NAMA - figures are not adding up

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you dispute his clear and unequivocal statement, this is either because you think either

• He is lying or
• He doesn't understand NAMA

I think we can lay the latter to rest all things considered, so why would he lie, thus risking his reputation?

No, I've already pointed out that there are other options. As P. Breathnach says, you appear to regard Gurdgiev's view in the matter as final, but haven't offered any independent corroboration of his view, only evidence that you consider the man definitive.

References to authority are perfectly valid when its a globally recognised authority on the subject who is being referenced.

This is a statement that would hold if and only if the person concerned were the sole authority on a subject - which Dr Gurdgiev is not - and even then it would be on sufferance only.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I've already pointed out that there are other options. As P. Breathnach says, you appear to regard Gurdgiev's view in the matter as final, but haven't offered any independent corroboration of his view, only evidence that you consider the man definitive.

In this particular case, I find it difficult to isolate a reason for him to put forth deliberate falsehoods. I get where you are coming from with his philosophical position, and I wouldn't agree with much of it myself, but again, I refer back to my last response to P. Breathnach - why would he lie about something like that? Its a clear and blunt statement.

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is a statement that would hold if and only if the person concerned were the sole authority on a subject - which Dr Gurdgiev is not - and even then it would be on sufferance only.

Not at all, a typical rebuttal would be to bring up contrary statements from similarly qualified authorites.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Im specifically asking what objections does Scofflaw have against Gurdgiev, and what social goals is he referring to

I find the social goal FF+Greens have (and supported by you and Scofflaw) of burdening generations of people in this country with debt for a mess they didnt cause rather disgusting, or/and artificially propping up the prices high causing more companies to go to wall and more unemployment

but its ok the incompetent people that got us here, can be trusted to get us out

Again, those are silly remarks. First, neither FF nor the Greens, nor any of the other political parties, have as a social goal "burdening generations of people in this country with debt", and it's frankly daft to suggest it. No government wishes to cramp its freedom of action with no payoff, and that is exactly what they would be doing by your lights.

Second, the incompetent people that got us here are going to be the incompetent people who make decisions on getting us out - no matter what decisions are made. If the banks are to be nationalised, it will be the current government nationalising them. If they are allowed to collapse, it will be the current government picking up the pieces.

There's no point in arguing against what the government is doing solely on the basis that it's the government doing it. That's not political discussion, it's time-wasting knockery.

Finally, with respect to the disagreements I would have Gurdgiev's social goals, P. Breathnach has summarised it quite well. He's a fan of Ayn Rand (which may explain his support on these forums), and I'm a social democrat. He's an Atlanticist, I'm a Eurocentrist. Finally, he's a college lecturer, and I'm a businessman.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whynotwhycanti

In the years leading up to the collapse of the property bubble, there were plenty of economics skeptical of the foundations of the property market who voiced their opinion. A lot of their opinion was simply disregarded, no matter how qualified or accredited the economist was, for no real reason

I can't help but get the feeling of deja vu here. Again we have one economist in question, very well accredited who is voicing concerns about NAMA. There are plenty of other accredited economists who share is view but why not focus on him as he is being discussed here. Again, without any logic, his opinion is being questioned and the validity of him giving his view on this matter being debated.

That leaves me with two conclusions. During the boom, most of the people who ignored all the warnings, and there were plenty of warnings, either had invested in property or were FF advocates. Again, we are receiving similar warnings, nobody is saying these warnings are gospel, and the only reason I can see behind any people simply disregarding these warnings is because they have vested interest or are again FF advocates. There is another reason as to why people may not adhere to warnings, which is really just form of advice but I don’t want to say it. Before people say i am affiliated with the opposition, i am not, i am a staunch independent.

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

In this particular case, I find it difficult to isolate a reason for him to put forth deliberate falsehoods. I get where you are coming from with his philosophical position, and I wouldn't agree with much of it myself, but again, I refer back to my last response to P. Breathnach - why would he lie about something like that? Its a clear and blunt statement.

Because he doesn't see himself as lying, presumably. He's making a statement of what he believes to be the case, on something that isn't actually settled yet.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Not at all, a typical rebuttal would be to bring up contrary statements from similarly qualified authorites.

Typical, certainly, but correct only in scholasticism, which most people left behind at the end of the Middle Ages. Nor is a rebuttal a refutation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

In the years leading up to the collapse of the property bubble, there were plenty of economics skeptical of the foundations of the property market who voiced their opinion. A lot of their opinion was simply disregarded, no matter how qualified or accredited the economist was, for no real reason

I can't help but get the feeling of deja vu here. Again we have one economist in question, very well accredited who is voicing concerns about NAMA. There are plenty of other accredited economists who share is view but why not focus on him as he is being discussed here. Again, without any logic, his opinion is being questioned and the validity of him giving his view on this matter being debated.

