Nama, An ingenius mechanism?

The_Honeybadger

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/namas-836450bn-bill-may-never-arrive-for-taxpayers-2122240.html

A very upbeat view on NAMA here by Moody's, saying basically that it is most likely that we will never repay a cent :eek:

Lets hope they are correct, although this doesn't include the recapitalisation money as far as I can tell

It also says

Moody's repeated its view that the big threat to Ireland's financial position is not the state of the banks but the future performance of the economy.

Basically it is far more important to stabilise our budget deficit

danman

Did you not know, our children, grandchildren and their children will still be paying for this.

There will never be a red cent returned. It is written in stars.

ei.sdraob

we be paying 5-10 billion a year just to service existing debts for better part of next decade

yes all will be fuzzy and warm i tell ya

The_Honeybadger

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we be paying 5-10 billion a year just to service existing debts for better part of next decade

yes all will be fuzzy and warm i tell ya

Most of that 5-10bn in interest has nothing to do with NAMA and we'd be paying it anyway. The article is not saying all is rosy nor am I trying to say that, just that NAMA will not cost us the 50bn that everyone assumes it will, the 30bn+ capitalisation problem still exists and the National Debt will balloon to over 100% of GDP unless we take major corrective action, nobody is trying to deny that.

ei.sdraob

mickeyk wrote: »

Most of that 5-10bn in interest has nothing to do with NAMA and we'd be paying it anyway. The article is not saying all is rosy nor am I trying to say that, just that NAMA will not cost us the 50bn that everyone assumes it will, the 30bn+ capitalisation problem still exists and the National Debt will balloon to over 100% of GDP unless we take major corrective action, nobody is trying to deny that.

i cant belive you are falling for the spin

this is anything but good

instead of 50 billion going thru NAMA which we were told will be able to tap low interest rates (which still comes with alot of risk > http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/03/economics-31032010-nama-funding-scheme.html)

we now will pay the difference directly by having to borrow 10-20 billion directly at the (still) high rate Ireland is getting

how in gods name is that "good" news? the only piece of good news is that markets have fallen for our "mirage" that we are doing something and luckily for us there is a bigger basket case called Greece for them to focus on, dont worry were right behind them in line....


Anglo written off 15billion as an impairment (mostly due to NAMA) and then turns around and asks for a larger amount to be injected directly, were ****ing overpaying for all of Anglo's **** one way or the other, discount my arse

The_Honeybadger

Ei.sdraob i have acknowleged that this whole fiasco will cost 30bn+ (mainly because of Anglo), however a bill of 30bn is surely better than a bill of 70bn is it not? I am not falling for any spin and am not a NAMA apologist, however NAMA is being thrust upon us whether we like it or not, so any hope that we can keep the bill down as far as possible I regard to be good news (if it turns out to be correct).

danman

ei.sdraob,
was there not many arguments on the NAMA threads about overpaying for the loans.

The crux of the NAMA'mites was that if we didn't over pay using the lower interest rate allowed for NAMA, we would only have to recapitalize the banks anyway with the remaining amount at the higher rate.

Yet, overpaying was rigourously argued against.

Personally, I'd have prefared to overpayed for NAMA loans with the lower interest rate, but then I'm not an economist. It just makes more sense to me.

ei.sdraob

its better for NAMA, but it in the bigger picture, the taxpayer is worse off, the banks still get same amount of money


ill make an example:
* a) You find out that your fixed low interest mortgage total amount is now smaller
* b) But then you learn the difference (from a) will have to be paid by your credit card which has higher interest


a) might be seen as good news, but once you hear of a) in the context of b) it be hard to call it "good news"

ei.sdraob

danman wrote: »

ei.sdraob,
was there not many arguments on the NAMA threads about overpaying for the loans.

yep except we are now in a worse possible scenario

not only we have NAMA but we also after all of that ended up nationalizing all the banks or owning large chunks of them

NAMA we were told was supposed to prevent that, fail

and of course still no credit available...

danman wrote: »

The crux of the NAMA'mites was that if we didn't over pay using the lower interest rate allowed for NAMA, we would only have to recapitalize the banks anyway with the remaining amount at the higher rate.

its not a fixed low rate for duration of NAMA, read into details > Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev wrote on this only few days ago

seems like its more of a tracker mortgage that will have to be updated every few months, and of course rates will only go up from here

danman wrote: »

Yet, overpaying was rigourously argued against.

