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

"NAMA ... [an] attempt to prevent downward price corrections"

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Treehouse72
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭Treehouse72


    Sorry beeno, I'm done. Your latest post is, once again, incoherent I am sorry to say. To mention just two of the myriad mistakes in your post,: first, you are ignoring that 60% of the loans are non-performing. You have disregarded this weighting altogether. In addition, when you say NAMA will be paying €26b for €47b worth of non-performing loans, this is quite simply voodoo maths that has no relationship to the actual numbers. I cannot believe the methodoligy you used to ge this number, which seems to be: Total amount paid to NAMA - Amount paid for performing loans = Amount paid for non-performing loans. This is, quite simply, absurd and bears no relation to how the calculations are actually being done.

    But as I say, I'm finished with this now.


  • Options
    #63
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- you both seem to be seriously antagonising each other.
    I advise you put each other on ignore- if you wish to continue posting in this forum.

    Regards,

    SMcCarrick


  • Options
    #64
    Treehouse72
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭Treehouse72


    SM, I'm done with this debate, but with respect the majority of my posts in this thread have been content rich with links and reasoned arguments, including the post above which gives 2 specific technical reasons why my friend is mistaken. In that context, your threat of banning as though I'm just trolling is unfair and misguided.

    But as I say, I'm done and this is my last post in the thread.


  • Options
    #65
    beeno67
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    Treehouse72 wrote: »
    Sorry beeno, I'm done. Your latest post is, once again, incoherent I am sorry to say. To mention just two of the myriad mistakes in your post,: first, you are ignoring that 60% of the loans are non-performing. You have disregarded this weighting altogether. In addition, when you say NAMA will be paying €26b for €47b worth of non-performing loans, this is quite simply voodoo maths that has no relationship to the actual numbers. I cannot believe the methodoligy you used to ge this number, which seems to be: Total amount paid to NAMA - Amount paid for performing loans = Amount paid for non-performing loans. This is, quite simply, absurd and bears no relation to how the calculations are actually being done.

    But as I say, I'm finished with this now.

    Treehouse, just because you fail to understand the maths does not make it wrong. I sent my calculations to Peter Matthews and got a reply today. They still feel banks will require substantial recapitalisation and are obviously still not in favour of NAMA but with regards to my comments to you above re the valuations and potential losses of NAMA itself the reply I received was.


    "The process has taken so long, and because of the actions taken by non-NAMA banks, which has revealed the extent to which property prices have fallen, and, in fairness, something Brian Lenihan had always said, as each loan was valued as it went into NAMA, it now appears – and that’s the new information – that NAMA is using similarly severe valuations"


Advertisement