That leaves me with two conclusions. During the boom, most of the people who ignored all the warnings, and there were plenty of warnings, either had invested in property or were FF advocates. Again, we are receiving similar warnings, nobody is saying these warnings are gospel, and the only reason I can see behind any people simply disregarding these warnings is because they have vested interest or are again FF advocates. There is another reason as to why people may not adhere to warnings, which is really just form of advice but I don’t want to say it. Before people say i am affiliated with the opposition, i am not, i am a staunch independent.

I've been clear about the use of that ad hominem argument already, and anyone who does say that you're affiliated with the opposition will be infracted too.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Second, the incompetent people that got us here are going to be the incompetent people who make decisions on getting us out - no matter what decisions are made. If the banks are to be nationalised, it will be the current government nationalising them. If they are allowed to collapse, it will be the current government picking up the pieces.

Exactly and it suggests that some would switch positions and oppose the plans they are advocating, if FF adopted them.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly and it suggests that some would switch positions and oppose the plans they are advocating, if FF adopted them.

Where plans are actually being advocated, that is. Otherwise, presumably they'd simply be condemning whatever else it was the government was doing and then saying "it's not my business to provide alternatives, mate".

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... I find the social goal FF+Greens have (and supported by you and Scofflaw) of burdening generations of people in this country with debt for a mess they didnt cause rather disgusting...

I have never indicated here how I vote, and your implication that any position I take reflects support for any party is without foundation.

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because he doesn't see himself as lying, presumably. He's making a statement of what he believes to be the case, on something that isn't actually settled yet.

Yeah, his statement, as already pointed out ad infinitum, is very clear. Its a black and white right-wrong situation. Even the statement that NAMA reports only to the Minister for Finance is very much too far in terms of secrecy. I say he is right, for all of the reasons already outlined. You say he is wrong because... you think so?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Typical, certainly, but correct only in scholasticism, which most people left behind at the end of the Middle Ages. Nor is a rebuttal a refutation.

If using the work of authoritative figures to clarify discussions is scholasticism, we'll be heading back to the middle ages faster than you think.

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yeah, his statement, as already pointed out ad infinitum, is very clear. Its a black and white right-wrong situation. Even the statement that NAMA reports only to the Minister for Finance is very much too far in terms of secrecy. I say he is right, for all of the reasons already outlined. You say he is wrong because... you think so?

I'd say he's likely to be wrong because he's being far too definitive on a matter that hasn't settled yet. Will NAMA be immune from FOI? Will the accounts never be published? We don't know, and neither does Constantin Gurdgiev.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If using the work of authoritative figures to clarify discussions is scholasticism, we'll be heading back to the middle ages faster than you think.

If debate is simply a matter of picking authorities that agree with your position, and your opposition picking authorities that agree with them, then "debate" is fundamentally reduced to how good either side is at finding "authorities" that agree with them. That's not debate, it's a retriever dog competition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly and it suggests that some would switch positions and oppose the plans they are advocating, if FF adopted them.

This is a ridiculous partisan dismissal of concerns.

Obviously any fair plan would be better in the hands of a group that we could trust and that had shown themselves to be competent and not a closed shop when it comes to circling the wagons when one of them gets caught rotten.

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is a ridiculous partisan dismissal of concerns.

Obviously any fair plan would be better in the hands of a group that we could trust and that had shown themselves to be competent and not a closed shop when it comes to circling the wagons when one of them gets caught rotten.

It isn't a dismissal, though why it seems like that is telling. Some truth in it?

Its understandable because FF got us mostly into this mess. However, if it's opposition just for the sake of it, hardly inspiring.

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say he's likely to be wrong because he's being far too definitive on a matter that hasn't settled yet. Will NAMA be immune from FOI? Will the accounts never be published? We don't know, and neither does Constantin Gurdgiev.

Perhaps it would be best to take that up with him so, I'm sure the public has the right to know when they are being mislead, or alternately he should know that people have found out about him misleading the public. Most of your disagreement with his statement appears to be based on his socioeconomic theories rather than the substance of what he actually published, so I'd also submit that accusations of bias by association (á la the blame FF/FG posts) cut both ways.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If debate is simply a matter of picking authorities that agree with your position, and your opposition picking authorities that agree with them, then "debate" is fundamentally reduced to how good either side is at finding "authorities" that agree with them. That's not debate, it's a retriever dog competition.

I said to "clarify discussions", its as simple as that.

