Who owns NAMA?

ei.sdraob

OK. maybe someone here has more information about NAMA ownership.

We know that NAMA is Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)

* 49% owned by the State (taxpayers)

* 51% owned by ??? (some private investors)


This information is not available on NAMA site, and was never mentioned anywhere as far as I can see...

Since the taxpayer is guaranteeing fully the NAMA bonds (Despite only owning 49%)

someone is making a good investment without risk


So the question is who? With this whole NAMA thing being so secretive and protected from freedom of information requests, someone is being taken for a ride.

Scarab80

ei.sdraob wrote: »

OK. maybe someone here has more information about NAMA ownership.

We know that NAMA is Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)

* 49% owned by the State (taxpayers)

* 51% owned by ??? (some private investors)


This information is not available on NAMA site, and was never mentioned anywhere as far as I can see...

Since the taxpayer is guaranteeing fully the NAMA bonds (Despite only owning 49%)

someone is making a good investment without risk


So the question is who? With this whole NAMA thing being so secretive and protected from freedom of information requests, someone is being taken for a ride.

What do you mean without risk??? They are equity investors, if NAMA does not generate income from it's loans in excess of the bonds it has issued and running expenses then the investment company will be insolvent and they will have a 100% loss on their investment.

All we know about the investors is from Lenihans answer to questions on 28th April,

Three private investors, namely, Irish Life Investment Managers, New Ireland Assurance and a group of clients of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers, have each invested €17m in the vehicle. It is important to note that in each case the beneficial owners of the investment are pension funds or other clients of these investment companies and not the parent credit institution.

So we still don't know who the beneficial owners are....

If you want to search anymore here are the documents submitted to the CRO page for National Asset Managment Agency Investment Limited, that is the holding company which owns 100% of National Asset Management Limited, which is the operating entity.

ei.sdraob

Thanks for the info
I thought NAMA spawned several LTD companies to manage various aspects as per the last business plan
I suppose could pay CRO to look at the documents submitted, at 5euro a pop a doc ...


As for "no risk" I mean
The taxpayer is guaranteeing 100% of the NAMA bonds while owning only 49%
If things go wrong we pay for the lot not just 49%
Especially if these investors are the same Irish banks involved in NAMA
I just dont understand why the need for so much secrecy and opaqueness

ei.sdraob

how much money did they (whoever "they" are) invest in NAMA to gain a 51% share???

Let me elaborate, just trying wrap head around this mess

* NAMA is dealing with billions of euro,
* by issuing NAMA bonds (which are practically state bonds),
* these can be used as security with ECB for banks to borrow against at low rate
* these bonds also carry interest
* banks exchange toxic assets for bonds


Now if NAMA fails

these "investors" loose 51% of what exactly? what did they put in total??

if these investors are the same Irish banks being involved in NAMA (remember that we now practically own all the banks), likely?
then are they not back to square 1 minus billions spend in running fees

Scarab80

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Thanks for the info
I thought NAMA spawned several LTD companies to manage various aspects as per the last business plan
I suppose could pay CRO to look at the documents submitted, at 5euro a pop a doc ...


As for "no risk" I mean

The taxpayer is guaranteeing 100% of the NAMA bonds while owning only 49%

If things go wrong we pay for the lot not just 49%

Especially if these investors are the same Irish banks involved in NAMA

I just dont understand why the need for so much secrecy and opaqueness

If you ever want CRO documents go for the private sector option http://www.vision-net.ie/ , they provide a better service than the CRO search facility and charge €2.10 per document. Surprising eh?

The shareholding structure is as follows....



In relation to the risk. The return that the private investors can earn is capped in recognition of the fact that the bonds are government guarnateed. See here, annual dividends are capped at the prevailing 10 year bond rate and final bonus is capped at 10% of capital invested if a profit has been made.

One thing we do know is that the investors are not the banks involved

It is important to note that in each case the beneficial owners of the investment are pension funds or other clients of these investment companies and not the parent credit institution.