Anglo managed to offload all its toxic **** at no discount one way or another as far as their accounts are concerned (from the point of view of the bank), the hole due to the discount they received is being paid by us directly!

do you think NAMA would have been swallowed so readily if people were told that Anglo's **** will be paid for in full one way or the other?

danman wrote: »

Personally, I'd have prefared to overpayed for NAMA loans with the lower interest rate, but then I'm not an economist. It just makes more sense to me.

personally we wouldn't have to be in this crazy situation if the retarded half arsed total guarantee was not put in place and anglo was allowed to sink then

dont forget the lost opportunity cost of them billions being pumped into anglo one way or the other, all of this money could have been used on a stimulus at least



to summarize: NAMA and the direct bailouts are an "ingenious" mechanism to pull wool over our eyes to cover the mistakes upon mistakes made under the FF govt, and to save their arses, and most perversely to make future generations pay for current and past mistakes of an incompetent bunch of clowns

/

Rebelheart

Yeah, well never let us forget that Moodys and the rest of those arseholes - Standard and Poor's etc - have an utterly abysmal record in judging economic reality.

The gall of newspapers to give such "rating" agencies any credit having been so ignominiously wrong on so much for so long.

NAMA will cost us hugely. The fact that a rating agency is saying otherwise is a very strong indicator of this.

MaceFace

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i cant belive you are falling for the spin

this is anything but good

instead of 50 billion going thru NAMA which we were told will be able to tap low interest rates (which still comes with alot of risk > http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/03/economics-31032010-nama-funding-scheme.html)

we now will pay the difference directly by having to borrow 10-20 billion directly at the (still) high rate Ireland is getting

how in gods name is that "good" news? the only piece of good news is that markets have fallen for our "mirage" that we are doing something and luckily for us there is a bigger basket case called Greece for them to focus on, dont worry were right behind them in line....


Anglo written off 15billion as an impairment (mostly due to NAMA) and then turns around and asks for a larger amount to be injected directly, were ****ing overpaying for all of Anglo's **** one way or the other, discount my arse

Hmmmm...... I commend you.
Honestly, the first sane and sensible argument against NAMA that may have opened my mind to the potential armageddon that may entail.

And to think you didn't have to resort to calling the anti-anti NAMA brigade a FF'er

Unfortunately, the more I dig deeper into NAMA the more confused I actually get. How are these bonds actually going to work?
What I think I see is that we pay this 0.5% + 6 month Euribor on the bonds (but not sure as the term sheet only mentions Euribor/Libor rate, no extra 0.5%?
The bonds are issues for 12 months, after which they can roll over with the same rate (which may change due to Euribor changing).

The problem posed is that it is possible for the 6 month Euribor rate could double, triple etc and then the repayments for NAMA loans won't cover the interest due on the bonds.

Leaving aside usual risks assosciated with bond issues, is there anything else that is special to NAMA?

ei.sdraob

as i said before

i might just have swallowed NAMA + bailouts if Anglo (and maybe Nationwide) was not involved in them and was allowed failed before guarantee came in, AIB and BOI are deeply entangled in the economy

the only thing Anglo was entangled with was crooks and FF


my worst fear which i also mentioned before

is that we endup doing NAMA + Nationalisation + at least one of the banks failing anyways, the worst of all options

its seems we are heading for that now anyways


as for that Dr. Gurdgiev article, that was news to me too, i actually fell for the "were getting cheap fixed interest from EU" line we were sold

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as i said before

i might just have swallowed NAMA + bailouts if Anglo (and maybe Nationwide) was not involved in them and was allowed failed before guarantee came in, AIB and BOI are deeply entangled in the economy

the only thing Anglo was entangled with was crooks and FF


my worst fear which i also mentioned before

is that we endup doing NAMA + Nationalisation + at least one of the banks failing anyways, the worst of all options

its seems we are heading for that now anyways


as for that Dr. Gurdgiev article, that was news to me too, i actually fell for the "were getting cheap fixed interest from EU" line we were sold

A big part of the problem though would be how the big players in Anglo would also have loans in AIB & BOI. They both aggressively went after the same market. There would be cross contamination there.

