NAMA - figures are not adding up

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for your accusation of being "lazy"; well, if someone wants to pay me €300,00 a year, and give me a bunch of economists as backup, I'll damn well come up with a fair solution. But until then, it's not my job. And it's definitely not "lazy" of me considering the guy that came up with the idea was too lazy to read a report on the Anglo cesspit.

BTW - I'm not a judge either, but I'll still complain if some rapist gets a 5-year sentence......I presume that's OK, so it's ridiculous that people have to suggest alternatives before their objections are taken seriously.

But for the record, there are possibly alternatives that I suggested should be looked into.

I don't think anyone is claiming that it's the job of boardsies to come up with alternatives at a level where they're going to be used. However, if someone is arguing that NAMA is the worst possible option, then they do really rather have to be able to say what the better options were.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Let them fail seems to have been the only credible alternative.

Yup. And I think I suggested that we look into replacing them with the credit unions. It would have cost money, but nowhere near as much.

Again, that's an easy statement to make, but have you really made an estimate of the damage done to the economy by letting the banks fail, and found it to be higher than the costs of NAMA? Or are you simply putting forward an alternative that better suits your personal economic philosophies?

I run a small business (and a reasonably solid one at the moment). I have very little doubt at all what the failure of my bank would mean to my business - it would effectively destroy it. Small businesses like mine account for the majority of employment in Ireland, and the damage a bank collapse would do to my business would be replicated across a huge swathe of the economy. Banks are not sandwich shops.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

EDIT : By the way your "what are the alternatives" question was well off-topic based on what I posted, which was that unfortunately at this stage NAMA is probably unavoidable, but the main thing was for Lenihan and FF to simply stop lying about it and be honest for once.

I think we can safely assume that politicians will continue, one way or another, to lie about what they're doing, or at least to misrepresent in ways that range from the ham-fisted to the cynically manipulative. That politicians are lying about something - be it NAMA, Lisbon, the Habitats Directive, or whatever - tells us nothing more than that politicians are involved. You might not believe a politician if he tells you it's raining, but if it is raining, you will still get wet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't care what FG sympathisers do - that's up to them.

Or is it possible that you are so embedded in the ridiculous party politics that you think I'm one of them ? :rolleyes:

As for your accusation of being "lazy"; well, if someone wants to pay me €300,00 a year, and give me a bunch of economists as backup, I'll damn well come up with a fair solution. But until then, it's not my job. And it's definitely not "lazy" of me considering the guy that came up with the idea was too lazy to read a report on the Anglo cesspit.

BTW - I'm not a judge either, but I'll still complain if some rapist gets a 5-year sentence......I presume that's OK, so it's ridiculous that people have to suggest alternatives before their objections are taken seriously.

But for the record, there are possibly alternatives that I suggested should be looked into.



Yup. And I think I suggested that we look into replacing them with the credit unions. It would have cost money, but nowhere near as much.

And the banks could go chase after their own loans all by themselves.



Well kettle, pot on that, since you used the phrase "FG sympathiser" above. :rolleyes:

EDIT : By the way your "what are the alternatives" question was well off-topic based on what I posted, which was that unfortunately at this stage NAMA is probably unavoidable, but the main thing was for Lenihan and FF to simply stop lying about it and be honest for once.

Well you see, this is the problem.

If anybody can't see why NAMA is a disaster, they are branded.

Personally, I don't see a better alternative because they either don't recognise the bad loans or just ignore them. Whether we like it or not, the bad loans have to be dealt with. Ignoring them and just lashing out at banks developers and Govt. isn't going to make them go away.

The best alternative I have seen is, let the banks fail, which doesn't inspire confidence.

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

These are CSO figures showing unemployment has been stable for 9 months. I can't do better than that. Can you?

Yes I have employment numbers:


These are CSO QNHS figures. Employment down from peak but not fallen off a cliff.

From your graph, its quite certain numbers employed are down to '05 levels. You do not provide numbers for Q4 '09 to Q1 '10 to prove anything. Co-incidentally this is the period the govt has trumpeted the 'unemployment stabilisation' thing as well.

Safety valves of emigration and Fas\back to education do not create jobs, they create the figment of stabilisation.

If we had the numbers moving off unemployment being absorbed into numbers been employed, then we can say stabilisation of unemployment is here.
We cannot say that yet as we do not have the figures to prove it so just take one more look at what you are saying.