I'm surprised that the names of the investors haven't been leaked, that could mean there is a higher chance of it being an individual investor. If it was a pension fund you might expect any of the number of people involved in administiring it to leak the info.

I know if I was approached to invest in NAMA and made the investment on a purely financial basis I wouldn't want to have my name made public due to the public nature of that investment and the consequential intrusion into my life.

Then again suspicions will obviously continue so it would be nice if NAMA could confirm or deny that the investors are in no way linked to the institutions or developers involved in NAMA.

ei.sdraob

Thanks again, more reading to do today then

Scarab80

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how much money did they (whoever "they" are) invest in NAMA to gain a 51% share???

Let me elaborate, just trying wrap head around this mess

* NAMA is dealing with billions of euro,
* by issuing NAMA bonds (which are practically state bonds),
* these can be used as security with ECB for banks to borrow against at low rate
* these bonds also carry interest
* banks exchange toxic assets for bonds


Now if NAMA fails

these "investors" loose 51% of what exactly? what did they put in total??

They put in 51 million, the equity in NAMAI Limited is 100 million, the other 49 million being owned by NAMA (the state agency). It works in the same way as any private company, if the cash flow of the liabilities (NAMA bonds, bond interest and running expenses) are greater than the cash flow of the assets (interest income, loan repayment and sale of repossesed properties) then the company will be insolvent. The 100 million will not be returned (like Anglo shareholders obatining 0 on their investment), the State will lose 49 million and the private investors will lose 51 million. After that if there is still a loss NAMA will default on it'subordinated bonds which make up 5% of the bonds issued and are not government guaranteed. After that if there is still a loss we are into the state having to pay to guarantee the other 95% of state guaranteed bonds.

if these investors are the same Irish banks being involved in NAMA (remember that we now practically own all the banks), likely?
then are they not back to square 1 minus billions spend in running fees[/QUOTE]

namawinelake

The owners of the 51% investment in NAMA are listed below. However we do not know, to use moneylaunderling parlance, the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the investments and there are lots of conspiracy theories as to their identity.

1. Irish Life Investment Managers “the asset management arm of Irish Life & Permanent plc. ILIM manages money on behalf of a wide range of clients from large multinational corporations, charities and domestic companies. Currently managing assets of in excess of €30bn”
2. New Ireland Assurance “As part of the Bank of Ireland Group, New Ireland is backed by the Group’s resources and expertise. New Ireland is one of the leading life assurance companies in Ireland, providing for the future of hundreds of thousands of customers with easy to understand life assurance, pension, savings and investment products.”
3. “group of clients” of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers “is an autonomous, independently managed investment manager. We specialise in the provision of discretionary investment management on behalf of a diverse client base. AIBIM has been managing investment portfolios in Ireland, the U.S., Europe and Asia since 1966.”

Scarab80

namawinelake wrote: »

The owners of the 51% investment in NAMA are listed below. However we do not know, to use moneylaunderling parlance, the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the investments and there are lots of conspiracy theories as to their identity.

1. Irish Life Investment Managers “the asset management arm of Irish Life & Permanent plc. ILIM manages money on behalf of a wide range of clients from large multinational corporations, charities and domestic companies. Currently managing assets of in excess of €30bn”
2. New Ireland Assurance “As part of the Bank of Ireland Group, New Ireland is backed by the Group’s resources and expertise. New Ireland is one of the leading life assurance companies in Ireland, providing for the future of hundreds of thousands of customers with easy to understand life assurance, pension, savings and investment products.”
3. “group of clients” of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers “is an autonomous, independently managed investment manager. We specialise in the provision of discretionary investment management on behalf of a diverse client base. AIBIM has been managing investment portfolios in Ireland, the U.S., Europe and Asia since 1966.”

Alright mate, congratulations on your blog. Without doubt the best source of NAMA related information out there. Keep up the good work.

ei.sdraob

* New Ireland Assurance is part of BOI Group

* Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers is part of AIB


hmm talk about a conflict of interest....

hinault

namawinelake wrote: »

The owners of the 51% investment in NAMA are listed below. However we do not know, to use moneylaunderling parlance, the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the investments and there are lots of conspiracy theories as to their identity.

