NAMA-Why do we take it lying down?

Brussels Sprout · 03-02-2010 12:52AM

I'd be interested to hear what people have to say about David McWilliam's solution to the crisis.

He agreed that there was no easy way to solve the crisis but he advocated a big hit now in order that we could recover faster (like an amputation I guess)

He proposed not renewing the bank guarantee when it expires later this year and letting the banks sink or swim. In all likelihood they'd fail and the loss would be borne by the bond holders (who he claims are owed nothing since they are effectively gambling by buying irish bank bonds).

His second action would be to pull out of the euro so that we have control over our interest rates again and to then devalue our new currency in order that we can be immediately competitive.

Welease · 03-02-2010 12:53AM

Look let me explain... its getting to split up with multi quoting..

I am neither for nor against any particular system. What I am asking of those who are so vehemently against NAMA is what solution do they have.

NAMA is a pretty simple system.. We pay over the odds for property in order to free up capital and credit for the banks... It will cost us 54Billion (or so), and we might break even if prices rise.. So essentially our starting point is we are down 17 (54 billion minus 30% your figures for example) or so billion on the initial transaction,

You solution is to let the banks fold.. get the credit unions to remploy those employees, modify their systems to cope with the new business models and retrain the staff and hand across 54 billion (which if you worked out the detail is far more then they would even need.. but anyway its your plan). For all that upheaval, the banks get their due punishment, but as your plan has no way of clawing back those funds.. it costs the state 54 billion to execute this plan..

The difference between the plans is about 37 billion which (and I can't be bothered to check) is more than our entire tax take this year..

I honestly can't work out how this can be better... explain..

Welease · 03-02-2010 12:57AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Quit back-tracking and avoiding the question!

You claimed (incorrectly) earlier that :

Given the 30% difference that you're now acknowledging, will you now admit that that was 100% misleading and incorrect ?

Absolutely I will admit i made an mistake on this.. No issues.. my point was to express that it can be possible to generate a profit over time, but as you rightly pointed out.. i missed the initial 30% haircut which needs to be factored in..

Now in the same fashion, Can you explain how your plan is better than NAMA, when yours gives us a 54 billion loss...

(again, I am not attemping nor wish to get into a rediculous game of internet one-upmanship... If your plan has merit lets discuss it on its merits)

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:04AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Quit back-tracking and avoiding the question!

You claimed (incorrectly) earlier that :

Given the 30% difference that you're now acknowledging, will you now admit that that was 100% misleading and incorrect ?

Anyway, to answer your question, the FF spin machine has repeatedly denied that it's a bailout for the banks, and that "it's required to get credit moving".

Given that the banks have already given the two-fingers to FF (who stupidly had no real conditions on the bailout), there is no guarantee that it will do this.

If that was FF's criteria, then my solution achieves that.

It also puts money back into the economy, thereby encouraging commerce, and thereby keeping jobs and businesses afloat.

And bear in mind that I quoted figures of €74 BILLION, when you take into account the recapitalisation.....and €20 BILLION of that is already GONE.

So putting €54 BILLION (or, if you prefer, €54 BILLION minus the 30%, so that we don't lose more than NAMA) into the Credit Unions is fairer, more just, and achieves the stated aim.

OK lets forget about what FF think say or do.. they have little or no relevance to the merit of a plan...

So lets look at these numbers...

We can't go back in time

So the 20 billion already gone is gone.. You cant add it to one number and not add it to the other.. that money has been spent.. any plan works forward from now

54 Billion into NAMA gets us 37B of propety, and free's up credit = 17B spent
54 Billion (or 37b) into CU free's up credit = 54b(or 37b) spent

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:06AM

Welease wrote: »

Absolutely I will admit i made an mistake on this.. No issues.. my point was to express that it can be possible to generate a profit over time, but as you rightly pointed out.. i missed the initial 30% haircut which needs to be factored in..

Now in the same fashion, Can you explain how your plan is better than NAMA, when yours gives us a 54 billion loss...

(again, I am not attemping nor wish to get into a rediculous game of internet one-upmanship... If your plan has merit lets discuss it on its merits)

OK, my main point is that in order for NAMA to not make a loss, prices have to get at least partially ridiculous again, and therefore wages, etc have to follow, and so the economy returns to the silly days.