On vacants http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%201002%20W.pdf , DCC which is the core area has vacants of 12.57%(Apr '09). Thats very high for a high demand core city area.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

NAMA is a mechanism so large that it can't happen in a back room. It's in the light of day to a degree which simply has never been the case for the majority of 'arrangements' that Fianna Fáil have presided over, from the quango sector to planning.

really :cool:

I want to see a detailed breakdown of what's going into NAMA

no scrap that, we the taxpayers deserve and demand to see what's going into NAMA and how much is being paid!

what what? we cant have that?? so much for transparency :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... Yup [to letting the banks fail]. And I think I suggested that we look into replacing them with the credit unions. It would have cost money, but nowhere near as much...

This is preposterous stuff. Bad as things are, if we allowed the banks to collapse they would be far worse. The amount of damage that would be inflicted is so great as to seem incalculable. It would destroy many businesses immediately, and make survival unlikely for many others. It would probably cut us off from the international money markets through which our borrowing lifeline comes. It would make international trade exceedingly difficult. It would wipe out many individuals' finances.

Indeed, a collapse of the banking system would probably destroy many credit unions, so the "reserve team" you propose would be seriously depleted. Many of the functions of the banks could not be discharged by CU movement as it is now constituted (they don't even have a mechanism for transferring funds from one holder to another: the use the banks' clearing system). It seems quite unreasonable to expect a set of institutions founded for one purpose to switch all its efforts into doing things for which they were not designed. We saw that sort of thing happen in the building society movement, and I am not sure the outcome was universally good: do you remember Irish Nationwide Building Society?

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

really :cool:

I want to see a detailed breakdown of what's going into NAMA

no scrap that, we the taxpayers deserve and demand to see what's going into NAMA and how much is being paid!

what what? we cant have that?? so much for transparency :rolleyes:

Institutional transparency does not mean that people should have immediate and full access to every transaction, just as transparency in the health service does not mean that you should have access to my medical records.

I see an intention that NAMA be transparent, and I see no sign that anybody is seeking to avoid that.

recessionista

NAMA is a device to bail out the banks and the government doesn't care about "SME's" or small shareholders - it's about keeping the pals on board the leaking ship. I agree. Could I put some of your posts on the recessionbeaters.ie Forum as well?

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we can safely assume that politicians will continue, one way or another, to lie about what they're doing, or at least to misrepresent in ways that range from the ham-fisted to the cynically manipulative. That politicians are lying about something - be it NAMA, Lisbon, the Habitats Directive, or whatever - tells us nothing more than that politicians are involved.

And this is the bit that is unacceptable and that we need to change.

If we don't believe them, it's because we've been stung so many times before by FF and the Greens......the litany of lies is actually to long to repeat yet again.

Not only do they lie, but they then defend those lies to the hilt as if they're deluded enough to believe they did nothing wrong.

And so that is not our fault.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Institutional transparency does not mean that people should have immediate and full access to every transaction, just as transparency in the health service does not mean that you should have access to my medical records.

I see an intention that NAMA be transparent, and I see no sign that anybody is seeking to avoid that.

were not talking about medical records

were talking about loans

dodgy loans at that

and it aint only property related things going in it seems, heres and odd billion or so from AIB alone that has little to do with property

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/a-lot-more-than-property--how-aibs-nama-assets-break-down-2086304.html

A breakdown of AIB's NAMA-bound loans highlights an interesting list of sectors, other than the €21.6bn of assets linked to property and construction.

Non-property loans or associated loans linked to some of the biggest developers range from agriculture to energy and manufacturing.

The list also includes some €19m of loans under transport -- perhaps covering some of the helicopters, private jets and yachts beloved by some formerly high-flying builders.

Then there are €144m of home mortgages going into NAMA. These relate to homes of developers that have been used as collateral for other loans.

Almost €300m of loans are categorised as 'other'. It is not known if AIB is exposed to assets such as art collections, racehorses and other personal assets that were provided by developers as guarantees to some of the country's banks during the boom days.

dynamick

gurramok wrote: »

From your graph, its quite certain numbers employed are down to '05 levels. You do not provide numbers for Q4 '09 to Q1 '10 to prove anything.

05 levels are great and still quite bubblicious. I'd settle for 03 levels. 2009Q4 qnhs figures are due next week. 2010Q1 is not yet over! It's only mid march.