1. Irish Life Investment Managers “the asset management arm of Irish Life & Permanent plc. ILIM manages money on behalf of a wide range of clients from large multinational corporations, charities and domestic companies. Currently managing assets of in excess of €30bn”
2. New Ireland Assurance “As part of the Bank of Ireland Group, New Ireland is backed by the Group’s resources and expertise. New Ireland is one of the leading life assurance companies in Ireland, providing for the future of hundreds of thousands of customers with easy to understand life assurance, pension, savings and investment products.”
3. “group of clients” of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers “is an autonomous, independently managed investment manager. We specialise in the provision of discretionary investment management on behalf of a diverse client base. AIBIM has been managing investment portfolios in Ireland, the U.S., Europe and Asia since 1966.”

Thanks for this, lake

jmayo

Scarab80 wrote: »

What do you mean without risk??? They are equity investors, if NAMA does not generate income from it's loans in excess of the bonds it has issued and running expenses then the investment company will be insolvent and they will have a 100% loss on their investment.

All we know about the investors is from Lenihans answer to questions on 28th April,

So we still don't know who the beneficial owners are....

If you want to search anymore here are the documents submitted to the CRO page for National Asset Managment Agency Investment Limited, that is the holding company which owns 100% of National Asset Management Limited, which is the operating entity.

So they put in 17m ?
How much again are NAMA paying for the loans, is it not billions ?

namawinelake wrote: »

The owners of the 51% investment in NAMA are listed below. However we do not know, to use moneylaunderling parlance, the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the investments and there are lots of conspiracy theories as to their identity.

1. Irish Life Investment Managers “the asset management arm of Irish Life & Permanent plc. ILIM manages money on behalf of a wide range of clients from large multinational corporations, charities and domestic companies. Currently managing assets of in excess of €30bn”
2. New Ireland Assurance “As part of the Bank of Ireland Group, New Ireland is backed by the Group’s resources and expertise. New Ireland is one of the leading life assurance companies in Ireland, providing for the future of hundreds of thousands of customers with easy to understand life assurance, pension, savings and investment products.”
3. “group of clients” of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers “is an autonomous, independently managed investment manager. We specialise in the provision of discretionary investment management on behalf of a diverse client base. AIBIM has been managing investment portfolios in Ireland, the U.S., Europe and Asia since 1966.”

Exactly we have investment arms of the three major Irish financial institutions (IL&P, BOI, AIB) buying into the very vehicle that is there to resuce their parent companies.

Even better folks, the real kicker here may be that these same investment arms AFAIK may invest pension funds on behalf of their parent groups, so in affect they may be investing Irish taxpayers pensions into NAMA ?

Note I said "may be".

Now wouldn't that be great, my Irish life pension gets another drastic cut as the fund loses yet more money when invested in a property fund called NAMA.

P. Breathnach

It should be borne in mind that it is necessary that NAMA get most of its capital from non-exchequer participants so that it is not classed as a state agency. This is because of EU restrictions on state aid to the private sector.

NAMA's own capital is essentially an amount to set it up and operate it -- things like offices, staff, equipment, and bought-in expertise. The core business of NAMA will be to borrow funds and use those funds to purchase very large slices of banks' loan books at a discount.

Let's be realistic here. Even the more optimistic projections (perhaps better labelled as "guesses") were that NAMA would make a relatively small profit. I am not the only one who didn't think a profit likely, and hoped that the losses would not be too great.

namwinelake has pointed out that we do not know the identities of the beneficial owners of the 51% outside investment in NAMA. In effect, those whose names are identified are nominees. The idea of the principal clients of NAMA having a controlling interest is so patently wrong that even an Irish banker would not dare try it (they might have before the crash, but not now).

Laminations

Let me get this straight. If NAMA makes a profit, the 51% stakeholders get a limited cut, but if NAMA makes a loss they take no share in that and the taxpayers take 100% of the hit?