Also, while Anglo isn't/wasn't of systemic importance to me or you, it was to the Irish banking sector. It should have never got to the size it did, but it did. Irish Nationwide may have been simpler to let go in that regard.

Amhran Nua

Posted this already, but it does shine the harsh light of reality on NAMA, from Brian Lucey in the Times...

It seems that the “buy now, work out how to pay later” virus of the bubble years is rampant in Nama and the Department of Finance.

The other virus, that of funding short to buy long, the very tactic that brought down Lehmans, is also still rampant.

Not content with exposing the taxpayer to the risk (certainty, in my view) that the Nama loans will be overpaid for and will underperform, the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA), the Department of Finance and the Government have exposed the taxpayer to massive refinancing and interest rate risk.

In a world of tight credit, the taxpayer now has to float €50 billion each and every year. The Government has staked the future of the country on the mercy of the most volatile part of the financial markets, hoping that they will in turn take pity on us.

They won’t – they will extract interest payments from Nama that will, as certain as the sun rises, increase over time.

Funding at the short end of the maturity spectrum will allow the proponents for Nama to claim that it is cheap. It is apparent that neither the NTMA, Nama, the Department of Finance advisers, the Minister nor the Cabinet are aware that the yield curve, which indicates the future cost of funds, is upward sloping; if they do they do not seem to care.

KevinVonSpiel

So, I'm brushing up my foreign languages, how about everyone else?

mickeyk

mickeyk wrote: »

Ei.sdraob i have acknowleged that this whole fiasco will cost 30bn+ (mainly because of Anglo), however a bill of 30bn is surely better than a bill of 70bn is it not? I am not falling for any spin and am not a NAMA apologist, however NAMA is being thrust upon us whether we like it or not, so any hope that we can keep the bill down as far as possible I regard to be good news (if it turns out to be correct).

there is absolutely no way to keep the bills down. We pay for banks one way or the other. Recaps or through NAMA. If they manage to put a floor under house prices as Lenihan has stated is an aim then we pay that way too.

Its just one big loop

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Posted this already, but it does shine the harsh light of reality on NAMA, from Brian Lucey in the Times...

Lucey and some of his colleagues were giving out about predicted 15/20% discounts on NAMA 2 years ago and saying it would take to 2030 to recover to those prices. Now that discounts from 35-100% are declared, they have moved on to the next target.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Lucey and some of his colleagues were giving out about predicted 15/20% discounts on NAMA 2 years ago and saying it would take to 2030 to recover to those prices. Now that discounts from 35-100% are declared, they have moved on to the next target.

they increased the discounts but not before backdating the valuations
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7069825.ece

smoke and mirrors

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

they increased the discounts but not before backdating the valuations
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7069825.ece

smoke and mirrors

Some date has to be set and NAMA doesn't base the valuations just on property prices. It uses a complex calculation to work it out.

Anyway, we all know the less the valuation, the more the recapitalisation. If the valuation was lower the banks would need more capital to meet the Regulators new requirements, bless him!

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Some date has to be set and NAMA doesn't base the valuations just on property prices. It uses a complex calculation to work it out.

Anyway, we all know the less the valuation, the more the recapitalisation. If the valuation was lower the banks would need more capital to meet the Regulators new requirements, bless him!

A Complex Calculation eh? Give it up. Conduct a debt for equity negotiation, as should have been done in the first place and will probably ultimately have to be done, and wrap it up already.

flynnlives

a complex calculation! lol!

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A Complex Calculation eh? Give it up. Conduct a debt for equity negotiation, as should have been done in the first place and will probably ultimately have to be done, and wrap it up already.

Banks must provide detailed reports on developers to Nama - The Irish Times - Tue, Jul 07, 2009

And this, there was never going to be cross party support on this but however:
The Irish Economy » Sweden

K-9

flynnlives wrote: »

a complex calculation! lol!

Hence the calculations for some loans getting 0% to others getting 65%! Just plucked out of the air I suppose!