Co-incidentally this is the period the govt has trumpeted the 'unemployment stabilisation' thing as well.

The graph relates to employment not unemployment for which I have given up to date figures showing that it has been stable for 9 months now.

Safety valves of emigration and Fas\back to education do not create jobs, they create the figment of stabilisation.

We need more people back in education. Many people ended their education early for the lure of well paid unskilled bubble jobs. Emigration is not entirely negative. The most useful workers in Ireland have mostly acquired skills in large overseas organisations. This kind of outside perspective is vital for an island nation to avoid insular thinking.

If we had the numbers moving off unemployment being absorbed into numbers been employed, then we can say stabilisation of unemployment is here.

I've already provided the figures to show that unemployment has been stable for 9 months.

On vacants http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%201002%20W.pdf , DCC which is the core area has vacants of 12.57%(Apr '09). Thats very high for a high demand core city area.

There are a number of reasons why this doesn't look like a very scary number. Firstly the city centre has a high proportion of transient renters to owner occupiers. If you've ever been a landlord you'l know that a 12% vacancy rate is quite natural. The vacancy rates are based on census returns but getting people to answer doorbells in the city centre is very difficult. You have undocumented immigrants unwilling to speak to people in authority with clipboards. You have multi-unit dwellings and apartment blocks with no means of contacting individual residents from the street. You have students with hectic lifestyles. You have wealthy rural people with unoccupied city centre pads, and you have people on busy streets who simply don't answer the door to strangers as they expect anyone worth speaking to will ring them.

The loss of construction industry jobs has been a shock to the economy but in other ways, Ireland is now a much better place to do business. Wages are lower, people are keener to work, costs have fallen generally, recruiting people is much easier. Housing and office costs are lower.

Amhran Nua

dynamick wrote: »

You think Ahearne is lying? Despite the fact that when he said this he was awaiting final approval from the ECB for NAMA and Trichet was due to speak in Ireland shortly afterwards. I think this is unlikely.

If Alan Ahearne said this to my face I would call him a liar. JC Trichet is a very interesting character, a master of the subtle nuance, to the extent that his every intonation and facial expression are subject to hot debate among analysts in order to better divine his meaning, after public statements. The idea of Trichet plopping that sort of clanger on the table is unusual to put it mildly. Which is beside the point that he never said it and there is no record of him ever having said it.

dynamick wrote: »

There is also a long list of people who have approved of NAMA including the ECB, the IMF and the commission.

The IMF has gone on record as saying NAMA won't work, from the article I linked to at the start of this year, which is of a fresher vintage than the article you linked from the start of last year.

dynamick wrote: »

Alan Ahearne ex Fed, Patrick Honohan ex World Bank, prof Peter Clinch were all involved in devising NAMA and did so under regular consultation with the three bodies above.

Even the banks themselves admit NAMA won't work, and they are the main beneficiaries.

dynamick wrote: »

How can you renegotiate something you've already given?

It happens all the time in bankruptcy cases.

dynamick wrote: »

Unlike most other posters in this thread, at least you're advocating an alternative to NAMA. Why would a bondholder accept a debt for equity swap when the equity would be in a state owned body?

Thats why I said temporary nationalisation. This is also an effective negotiating tactic since its better to get something rather than nothing.

dynamick wrote: »

Or perhaps you think the bank should be refloated first? And where do the toxic assets go? And who would lend to a bank in future that had failed to meet obligations to senior debt holders?

The toxic assets are primarily toxic because they have to be repaid to upstream lenders, otherwise we could just write them off - if you renegotiate the debt in exchange for equity, all sorts of possiblities open up. This is the same route that was taken by Sweden in its successful implementation of the idea.

What we should be focusing on is securing the deposits of Irish individuals and businesses - this is the beating heart of the economy. What's happening now is they are being held to ransom, your money and mine, and the price is making private debts public. Yes we need further borrowing to fund the deficit but if outgoings were even at 2004 levels we'd be breaking even; its not impossible to reach that level in short order.