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It should be borne in mind that it is necessary that NAMA get most of its capital from non-exchequer participants so that it is not classed as a state agency. This is because of EU restrictions on state aid to the private sector.

NAMA's own capital is essentially an amount to set it up and operate it -- things like offices, staff, equipment, and bought-in expertise. The core business of NAMA will be to borrow funds and use those funds to purchase very large slices of banks' loan books at a discount.

Let's be realistic here. Even the more optimistic projections (perhaps better labelled as "guesses") were that NAMA would make a relatively small profit. I am not the only one who didn't think a profit likely, and hoped that the losses would not be too great.

namwinelake has pointed out that we do not know the identities of the beneficial owners of the 51% outside investment in NAMA. In effect, those whose names are identified are nominees. The idea of the principal clients of NAMA having a controlling interest is so patently wrong that even an Irish banker would not dare try it (they might have before the crash, but not now).

The money "invested" by these "investors" (few dozen million) in order to bypass EU rules would not cover the few billion in running costs

Scarab80

Laminations wrote: »

Let me get this straight. If NAMA makes a profit, the 51% stakeholders get a limited cut, but if NAMA makes a loss they take no share in that and the taxpayers take 100% of the hit?

No, i don't know how you could come to that assumption from the previous posts. The investors take a 100% hit if losses from NAMA exceed 100 million.

Laminations

Scarab80 wrote: »

No, i don't know how you could come to that assumption from the previous posts. The investors take a 100% hit if losses from NAMA exceed 100 million.

So if we borrowed 2 billion in government bonds for assets that eventually only gave a return of 1 billion then people who invested 51 million would then be in the hole for half the loss / 500 million?

Scarab80

jmayo wrote: »

So they put in 17m ?
How much again are NAMA paying for the loans, is it not billions ?

They put in 17m each, that's 51 million.

Yes NAMA are paying billions. Obviously this is just a method of keeping the transactions off balance sheet, NAMA is a state vehicle, the risk assumed by the investors in overall terms is minimal in comparison to risk to the state. This is also reflected in the restriction of gains the investors can make if NAMA makes money.

Having said that 51 million is still a lot of money and the private investors will have a say in the management of the loans and will obviously be seeking to maximise their returns so there is an incentive there.

jmayo wrote: »

Exactly we have investment arms of the three major Irish financial institutions (IL&P, BOI, AIB) buying into the very vehicle that is there to resuce their parent companies.

IL&P is not part of NAMA.

They are investment managers who manage funds for their clients, all we know at the moment is that the parent credit institutions are not the beneficiaries of the investment.

jmayo wrote: »

Even better folks, the real kicker here may be that these same investment arms AFAIK may invest pension funds on behalf of their parent groups, so in affect they may be investing Irish taxpayers pensions into NAMA ?

Note I said "may be".

Now wouldn't that be great, my Irish life pension gets another drastic cut as the fund loses yet more money when invested in a property fund called NAMA.

Yes they could be pension funds if your pension fund took the decision to invest in NAMA.

Laminations

Scarab80 wrote: »

They put in 17m each, that's 51 million.

Yes NAMA are paying billions. Obviously this is just a method of keeping the transactions off balance sheet, NAMA is a state vehicle, the risk assumed by the investors in overall terms is minimal in comparison to risk to the state. This is also reflected in the restriction of gains the investors can make if NAMA makes money.

Having said that 51 million is still a lot of money and the private investors will have a say in the management of the loans and will obviously be seeking to maximise their returns so there is an incentive there.

Sorry I still don't get it, I'll put it this way. How much of a hypothetical 500 million euro loss would the 51%age share investors be liable for? And conversely how much of a 500 million euro gain would they be entitled to?

Scarab80

Laminations wrote: »

So if we borrowed 2 billion in government bonds for assets that eventually only gave a return of 1 billion then people who invested 51 million would then be in the hole for half the loss / 500 million?

No.

NAMA's SPV is a limited liability company. The shareholders equity is 100million. The state, through NAMA (the agency) put 49 million into this equity for 49% share, the private investors put in 51 million for 51%.