Its becoming increasingly clear at this juncure that further discussions on the issue are pointless, no amount of evidence or objection will sway those who have already made up their minds.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is a ridiculous partisan dismissal of concerns.

Obviously any fair plan would be better in the hands of a group that we could trust and that had shown themselves to be competent and not a closed shop when it comes to circling the wagons when one of them gets caught rotten.

That's unlucky for us then, since it describes pretty much the entire Irish political class.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Perhaps it would be best to take that up with him so, I'm sure the public has the right to know when they are being mislead, or alternately he should know that people have found out about him misleading the public. Most of your disagreement with his statement appears to be based on his socioeconomic theories rather than the substance of what he actually published, so I'd also submit that accusations of bias by association (á la the blame FF/FG posts) cut both ways.

My disagreement with his analysis of NAMA would rest on the fundamental incompatibility of our social goals, certainly - much as my disagreement with him over Lisbon (and support for Libertas) did.

As to the transparency issue - he might be right, he might be wrong. He's certainly too early to be able to say definitively, and I'm concerned that you're prepared to believe such a definitive statement on nothing more than bare authority.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I said to "clarify discussions", its as simple as that.

Not really - you suggested a typical rebuttal would be a counter-reference to authority. You've also made it clear that you regard his statements as the last word on the matter, which isn't what "clarify" means at all.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its becoming increasingly clear at this juncure that further discussions on the issue are pointless, no amount of evidence or objection will sway those who have already made up their minds.

Perhaps you simply haven't offered good enough arguments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

My disagreement with his analysis of NAMA would rest on the fundamental incompatibility of our social goals, certainly - much as my disagreement with him over Lisbon (and support for Libertas) did.

And those other 45 economists that signed the letter, and the Nobel prize winner Stiglitz, they are all philosophically incompatable as well?

Scofflaw wrote: »

As to the transparency issue - he might be right, he might be wrong. He's certainly too early to be able to say definitively, and I'm concerned that you're prepared to believe such a definitive statement on nothing more than bare authority.

So you would be unwilling to contact him and find out?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - you suggested a typical rebuttal would be a counter-reference to authority. You've also made it clear that you regard his statements as the last word on the matter, which isn't what "clarify" means at all.

Apparently finding support within discussions from recognised authorities has become a medieval retriever dog competition rather than accepted best practise on the unqualified internet.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps you simply haven't offered good enough arguments.

What would be a good enough argument, from your perspective?

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's unlucky for us then, since it describes pretty much the entire Irish political class.

I'd agree to a large extent, but the fact is that some political parties defend, rally round, and re-admit their corrupt members more than others.

I've said it elsewhere that while I'm no major FG fan, their dealing with Lowry was far removed from FF's "dealing with" Burke, Haughey, Ahern, Cooper-Flynn and O'Dea.

So there's an obvious distinction, even if none of them are as ethical as I'd like.

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And those other 45 economists that signed the letter, and the Nobel prize winner Stiglitz, they are all philosophically incompatable as well?

I couldn't say, but it's certainly possible.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So you would be unwilling to contact him and find out?

Why would I do so?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Apparently finding support within discussions from recognised authorities has become a medieval retriever dog competition rather than accepted best practise on the unqualified internet.

When it becomes a substitute for real debate, yes.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What would be a good enough argument, from your perspective?

Essentially, I'm looking for arguments that support:

1. the position that there were clearly better alternatives to NAMA - such that they would be acceptable even though implemented by the current government

2. the position that NAMA as it stands isn't merely likely to lose some money, but will lose all the money involved

3. that position that NAMA as it stands won't just lose money, but has no way of recovering it;

3a. or that such mechanisms as allow for the recover either cannot, or will not be used

3b or that such mechanisms, although they will be used, will fail to account for significant amounts of NAMA losses

4. the position that NAMA is a bailout for the developers, who would otherwise face foreclosure on their loans

What I've seen so far are arguments that take us to the point where NAMA is likely to lose some money, where there's a risk that the clawback mechanism may not be used because it is not legally required to be used, and where there were alternatives that may arguably have been preferable for a given value of preferable, but which would have offered the same kind of risks associated with government incompetence/corruption that apply to NAMA. Past that it all seems to be faith-based shoutology.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, those are silly remarks. First, neither FF nor the Greens, nor any of the other political parties, have as a social goal "burdening generations of people in this country with debt", and it's frankly daft to suggest it. No government wishes to cramp its freedom of action with no payoff, and that is exactly what they would be doing by your lights.