Remember that Irish banks have over €100 billion in residential and retail mortgages, with only a 3% impairment rate so far. These assets are far from worthless, especially if the focus of policy was to move towards job creation and setting up new industries rather than shoring up the sagging edifice of the banking system.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

were not talking about medical records

were talking about loans

dodgy loans at that

and it aint only property related things going in it seems, heres and odd billion or so from AIB alone that has little to do with property

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/a-lot-more-than-property--how-aibs-nama-assets-break-down-2086304.html

I see. And you don't know about these issues because of a lack of transparency.

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

05 levels are great and still quite bubblicious. I'd settle for 03 levels. 2009Q4 qnhs figures are due next week. 2010Q1 is not yet over! It's only mid march.

The graph relates to employment not unemployment for which I have given up to date figures showing that it has been stable for 9 months now.

We need more people back in education. Many people ended their education early for the lure of well paid unskilled bubble jobs. Emigration is not entirely negative. The most useful workers in Ireland have mostly acquired skills in large overseas organisations. This kind of outside perspective is vital for an island nation to avoid insular thinking.

I've already provided the figures to show that unemployment has been stable for 9 months.

Its great educating people, where are the jobs when they finish their courses? (considering employment numbers have fallen dramatically)

Unemployment ain't stable yet with conclusive proof, its an assumption it is. Fiddling the numbers using FAS and the big variable of emigration thrown in does not prove stabilisation. We'll wait till next week for the Q4 '09 figures to see what's really going on.

dynamick wrote: »

There are a number of reasons why this doesn't look like a very scary number. Firstly the city centre has a high proportion of transient renters to owner occupiers. If you've ever been a landlord you'l know that a 12% vacancy rate is quite natural. The vacancy rates are based on census returns but getting people to answer doorbells in the city centre is very difficult. You have undocumented immigrants unwilling to speak to people in authority with clipboards. You have multi-unit dwellings and apartment blocks with no means of contacting individual residents from the street. You have students with hectic lifestyles. You have wealthy rural people with unoccupied city centre pads, and you have people on busy streets who simply don't answer the door to strangers as they expect anyone worth speaking to will ring them.

This has been debated to death on boards. The excuses for the large number of vacants in a core city area is wearing thin. It was stated in the CSO press release that they did contact the neighbours and management of said complexes to find out if apts were really occupied or not. Go down to the Docklands to see for yourself all the vacants in just one area of DCC.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I see. And you don't know about these issues because of a lack of transparency.

thats only some of the info being released

having 300 millions for AIB under "other", with no explanation of what "other" is, doesn't raise any alarm bells?

for gods sake thats enough to build a hospital or few schools with

have people really become desensitised to large figures?

Flamed Diving

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Alan Ahearne said that, not Trichet.

I note the lack of evidence for this claim.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There are a long list of people who have pointed out that NAMA is a bad idea, not least of whom is Economics Nobel prize winner Stiglitz who went so far as to call it "criminal" in that its proponents should be locked away for the good of society.

Did he? Did Stiglitz actually say directly that NAMA is criminal? Could you directly quote the phrase?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JJcZ_ij_ac

Joseph Stiglitz: 'I think to overpay for these loans is really criminal'


Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, eh?

Shame...


This is a classic case of PurpleMonkeyDishwasher syndrome in crowds. Stiglitz says one thing in reality and by the time it comes out the other end of public hysteria, he is advocating the imprisonment of it's advocates.

FFS, get a grip of yourself...

Amhran Nua

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I note the lack of evidence for this claim.

For the claim that Trichet ordered the government to save the banks? You'd be right. If you can find any evidence to the contrary by all means let us know.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Joseph Stiglitz: 'I think to overpay for these loans is really criminal'

So maybe you might clarify further for us; does NAMA intend to overpay for these loans?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

FFS, get a grip of yourself...

90% of your posts in politics/economics on boards are to abuse or otherwise mock people, not to add constructive comment. Unclench the handbag for a moment Doris. Meanwhile the adults are trying to hold a discussion, so if you don't mind...

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats only some of the info being released

having 300 millions for AIB under "other", with no explanation of what "other" is, doesn't raise any alarm bells?

for gods sake thats enough to build a hospital or few schools with

have people really become desensitised to large figures?

Well the article hints at what they are.

If personal houseS were used as security for development loans, the mortgages should be transferred to NAMA too. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, its a great thing. Might see some of the fancy pads being reposessed by NAMA.

Liam Byrne

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Did he? Did Stiglitz actually say directly that NAMA is criminal? Could you directly quote the phrase?