The government does not need to borrow to issue the NAMA bonds, the idea is that the SPV issues the bonds and can then service these bonds though the repayments on loans that they receive. If all goes to plan then no problem, the SPV will have enough funding to service the bonds. If at the end of the agency there is excess funding in the SPV, the investors will reeive a 10% bonus on their investment and the remainder will be distributed back to the exchequer.

If it all goes tits up, the NAMA SPV becomes insolvent and the equity holders lose their stake of 100m, but because the bonds are government guaranteed the state must make up the shortfall if the SPV does not have enough funds (95% of the bonds issued by NAMA are government guaranteed, the other 5% are not guaranteed and can be defaulted on)

Laminations

Scarab80 wrote: »

No.

NAMA's SPV is a limited liability company. The shareholders equity is 100million. The state, through NAMA (the agency) put 49 million into this equity for 49% share, the private investors put in 51 million for 51%.

The government does not need to borrow to issue the NAMA bonds, the idea is that the SPV issues the bonds and can then service these bonds though the repayments on loans that they receive. If all goes to plan then no problem, the SPV will have enough funding to service the bonds. If at the end of the agency there is excess funding in the SPV, the investors will reeive a 10% bonus on their investment and the remainder will be distributed back to the exchequer.

If it all goes tits up, the NAMA SPV becomes insolvent and the equity holders lose their stake of 100m, but because the bonds are government guaranteed the state must make up the shortfall if the SPV does not have enough funds (95% of the bonds issued by NAMA are government guaranteed, the other 5% are not guaranteed and can be defaulted on)

Thanks for explaining. When you say 10% do you mean an extra 1.7mil each or a 10% share of a possible profit (e.g. If 500 mil they get 50)?

Scarab80

Laminations wrote: »

Thanks for explaining. When you say 10% do you mean an extra 1.7mil each or a 10% share of a possible profit (e.g. If 500 mil they get 50)?

1.7 million, they also get a dividend on an annual basis if the SPV is in profit. This is capped at the 10-year government bond rate at the time of payment.

From what i can see from the first 2 days of trading accounts it would appear that there is also a fixed interest repayment on the 100 million.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The money "invested" by these "investors" (few dozen million) in order to bypass EU rules would not cover the few billion in running costs

What few billion in running costs?

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What few billion in running costs?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-running-costs-are-set-to-plunge-below-8364200m-2196135.html

Sources said the final annual running costs are likely to be ``substantially'' down on the original €240m cost. Based on this figure NAMA was on track to cost €2.6bn over 10 years. If the new cost base is €200m the cost over ten years would shrink to €2bn.

2 billion over 10 years running costs

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-running-costs-are-set-to-plunge-below-8364200m-2196135.html

2 billion over 10 years running costs

Thanks. It does look rather pricey.

snubbleste

Can someone explain in a simple sentence or two who owns Nama?

Sponge Bob

I cant. no data exists on the spv structure that i know of.

the culture of deference

So if NAMA buy only the security of the loans, they will never actually own the assets for the loans that they are covering.

So treasury can go bankrupt, Nama gets fleeced, who then owns the actual assets.

antoobrien

the culture of deference wrote: »

So if NAMA buy only the security of the loans, they will never actually own the assets for the loans that they are covering.

So treasury can go bankrupt, Nama gets fleeced, who then owns the actual assets.

As was explained in this post NAMA only get involved in ownership of a property if a receiver is appointed. If treasury holdings do go bust, since NAMA own a lot (if not all) of their loans a receiver will be appointed and they will own the properties backed up by those loans.

the culture of deference

antoobrien wrote: »

As was explained in this post NAMA only get involved in ownership of a property if a receiver is appointed. If treasury holdings do go bust, since NAMA own a lot (if not all) of their loans a receiver will be appointed and they will own the properties backed up by those loans.

well the recievers are in, but the boys have an injunction, they are off to court late feb.

they tried to sell to a foreign co., for half the value nama covered, but with treasury still holding the assests somehow.
also they are not sure if the debt is 1.2 billion or 2 billion, depending on ronans private debts

antoobrien

the culture of deference wrote: »

well the recievers are in, but the boys have an injunction, they are off to court late feb.

they tried to sell to a foreign co., for half the value nama covered, but with treasury still holding the assests somehow.
also they are not sure if the debt is 1.2 billion or 2 billion, depending on ronans private debts

Any source to back up what they tried to do?

