NAMA buy loans with no paperwork

20Cent

According to this article on the journal 56% of NAMA debt 16.1 billion have incomplete paperwork and in some cases there is simply no paperwork at all.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-occupying-nama-buildings-isn%E2%80%99t-just-a-gesture-%E2%80%93-it%E2%80%99s-essential-research/

How are they supposed to collect loans without paperwork, how did they even acquire them?

There also is still not a full list of titles and sales available so how are they supposed to sell property if no one knows what they have.?

Sounds too crazy to be true but have thought that a few times in the last few years!

DEVEREUX

This is Ireland, believe it!

washman3

Just further proof of the scam that NAMA really is.
this secret society is nothing more than a vehicle to offset losses of government cronies in the hope that they will emerge unscathed at the end of this crisis to pursue their evil,greedy ways.

GetWithIt

A lot of former bank executives walking round with bulging briefcases me thinks.

FreudianSlippers

Article cites the 2010 report, but I couldn't see the info there that they claim to see... anyone?

View

20Cent wrote: »

According to this article on the journal 56% of NAMA debt 16.1 billion have incomplete paperwork and in some cases there is simply no paperwork at all.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-occupying-nama-buildings-isn%E2%80%99t-just-a-gesture-%E2%80%93-it%E2%80%99s-essential-research/

How are they supposed to collect loans without paperwork, how did they even acquire them?

There also is still not a full list of titles and sales available so how are they supposed to sell property if no one knows what they have.?

Sounds too crazy to be true but have thought that a few times in the last few years!

Did you never hear the story of The Emperor's New Clothes?

Sponge Bob

GetWithIt wrote: »

A lot of former bank executives walking round with bulging briefcases me thinks.

Yep, one guy who committed suicide had a right collection of loan documents that never made it into NAMA. Sadly the builders had no cash to buy them off him for scrappage and he had sizeable loans of his own to service.

johnnyskeleton

20Cent wrote: »

According to this article on the journal 56% of NAMA debt 16.1 billion have incomplete paperwork and in some cases there is simply no paperwork at all.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-occupying-nama-buildings-isn%E2%80%99t-just-a-gesture-%E2%80%93-it%E2%80%99s-essential-research/

How are they supposed to collect loans without paperwork, how did they even acquire them?

There also is still not a full list of titles and sales available so how are they supposed to sell property if no one knows what they have.?

Sounds too crazy to be true but have thought that a few times in the last few years!

Well it's simple really, the government pledged to buy all those loans without looking at what security they had.

Even more bizzarely, after they had committed this pledge to law, they then, and only then, brought in estate agents, accountants and solicitors to look and see if what they bought was worth it. At an estimated professional fees cost of c €20m to date or thereabouts, one wonders whether the professional fees bill is just good money after bad since in the event of a problem there is little that those professionals can do to fix it.

For balance, NAMA have some special statutory powers in terms of fixing problems with title or getting over missing documents, so it is not necessarily the case that such aquisitions are worthless.

Scofflaw

The idea was to acquire the questionable assets from the banks - I would have thought that loans with inadequate paperwork were obviously on that list. What discount were such loans acquired at, and what powers does NAMA have to rectify the matter that wouldn't have been available to the banks?

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

Scofflaw wrote: »

The idea was to acquire the questionable assets from the banks - I would have thought that loans with inadequate paperwork were obviously on that list. What discount were such loans acquired at, and what powers does NAMA have to rectify the matter that wouldn't have been available to the banks?

cordially,
Scofflaw

How can you have a loan with inadequate paperwork? Surely it isn't a legal contract if the proper documentation doesn't exist?

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

How can you have a loan with inadequate paperwork? Surely it isn't a legal contract if the proper documentation doesn't exist?

That would depend rather heavily on what paperwork is missing. As long as there is a signed contract for a loan between the two parties, the loan is valid. The paperwork problems seem to be more in the legal title to security for loans, which wouldn't invalidate the loan, but might require going to court to ensure title to the security.

The impression that the loans were transferred to NAMA without any idea of what paperwork existed seems to be fundamentally untrue - NAMA's report, on which the article's claim is based:

We know why NAMA is so reluctant to divulge details surrounding title ownership and sales. It is because a sizeable proportion of the loans in NAMA have incomplete paperwork surrounding them, and in some cases there is simply no paperwork at all. We know all of this because in its 2010 annual report NAMA told us that this was the case.

NAMA's 2010 report makes it clear that deficiencies in the paperwork formed part of the valuation process:

The valuation of loans acquired from PIs was based on an extensive due diligence process carried out by NAMA, which included detailed legal due diligence in respect of both the security held by the PIs for the loans and the assets securing them. Legal due diligence material submitted by PIs was reviewed by NAMA’s external legal panel: the reviews were required to highlight any issues which would give rise to legal difficulties for NAMA in managing the loans or in engaging in enforcement actions in respect of them. Particular attention is paid to the enforceability of security, any deficiencies in title to property and the implications of such deficiencies. Following this review, NAMA determines whether it is necessary to apply a discount to reflect any prospective realisation loss which may arise from defects in security or title.

NAMA is not required to acquire all eligible bank assets and may take into account factors such as any pending litigation, whether the security is adequate or has been perfected or whether the credit facility documentation is defective. To date, deficiencies in loan security identified in the due diligence process have been reflected in reductions of close to €300m on the acquisition price of the loans concerned.

So while there are deficiencies, and those deficiencies will cost NAMA court time, that was factored into the discount NAMA applied to the loans in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

waster81

More evidence if needed of what kind of crooks and wasters we had working in the private sector banks

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well it's simple really, the government pledged to buy all those loans without looking at what security they had.

That simply isn't true, hence NAMA varying differing %'s for different loans, depending on the quality of the loan.

Even more bizzarely, after they had committed this pledge to law, they then, and only then, brought in estate agents, accountants and solicitors to look and see if what they bought was worth it. At an estimated professional fees cost of c €20m to date or thereabouts, one wonders whether the professional fees bill is just good money after bad since in the event of a problem there is little that those professionals can do to fix it.

I don't know how that ties in with how NAMA works. I've big problems with the agencies and partnerships they employ but many loans were not transferred when the panels had been appointed.

For balance, NAMA have some special statutory powers in terms of fixing problems with title or getting over missing documents, so it is not necessarily the case that such aquisitions are worthless.

Indeed, they have gone after many of the "transfers" to partners names and forced the transaction to be reversed or just registered a charge anyway.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The idea was to acquire the questionable assets from the banks - I would have thought that loans with inadequate paperwork were obviously on that list. What discount were such loans acquired at, and what powers does NAMA have to rectify the matter that wouldn't have been available to the banks?

cordially,
Scofflaw

IIRC, loans with no paperwork were offered 0% or very little to reflect that.

Indeed, this is probably the big criticism of NAMA, that both good and bad loans were included, mostly down to the Greens and their part of signing up to it, it slowed NAMA up and more importantly gave the banks a reason to argue with NAMA and their valuations.