Joseph Stiglitz: 'I think to overpay for these loans is really criminal'

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, eh?

Firstly, since NAMA is by it's nature overpaying, it's not a complete stretch to say that it backs up the statement.

It is, however, a complete stretch to claim (as FF claimed) that the EU / IMF "approved of" NAMA, when all they did was approve/sanction it as legal or whatever.

So there are obviously plenty of PurpleMonkeyDishwashers around, and most of them are trying to con us into accepting NAMA.

I'm not saying that it's a completely logical reaction, but when you've been lied to and conned as often as the Irish people, and when the Government continue to justify the inexcusable (O'Dea the latest example) then OF COURSE people are likely to question and doubt every single statement that they make.

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

Well the article hints at what they are.

If personal houseS were used as security for development loans, the mortgages should be transferred to NAMA too. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, its a great thing. Might see some of the fancy pads being reposessed by NAMA.

thats ontop of the 300 million

The list also includes some €19m of loans under transport -- perhaps covering some of the helicopters, private jets and yachts beloved by some formerly high-flying builders.

Then there are €144m of home mortgages going into NAMA. These relate to homes of developers that have been used as collateral for other loans.

Almost €300m of loans are categorised as 'other'. It is not known if AIB is exposed to assets such as art collections, racehorses and other personal assets that were provided by developers as guarantees to some of the country's banks during the boom days.

what is in this "other", and where can the people of this country see what's being transferred


the claim that NAMA is transparent is a terrible joke

if we had more details and figures then it would make it much easier to evaluate the pros and cons of NAMA now wouldn't it?

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats ontop of the 300 million





what is in this "other", and where can the people of this country see what's being transferred


the claim that NAMA is transparent is a terrible joke

if we had more details and figures then it would make it much easier to evaluate the pros and cons of NAMA now wouldn't it?

I know its on top. I'd say when it comes to the time of transfer, we'll find out more.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think we can safely assume that politicians will continue, one way or another, to lie about what they're doing, or at least to misrepresent in ways that range from the ham-fisted to the cynically manipulative. That politicians are lying about something - be it NAMA, Lisbon, the Habitats Directive, or whatever - tells us nothing more than that politicians are involved.

And this is the bit that is unacceptable and that we need to change.

If we don't believe them, it's because we've been stung so many times before by FF and the Greens......the litany of lies is actually to long to repeat yet again.

Not only do they lie, but they then defend those lies to the hilt as if they're deluded enough to believe they did nothing wrong.

And so that is not our fault.

I'm hardly going to argue that politicians lying is acceptable, no matter how routine it is, but on the other hand, it remains irrelevant to the question of whether NAMA will work or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats only some of the info being released

having 300 millions for AIB under "other", with no explanation of what "other" is, doesn't raise any alarm bells?

for gods sake thats enough to build a hospital or few schools with

have people really become desensitised to large figures?

You are complaining about possible lack of transparency by citing a newspaper report that is explicitly based on "a breakdown of AIB's NAMA-bound loans".

In a context where the total figures are just over €23bn, the fact that €300m are categorised as "other" is unremarkable. That's not, in itself, proof or even firm indication of questionable dealings. Neither do I see it as intentionally opaque.

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

I know its on top. I'd say when it comes to the time of transfer, we'll find out more.

here have a box in return for your lives savings

you can find out what's in the box after the transfer

:P

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are complaining about possible lack of transparency by citing a newspaper report that is explicitly based on "a breakdown of AIB's NAMA-bound loans".

In a context where the total figures are just over €23bn, the fact that €300m are categorised as "other" is unremarkable. That's not, in itself, proof or even firm indication of questionable dealings. Neither do I see it as intentionally opaque.

that 300 million could be given to your fellow (ex) PS workers, 10grand each or so, who knows might stop them striking

its a lot of money to be labelled as "other"

Flamed Diving

Amhran Nua wrote: »

For the claim that Trichet ordered the government to save the banks? You'd be right. If you can find any evidence to the contrary by all means let us know.

So you have no evidence to back your claims, then. Great.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So maybe you might clarify further for us; does NAMA intend to overpay for these loans?

Oh, but we are now several steps away from...

There are a long list of people who have pointed out that NAMA is a bad idea, not least of whom is Economics Nobel prize winner Stiglitz who went so far as to call it "criminal" in that its proponents should be locked away for the good of society.