It sounds like they tried to get the foreign company/consortium to buy the loans for a price NAMA wouldn't take. NAMA are not obligated to sell at any price, especially if they think they can get a better price.

MadsL

namawinelake wrote: »

The owners of the 51% investment in NAMA are listed below. However we do not know, to use moneylaunderling parlance, the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the investments and there are lots of conspiracy theories as to their identity.

1. Irish Life Investment Managers “the asset management arm of Irish Life & Permanent plc. ILIM manages money on behalf of a wide range of clients from large multinational corporations, charities and domestic companies. Currently managing assets of in excess of €30bn”
2. New Ireland Assurance “As part of the Bank of Ireland Group, New Ireland is backed by the Group’s resources and expertise. New Ireland is one of the leading life assurance companies in Ireland, providing for the future of hundreds of thousands of customers with easy to understand life assurance, pension, savings and investment products.”
3. “group of clients” of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers “is an autonomous, independently managed investment manager. We specialise in the provision of discretionary investment management on behalf of a diverse client base. AIBIM has been managing investment portfolios in Ireland, the U.S., Europe and Asia since 1966.”

Ah, crap that means my pension is in their hands. More money lost so....

the culture of deference

antoobrien wrote: »

Any source to back up what they tried to do?

It sounds like they tried to get the foreign company/consortium to buy the loans for a price NAMA wouldn't take. NAMA are not obligated to sell at any price, especially if they think they can get a better price.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ronan-links-to-bidder-damaged-900m-deal-3003091.html


A series of close links between developer Johnny Ronan and the Irish managing director of a company that tried to buy up to €900m worth of Treasury Holdings' loans from Nama has emerged as a contributing factor in the decision by the State's so-called 'bad bank' to appoint receivers, the Sunday Independent has learnt.



Sunday Independent understands that links -- both direct and indirect -- between Hines' Irish managing director Brian Moran and Treasury Holdings chief Mr Ronan proved to be "uncomfortable" for the State agency.


Further investigation by the Sunday Independent shows that Buildonline -- a company founded by Mr Moran in 1998 -- counted Treasury Holdings among its biggest clients while another of his companies, Urban Capital, has acted as a consultant for many of Ireland's biggest developer borrowers.

Hayte

namawinelake wrote: »

The owners of the 51% investment in NAMA are listed below. However we do not know, to use moneylaunderling parlance, the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the investments and there are lots of conspiracy theories as to their identity.

1. Irish Life Investment Managers “the asset management arm of Irish Life & Permanent plc. ILIM manages money on behalf of a wide range of clients from large multinational corporations, charities and domestic companies. Currently managing assets of in excess of €30bn”
2. New Ireland Assurance “As part of the Bank of Ireland Group, New Ireland is backed by the Group’s resources and expertise. New Ireland is one of the leading life assurance companies in Ireland, providing for the future of hundreds of thousands of customers with easy to understand life assurance, pension, savings and investment products.”
3. “group of clients” of Allied Irish Banks Investment Managers “is an autonomous, independently managed investment manager. We specialise in the provision of discretionary investment management on behalf of a diverse client base. AIBIM has been managing investment portfolios in Ireland, the U.S., Europe and Asia since 1966.”

Can I ask where you got this information from? From the most recent B1 - Annual Return?

I could buy a copy now for €2.50 but ehhh, I kind of don't want to sign in with my company's account and buy something not related to work on my own dime if the information is already out there.

Sponge Bob

Whatever Namawinelake says is totally accurate in my experience.

Any confusion must be addressed to M Noonan esq.