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Banks must provide detailed reports on developers to Nama - The Irish Times - Tue, Jul 07, 2009

So what? The only shocker here is that they haven't done so a year ago, assuming they even have accurate records of their loans, which is by no means assured.

K-9 wrote: »

And this, there was never going to be cross party support on this but however:
The Irish Economy » Sweden

Is that the same fella that had to fly back to Ireland to clarify the situation after his views were misrepresented in the press?

K-9 wrote: »

Just plucked out of the air I suppose!

Now you're getting it...

flynnlives

Either way the damage is done.
There is no question imo, we will default.

Our only hope is either we leave the euro or germany leaves on its own.

I have read of an ingenious idea whereby we re-introduce the punt internally and continue to use the euro externally. Highly unlikely tho.

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So what? The only shocker here is that they haven't done so a year ago, assuming they even have accurate records of their loans, which is by no means assured.

Would they be the likes of Carroll and his 100% haircut?

Amhran Nua wrote:

Is that the same fella that had to fly back to Ireland to clarfify the situation after his views were misrepresented in the press?

Do go on............

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Now you're getting it...

Like Lucey and his €100 Billion loss populist sh*te.

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So what? The only shocker here is that they haven't done so a year ago, assuming they even have accurate records of their loans, which is by no means assured.


.

The point is Lucey and his colleagues moaned about 15/20% discounts and 2030. Now when they get discounts of 35-100%, they move on to the next easy topic to attack.

One thing is true, there will be no cross party consensus with leeches like him around. He can't even have the balls to admit NAMA took his own type of advice on board. All he looks for is the next easy target.

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Would they be the likes of Carroll and his 100% haircut?

Do go on............

Liam Carroll was dragged through the courts, not through NAMA.

K-9 wrote: »

Like Lucey and his €100 Billion loss populist sh*te.

Did you use a Complex Calculation to work that one out? Can you give us any, and I mean any details on your Complex Calculation?

K-9 wrote: »

He can't even have the balls to admit NAMA took his own type of advice on board. All he looks for is the next easy target.

The EU forced deeper discounts on NAMA, not Brian Lucey, and we don't have the details on discounts yet if ever, none of which means anything to the original point that was made about a debt for equity swap.

I mean seriously, when you have a nobel prize winning economist calling NAMA "criminal", the gig is up, lads.

Slideshowbob

In the boom the general public were'nt aware of didn't know what Moodys etc did.

Now they are like soothsayers!!

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Liam Carroll was dragged through the courts, not through NAMA.


Did you use a Complex Calculation to work that one out? Can you give us any, and I mean any details on your Complex Calculation?


The EU forced deeper discounts on NAMA, not Brian Lucey, and we don't have the details on discounts yet if ever, none of which means anything to the original point that was made about a debt for equity swap.

I mean seriously, when you have a nobel prize winning economist calling NAMA "criminal", the gig is up, lads.

Some of Carrolls loans are being transferred to NAMA, ones outside the court case, of which some had no proper security or charges, so NAMA are giving zilch to AIB for them.

Not sure what calculation Lucey used! Sounds too much like LTEV to me though! I gave you a link to the complex calcualtion. Read the link and d a bit of googling.

As for your debt for equity, its over, get over it, NAMA is in operation, who the feck cares about debt for equity?

Quoting somebody else calling NAMA Criminal should be banned, its just finding a source that is the most disgusted. So what.

K-9

Slideshowbob wrote: »

In the boom the general public were'nt aware of didn't know what Moodys etc did.

Now they are like soothsayers!!

They've far too much power and influence for sure, but they are kind of important when they are an important player in determining our credit rating.

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Some of Carrolls loans are being transferred to NAMA, ones outside the court case, of which some had no proper security or charges, so NAMA are giving zilch to AIB for them.

How many, what percentage of them, details details, I like details.

K-9 wrote: »

Not sure what calculation Lucey used! Sounds too much like LTEV to me though! I gave you a link to the complex calcualtion. Read the link and d a bit of googling.

Why should I do the googling, you made the claim. Back it up.