And there i would have to disagree with you

At every turn FF have shown that they will do everything to remain in power, no matter how damaging to the country

NAMA is a way for FF (and yes the Greens) to not have to make difficult decisions now and dump the responsibility on whoever is in power over next 10 or so years

The 2 choices are 1) do nothing and crash 2) nationalise and punish the banks

However much I hate the word and the concept I still think either one or combination would have been a better option, since in either way we would be on our way to recovery

NAMA will prolong the correction and while its at it we will spend crazy amounts of money on administration of it

and what's worse either 1) or 2) or both of above can still happen

It may not be FFs stated "social goal" but it is the result of their need to stay in power at any cost, country and its people be damned

Scofflaw wrote: »

Second, the incompetent people that got us here are going to be the incompetent people who make decisions on getting us out - no matter what decisions are made. If the banks are to be nationalised, it will be the current government nationalising them. If they are allowed to collapse, it will be the current government picking up the pieces.

yes and in both cases the government would have to face up to the mess it created now, NAMA is the easy way out for them from the responsibility of governing, hell we still haven't even got an apology from them and they are actively preventing an enquiry into banking from being carried out


im sorry but to sum it up, NAMA is the get out of jail card for FF and to lesser degree the Greens

Scofflaw

yes and in both cases the government would have to face up to the mess it created now, NAMA is the easy way out for them from the responsibility of governing, hell we still haven't even got an apology from them and they are actively preventing an enquiry into banking from being carried out

The problem is that we would also have to face up to the mess the government has created now. You're cutting off your face to spite your nose there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem is that we would also have to face up to the mess the government has created now. You're cutting off your face to spite your nose there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

we will have to face up to this mess one way or the other, as you said yourself there's no easy way out of it, if NAMA overpays or underpays that means the taxpayer will still have to handover money at some point in future to prop up the banks further

but with nationalization the bondholders and shareholders would take the brunt of the pain first, a message would be send out and any future bankers/shareholders would think twice before engaging in reckless lending again

remember the economist guy on frontline a while back saying we can spend 20 billion and get this all over with and be on our way to recovery

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why would I do so?

To find out the reasons for his statement on transparency within NAMA, which admittedly is a bit more difficult than insinuating he is misleading everyone on the internet.

Scofflaw wrote: »

When it becomes a substitute for real debate, yes.

On the contrary, it appears to have pushed the debate to new levels, which is in fact the point of "clarification".

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. the position that there were clearly better alternatives to NAMA - such that they would be acceptable even though implemented by the current government

There were and are - I have pointed out one such to you already, the proper implementation of NAMA-like ideas by its originators, the Swedish.

Scofflaw wrote: »

2. the position that NAMA as it stands isn't merely likely to lose some money, but will lose all the money involved

No idea who said that.

Scofflaw wrote: »

3. that position that NAMA as it stands won't just lose money, but has no way of recovering it;

What does this mean, the LTEV as set out by the Dept of Finance will actually be achieved, or are we mingling taxpayer, government and banks in this?

Scofflaw wrote: »

4. the position that NAMA is a bailout for the developers, who would otherwise face foreclosure on their loans

Actually it was a pro-NAMA individual I saw on boards the last day who said that NAMA would lead to reductions of debts for developers and hence help them get back into business, but lord knows where he picked that up.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What I've seen so far are arguments that take us to the point where NAMA is likely to lose some money, where there's a risk that the clawback mechanism may not be used because it is not legally required to be used, and where there were alternatives that may arguably have been preferable for a given value of preferable, but which would have offered the same kind of risks associated with government incompetence/corruption that apply to NAMA.

This is probably why none of the arguments are having an impact here. The purpose of NAMA is not to make money, the purpose of NAMA is not to claw back funding. You fundamentally misunderstand the stated purpose of NAMA.

NAMA is there to get credit moving again. It will not succeed in this goal.

Many and varied economists of all stripes and persuasions have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The IMF have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The originators of the idea have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz has said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The banks themselves have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again.

Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant to its goals.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

What I've seen so far are arguments that take us to the point where NAMA is likely to lose some money,

....despite FF lying that it will make a profit.....

Scofflaw wrote: »

where there's a risk that the clawback mechanism may not be used because it is not legally required to be used

......because FF won't put that legal requirement into the necessary legislation (why is this ?)

Scofflaw wrote: »

, and where there were alternatives that may arguably have been preferable for a given value of preferable, but which would have offered the same kind of risks associated with government incompetence/corruption that apply to NAMA.

Same risks but more equitable, accountable and fair (i.e. more preferable) then that, at least, would be an improvement.

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

NAMA is there to get credit moving again. It will not succeed in this goal.

Many and varied economists of all stripes and persuasions have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The IMF have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The originators of the idea have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz has said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The banks themselves have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again.

Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant to its goals.

You are correct. It is part of the process to get banks lending again. NAMA by itself will not do this, but dealing with the bad loans is a necessary part of it. I think everybody can agree on that, whether its by Nationalisation or letting them fail!

It making money seems to be part of the outcry against it though, or rather how it will not make money!

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

....despite FF lying that it will make a profit.....

Unfortunately, we'll only know in 10 years time. The claims of profit and loss are both arguable, and both probabilistic. The definitive statement that it will lose money, that Fianna Fáil know this for sure, and that they are therefore lying requires rather more support than has been offered yet.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.....because FF won't put that legal requirement into the necessary legislation (why is this ?)

It isn't in the legislation because then the NAMA risk isn't removed from the banks' balance sheets, which would make NAMA pointless.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Same risks but more equitable, accountable and fair (i.e. more preferable) then that, at least, would be an improvement.

Then a mechanism to do so is necessary. There's no point saying we'd like unicorns if they don't exist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

You are correct. It is part of the process to get banks lending again. NAMA by itself will not do this, but dealing with the bad loans is a necessary part of it. I think everybody can agree on that, whether its by Nationalisation or letting them fail!

So why has every government statement on the subject emphasised that NAMA will get lending moving again? I even put up an article in this thread where exactly that was said. There are lots of ways to deal with the bad loans, from default to a debt for equity renegotiation to just sending a bill to everyone in the country. NAMA is unfortunately closer to the latter than to the other options, and despite that we'll end up nationalising them after recapitalisation anyway.

K-9 wrote: »

It making money seems to be part of the outcry against it though, or rather how it will not make money!

Considering that the taxpayer will be on the hook for shortfalls, that is perhaps understandable. As far as objections to the purpose of NAMA go however, thats not the point.

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

To find out the reasons for his statement on transparency within NAMA, which admittedly is a bit more difficult than insinuating he is misleading everyone on the internet.

I haven't insinuated that he's incorrect - I've pointed out that he's making a definitive statement about matters that are not yet settled. He's neither correct nor incorrect as yet.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

On the contrary, it appears to have pushed the debate to new levels, which is in fact the point of "clarification".

One might attribute that to not allowing people to simply sling mud.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There were and are - I have pointed out one such to you already, the proper implementation of NAMA-like ideas by its originators, the Swedish.

Yes, that's an arguably better mechanism. It would still cost money, though.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No idea who said that.

That's what's implied when people say that NAMA is €54bn of debt being landed on the Irish taxpayer. Skim back through any NAMA thread.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What does this mean, the LTEV as set out by the Dept of Finance will actually be achieved, or are we mingling taxpayer, government and banks in this?

Specifically the bank levy.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Actually it was a pro-NAMA individual I saw on boards the last day who said that NAMA would lead to reductions of debts for developers and hence help them get back into business, but lord knows where he picked that up.

Again, it's regularly stated. Skim through any NAMA thread and you'll find it being said.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This is probably why none of the arguments are having an impact here. The purpose of NAMA is not to make money, the purpose of NAMA is not to claw back funding. You fundamentally misunderstand the stated purpose of NAMA.

NAMA is there to get credit moving again. It will not succeed in this goal.

No, NAMA is to take the toxic debt off the Irish banking system. I've stated that several times already.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Many and varied economists of all stripes and persuasions have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The IMF have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The originators of the idea have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz has said that NAMA will not get lending moving again. The banks themselves have said that NAMA will not get lending moving again.

Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant to its goals.

It's a necessary part of the process, but if you're setting up the question of it getting credit moving by itself, you're using a straw man.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, we'll only know in 10 years time. The claims of profit and loss are both arguable, and both probabilistic. The definitive statement that it will lose money, that Fianna Fáil know this for sure, and that they are therefore lying requires rather more support than has been offered yet.

They are stating it as fact in order to "sell" it, therefore they are lying.

Also, given that they are paying more than the assets are worth, and that they are banking on a large increase in "value" (despite the fact that we've barely gotten back to where we should have been all along), and the fact that people burned by FF reassurances that the boom was unbreakable are unlikely to be conned again makes the negative scenario far more likely.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They are stating it as fact in order to "sell" it, therefore they are lying.

If they're stating it as fact, then fair enough.

Also, given that they are paying more than the assets are worth, and that they are banking on a large increase in "value" (despite the fact that we've barely gotten back to where we should have been all along), and the fact that people burned by FF reassurances that the boom was unbreakable are unlikely to be conned again makes the negative scenario far more likely.

To be fair, a decade is a long time, and the rise is not enormous, but I'm not arguing that NAMA will make money.

cordially,
Scofflaw