive and deserve to be closed down immediately, others who have both good and bad loans and some who may have good loans only. Outing them may make people feel happy but it certainly won't do their businesses any favours. Contrary to popular opinion we do need a construction sector and developers.

thebman

is_that_so wrote: »

It should indeed but given the "response" there has been to NAMA, individuals/businesses involved could end up in the same category as child molesters. Within the group there will some who will not survive and deserve to be closed down immediately, others who have both good and bad loans and some who may have good loans only. Outing them may make people feel happy but it certainly won't do their businesses any favours. Contrary to popular opinion we do need a construction sector and developers.

We don't need incompetent businesses that can't run themselves properly and are incapable of staying afloat.

These guys can't run businesses if they ended up with this much debt. I'm sure there are plenty of competent people that run a construction company, why don't we let these guys go under and the competent ones take over the extra demand?

Liam Byrne

Ya gotta laugh at his brass neck if he's still using the word "discount" when he really means "sickening overpayment".

is_that_so

thebman wrote: »

We don't need incompetent businesses that can't run themselves properly and are incapable of staying afloat.

These guys can't run businesses if they ended up with this much debt. I'm sure there are plenty of competent people that run a construction company, why don't we let these guys go under and the competent ones take over the extra demand?

I agree but even a competent one does not get to see all the details until a deal is ready to be signed. My original point was concern with any of this information being in the public domain. Unless you are a shareholder or a bank it's none of your business. NAMA will be now be their bank and would be expected to maintain client confidentiality.

If you were in business would you like your bank revealing your dealings or any of your sensitive commercial information? Would you want it in the public domain where debate can commonly amount to people screaming on Joe Duffy or yet another dubious piece of journalism from the Sindo?

thebman

is_that_so wrote: »

I agree but even a competent one does not get to see all the details until a deal is ready to be signed. My original point was concern with any of this information being in the public domain. Unless you are a shareholder or a bank it's none of your business. NAMA will be now be their bank and would be expected to maintain client confidentiality.

If you were in business would you like your bank revealing your dealings or any of your sensitive commercial information? Would you want it in the public domain where debate can commonly amount to people screaming on Joe Duffy or yet another dubious piece of journalism from the Sindo?

They aren't businessmen, they are failed businessmen asking the state to stop them declaring bankruptcy. The simple facts are the public should know what property the public own.

Its not acceptable for the state to go around buying property and not having it on public record.

They can want what they like, they should not go in for NAMA if they don't want it to happen, the reality is they are screaming for it. Now your saying they should have their cake and eat it. They put themselves in this situation, I don't want anything but transparency. The public have to know property the state is purchasing.

Its lunacy to suggest the government should be making large property deals without it being public knowledge.

Liam Byrne

is_that_so wrote: »

Unless you are a shareholder or a bank it's none of your business. NAMA will be now be their bank and would be expected to maintain client confidentiality.

If the scumbags in Government HAD nationalised the bank, then you might have a point - but THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

Instead they CHOSE to INVEST OUR MONEY in a scheme that stinks of bailout; quit looking at it from THEIR side, and look on it as US investing in banks and development companies that have PROVEN that they're incapable of operation.

is_that_so wrote: »

If you were in business would you like your bank revealing your dealings or any of your sensitive commercial information?

As an INVESTOR, aren't you entitled to know where your money is going ?

dresden8

Originally Posted by is_that_so
If you were in business would you like your bank revealing your dealings or any of your sensitive commercial information?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As an INVESTOR, aren't you entitled to know where your money is going ?

This would be funny if it wasn't costing us 54 billion, as a starting point.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/SouthSeaBubble.htm

For example; one company floated was to buy the Irish Bogs, another to manufacture a gun to fire square cannon balls and the most ludicrous of all "For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is!!" Unbelievably £2000 was invested in this one!

is_that_so

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If the scumbags in Government HAD nationalised the bank, then you might have a point - but THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

Instead they CHOSE to INVEST OUR MONEY in a scheme that stinks of bailout; quit looking at it from THEIR side, and look on it as US investing in banks and development companies that have PROVEN that they're incapable of operation.



As an INVESTOR, aren't you entitled to know where your money is going ?

You are but as an investor you should also have some understanding of the "investment", something I honestly don't think exists in the current environment.

is_that_so

thebman wrote: »

They aren't businessmen, they are failed businessmen asking the state to stop them declaring bankruptcy. The simple facts are the public should know what property the public own.

Its not acceptable for the state to go around buying property and not having it on public record.

They can want what they like, they should not go in for NAMA if they don't want it to happen, the reality is they are screaming for it. Now your saying they should have their cake and eat it. They put themselves in this situation, I don't want anything but transparency. The public have to know property the state is purchasing.

Its lunacy to suggest the government should be making large property deals without it being public knowledge.

Not really. If a loan is performing then we don't and probably won't ever own it. If a company has performing and non-performing loans but may be solvent over time the public really has no need nor right to know about the good ones. However exposing the property details exposes that company to potentially misleading rumours and commentary.

thebman

is_that_so wrote: »

Not really. If a loan is performing then we don't and probably won't ever own it. If a company has performing and non-performing loans but may be solvent over time the public really has no need nor right to know about the good ones. However exposing the property details exposes that company to potentially misleading rumours and commentary.

Fine so if a loan is performing don't reveal the details but the reality IMO is that most loans won't be performing in NAMA.

If a loan is performing then any discount isn't such a big deal since the loan will be repayed more than likely.

The big problem with NAMA is the unperforming loans and the property we'll end up owning as a result as these people will be unable to repay. If they were all going to repay then we would have no need for NAMA. The reality is most can't pay or can't pay in a reasonable time frame which amounts to the same thing.