K-9 wrote: »

As for your debt for equity, its over, get over it, NAMA is in operation, who the feck cares about debt for equity?

You think so?

K-9 wrote: »

Quoting somebody else calling NAMA Criminal should be banned, its just finding a source that is the most disgusted. So what.

Click the little complaint button on the post then. That you are willing to shrug off the opinion of a Nobel Prize winning economist on the government's economic plans speaks volumes about the relationship your argument has to reality.

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

How many, what percentage of them, details details, I like details.


Why should I do the googling, you made the claim. Back it up.


You think so?


Click the little complaint button on the post then. That you are willing to shrug off the opinion of a Nobel Prize winning economist on the government's economic plans speaks volumes about the relationship your argument has to reality.

Links please to your argument by authority? Why criminal? Some highly regarded Economic says it, so it must be so! Krugman was it?

The calculation is there in the link. Its complicated! so you need to do the research yourself! Jaysus, I'm not a lecturer on Economics!

As for Carroll, I don't have the details as well you know. Ignoring the petty squabbling, the likes of Lucey etc. argued for bigger discounts than originally planned 2 years ago, it was a big concern. They got the bigger discounts. Now they move onto the next target.

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Links please to your argument by authority? Why criminal? Some highly regarded Economic says it, so it must be so! Krugman was it?

Josef Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winning economist.

State 'squandering' money - Stiglitz

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the Government is "squandering" public money with its plan to establish the National Assets Management Agency (Nama).

Minister for Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said last month the Government will spend €54 billion buying up loans with a face value of €77 billion. The current market value of the loans is some €47 billion.

The €7 billion difference takes into account the properties' "long-term economic value", Mr Lenihan said.

"The Irish Government is squandering large amounts of money to bail out banks," Mr Stiglitz said at conference in Dublin today. "There's a sort of a view that there's no alternative."

That view is "nonsense", Mr Stiglitz said. "The rule of capitalism says that when firms can't pay what they owe, they go bankrupt."

"It's a massive transfer of money from the public to bankers," he said today.

Mr Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, told RTÉ's Prime Time last night that overpaying for the loans was "criminal".

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus, I'm not a lecturer on Economics!

Indeed.

K-9 wrote: »

As for Carroll, I don't have the details as well you know.

Well, I do now.

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Is that the same fella that had to fly back to Ireland to clarify the situation after his views were misrepresented in the press?

Karl Whelan, huh? Play the ball will ya!

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Karl Whelan, huh? Play the ball will ya!

What?

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Josef Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winning economist.



Indeed.


Well, I do now.

So, what laws are they breaking?

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What?

Yep.

Wondered what the feck you were on about myself to.

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

So, what laws are they breaking?

Its pretty easy for people who write laws not to break laws.

You can flap around all you like, it won't change the many damning arguments against NAMA, and I have to wonder why you are willing to ignore these realities in order to support it. Do you think NAMA will prop up house prices or something?

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its pretty easy for people who write laws not to break laws.

You can flap around all you like, it won't change the many damning arguments against NAMA, and I have to wonder why you are willing to ignore these realities in order to support it. Do you think NAMA will prop up house prices or something?

What is it with the personal attacks, snide insinuations and argument by authority? Are you a p.ie regular? Have you stopped beating your wife?

So, it isn't criminal. Why do you persist in spouting lies and populist nonsense from an economist. Other economists and institutions don't think its criminal, people don't go on about that. Its hyperbole.

NAMA can't solve the problems of the property market, despite its size. Anybody who thinks its an attempt to to that, is mad.

I can see the advantages and disadvantages of NAMA. I'm not that thick. For example I was worried about the discounts and they seem to be objective enough on them. Yes, they could be more but overall they seem to be going about their business professionally and with the taxpayer at heart.

You seem hell bent on this debt for equity thing. Anyway self interest to declare? :rolleyes:

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

What is it with the personal attacks, snide insinuations and argument by authority? Are you a p.ie regular? Have you stopped beating your wife?

If you don't want to answer the question, thats alright.

K-9 wrote: »

So, it isn't criminal. Why do you persist in spouting lies and populist nonsense from an economist. Other economists and institutions don't think its criminal, people don't go on about that. Its hyperbole.