Gee, it would seem that Stiglitz wasn't saying what you claimed now, was he? What you said (and many others) might lead some to believe that Stiglitz was actually saying that the entire premise of NAMA was'criminal'. But no, he just didn't like the overpayment stipulation. He referred to that as criminal. Not the same now, is it?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

90% of your posts in politics/economics on boards are to abuse or otherwise mock people, not to add constructive comment. Unclench the handbag for a moment Doris. Meanwhile the adults are trying to hold a discussion, so if you don't mind...

You mean the Irish Economy forum? That isn't the Economics forum. Not the same at all. In the former, people get to throw around emotive statements backed by little or no evidence. In the latter, if you have no evidence, you have nothing to say. Just how I like it.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In a context where the total figures are just over €23bn, the fact that €300m are categorised as "other" is unremarkable. That's not, in itself, proof or even firm indication of questionable dealings. Neither do I see it as intentionally opaque.

Here is a group of professional economists, including Professor Karl Whelan, who can't work out exactly what NAMA is paying either...

Following the approval of NAMA by the European Commission, the Department of Finance has published revised guidelines in relation to NAMA’s pricing of assets. This is a revised version of these regulations released before Christmas. Based on a quick read, there are appear to be a couple of changes, both of which show that the Commission is pushing the government towards paying lower prices.

The first relates to the discount rate used to value cash flows when coming up with long-term economic value. These had provided for an adjustment of 0.8 percent above the relevant government bond rate. This adjustment is now 1.7 percent. This change will lower the value of the assets.

Government bond rates are, of course, lower now than they were last September. This is probably what the Minister was referring to when he said “There will, however, be a reduction in the interest rates used for loan discounting purposes” a comment widely (and now it seems incorrectly) reported as being related to the Commission’s recommendations. We see now that the Commission’s recommendations, taken on their own, will imply lower prices paid.

The other change I can spot relates to the (to me) mysterious “Standard Discount Rate”. The regulations for this used to be as follows.

The standard discount rate that NAMA shall apply in the calculation of the long-term economic value of all bank assets shall be 2.75 per cent to provide for enforcement costs, and 0.25 per cent to provide for due diligence costs.

The 2.75 percent is now 5.25 percent. From previous discussions, the prize for best answer as to what the standard discount rate was went to Frank Galton: NAMA LTEV = LTEV*(1-Standard Discount Rate). Assuming that’s correct, then this latest change would also imply lower prices. Anyone who understands the standard discount rate (or can see any other interesting changes) feel free to explain it to us.

Amhran Nua

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So you have no evidence to back your claims, then. Great.

No evidence to back up the claim that the other poster has no evidence to back up his claims? My what a winding path this is.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Oh, but we are now several steps away from...

As has already been pointed out, NAMA by its nature is overpaying for the loans. Stiglitz said that it would be criminal to overpay for the loans. Therefore Stiglitz feels that NAMA by its nature is criminal. There is no joining of the dots required.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Gee, it would seem that Stiglitz wasn't saying what you claimed now, was he? What you said (and many others) might lead some to believe that Stiglitz was actually saying that the entire premise of NAMA was'criminal'. But no, he just didn't like the overpayment stipulation. He referred to that as criminal. Not the same now, is it?

O_o

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You mean the Irish Economy forum? That isn't the Economics forum. Not the same at all. In the former, people get to throw around emotive statements backed by little or no evidence. In the latter, if you have no evidence, you have nothing to say. Just how I like it.

Okidoki, I'll leave you to it then.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats ontop of the 300 million

what is in this "other", and where can the people of this country see what's being transferred


the claim that NAMA is transparent is a terrible joke

if we had more details and figures then it would make it much easier to evaluate the pros and cons of NAMA now wouldn't it?

I don't know what the eventual transparency level on loans will be, but the transfer process isn't even finished yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't know what the eventual transparency level on loans will be, but the transfer process isn't even finished yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

should we know what is about to be transferred before the transfer starts

Ronan himself mentioned that the lack of information makes trying to make sense of NAMA not easy

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Here is a group of professional economists, including Professor Karl Whelan, who can't work out exactly what NAMA is paying either...

First, what you say does not relate to the point I was making.

Second, it seems to be a very small "group of professional economists", comprising only one member. [That does not invalidate what he says.]