A Nobel Prize winning economist thinks it is criminal. Note the difference between that and "legal". The IMF thinks its not going to work. 46 economists who signed a letter to the minister think its not going to work. The banks themselves say it won't cause credit to start moving again.

K-9 wrote: »

NAMA can't solve the problems of the property market, despite its size. Anybody who thinks its an attempt to to that, is mad.

Lenihan:

Yesterday, Mr Lenihan told the Sunday Independent: "One of the good things about the steep discount, averaging 47 per cent, is that the residential property market will now be stabilised at a realistic level."
He added: "You can now buy in confidence that the price is realistic."

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, they could be more but overall they seem to be going about their business professionally and with the taxpayer at heart.

It would appear to be a waste of time continuing this discussion I'm afraid. None are so blind and all that...

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

NAMA can't solve the problems of the property market, despite its size. Anybody who thinks its an attempt to to that, is mad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlz1IKWfw4

Lenihan is mad so

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you don't want to answer the question, thats alright.


A Nobel Prize winning economist thinks it is criminal. Note the difference between that and "legal". The IMF thinks its not going to work. 46 economists who signed a letter to the minister think its not going to work. The banks themselves say it won't cause credit to start moving again.


Lenihan:



It would appear to be a waste of time continuing this discussion I'm afraid. None are so blind and all that...

I did answer the question.

Did you miss the IMF backing NAMA or what?
RTÉ News: IMF gives positive response to NAMA

You put to much credence into what economists say. Its stupid to argue this economist and that economist says NAMA is criminal when others either support it or see the logic in it.

Others have tried to explain argument by authority to you and its pitfalls, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlz1IKWfw4

Lenihan is mad so

What part does he say NAMA will solve the problems in the property market?

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Did you miss the IMF backing NAMA or what?
RTÉ News: IMF gives positive response to NAMA

The IMF said it was legal. It didn't say it would work. The ECB echoed these sentiments.

K-9 wrote: »

You put to much credence into what economists say. Its stupid to argue this economist and that economist says NAMA is criminal when others either support it or see the logic in it.

A truck could be driven through the holes in that line of thinking. Which to my mind is a good thing, since its patently obvious to all and sundry by this stage how untenable your position is.

K-9 wrote: »

Others have tried to explain argument by authority to you and its pitfalls, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

You need to look up the actual meaning of argumentum ad verecundiam I think.

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The IMF said it was legal. It didn't say it would work. The ECB echoed these sentiments.


A truck could be driven through the holes in that line of thinking. Which to my mind is a good thing, since its patently obvious to all and sundry by this stage how untenable your position is.


You need to look up the actual meaning of argumentum ad verecundiam I think.

Did you even read the link? It doesn't even mention legality. Cop on and open your eyes.

Scrap that, that's the second link you either didn't bother reading or are incapable of putting your bias aside to read it objectively.

The IMF has not said it thinks NAMA will not work. No doubt you'll still go on spreading lies and populist hyerbole like it being criminal.

flynnlives

K-9 wrote: »

Did you even read the link? It doesn't even mention legality. Cop on and open your eyes.

He meant "criminal"in the hyberbole sense of the word ffs!

Cop on and open your eyes.

K-9

flynnlives wrote: »

He meant "criminal"in the hyberbole sense of the word ffs!

No, read his post again.

The IMF didn't mention legality obviously, but more importantly and more telling, it did not say it wouldn't work as Amhran Nua claimed.

Amhran Nua

K-9 wrote: »

Did you even read the link? It doesn't even mention legality. Cop on and open your eyes.

Scrap that, that's the second link you either didn't bother reading or are incapable of putting your bias aside to read it objectively.

The IMF has not said it thinks NAMA will not work. No doubt you'll still go on spreading lies and populist hyerbole like it being criminal.

We're through the looking glass with this one folks...

K-9

Amhran Nua wrote: »

We're through the looking glass with this one folks...

Look, your argument by authority looks rather bare when one of the authorities actually thinks NAMA will work and is an important part of the solution.

You got called on it and rather admitting it like a man, you resort to personal attacks to cover it up. The emperor has no clothes.

I can see why you are on p.ie alright.