A certain amount of investment which would counteract that is welcome; it would be a loss, but it would pay off in the long term.

Also, it doesn't have to be €54 billion; it could be any amount based on the same principle, and it would be given ONLY on the premise that it would be lent out (subject to sensible credit terms, and not the all-or-nothing of the banks).

That keeps businesses in operation and keeps jobs, thereby reducing dole and other welfare costs.

So again, we're talking about offsetting the "zero return" that you suggested against a negative value which would otherwise result due to additional outlay for welfare.

My main point of suggesting this is that everyone claims that there's no-one suggesting alternatives. I'm not an expert economist, but it's a suggestion worth looking into, instead of claiming "there is no alternative".

Even if it were €20 billion spent on my scheme, it could be better than NAMA, which is a gamble and - as I said - has already resulted in a negative starting point of approximately €40 billion.

The fact that you even used the word "haircut" to describe the overpayment is surprising....only FF spin-doctors use that term.

All I'm saying is that this "NAMA is the only way to go" is bull****, as is the "no-one is suggesting alternatives".

But at least mine has potential, is fair, and doesn't reward corruption and incompetence.

If I were paid €300,000 a year, I'd investigate it fully for you and provide a full report.

But the person in that position - Lenihan - is not willing to even consider an alternative.

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:06AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what people have to say about David McWilliam's solution to the crisis.

He agreed that there was no easy way to solve the crisis but he advocated a big hit now in order that we could recover faster (like an amputation I guess)

He proposed not renewing the bank guarantee when it expires later this year and letting the banks sink or swim. In all likelihood they'd fail and the loss would be borne by the bond holders (who he claims are owed nothing since they are effectively gambling by buying irish bank bonds).

His second action would be to pull out of the euro so that we have control over our interest rates again and to then devalue our new currency in order that we can be immediately competitive.

Is there an EU or market-based downside to this?

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:11AM

Welease wrote: »

54 Billion into NAMA gets us 37B of propety, and free's up credit = 17B spent

Slightly simplistic.

If people were prepared to buy it at it's current €37,000,000,000 price, they would be buying it.

So there is no guarantee that this will only mean €17,000,000,000 wasted.

But let's take that figure. Let's just assume that we're giving the €17,000,000 ONLY to the Credit Unions.......I mean, it's gone anyway, and if the Government sees nothing wrong with wasting the €20,000,000,000 - then they'd have no problem with risking wasting less.

Brussels Sprout · 03-02-2010 01:14AM

Welease wrote: »

Is there an EU or market-based downside to this?

Well he said that the EU wouldn't be too happy with us pulling out of the Euro due to a possible 'Domino Effect'. Also any deposits in Irish banks would be devalued.

As for burning the bond holder's of the banks. He says that there's a misconception that we'd be ostracized by international investors but that this simply would not be the case. He gives examples of where this has previously happened and shown that all investors care about are future gains and that if by letting the banks fail, we make Ireland a better place to invest then they will come back.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:17AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He proposed not renewing the bank guarantee when it expires later this year and letting the banks sink or swim. In all likelihood they'd fail and the loss would be borne by the bond holders (who he claims are owed nothing since they are effectively gambling by buying irish bank bonds).

100% agreed. While personally I believe that it should never have been guaranteed in the first place, it should definitely be disgarded now - after the banks refused to play ball re their chiefs and also now that the full extent of the Anglo corruption has been revealed.

They've also - despite being rescued - refused to provide credit and have tried every trick to get as much crap transferred to NAMA as possible.

They had their chance, and they blew it.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

His second action would be to pull out of the euro so that we have control over our interest rates again and to then devalue our new currency in order that we can be immediately competitive.

I wouldn't agree with this part, because we'd be paying back international loans with our new devalued currency, so it wouldn't benefit us.

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:21AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, my main point is that in order for NAMA to not make a loss, prices have to get at least partially ridiculous again, and therefore wages, etc have to follow, and so the economy returns to the silly days.

Maybe, Maybe not

Prices will rise over time... they always have they always will.. that's inflation... My parents house cost a fraction of the cost 40 years ago, and was worth 20 times that even before the boom started. So the prices that NAMA paid will in all likely over time exceed what they paid.. this is what i was attempting to explain earlier (where i missed the 30%

).. the real term profit will be decided on whether the increase in the value of those properties has increased more than we paid for them PLUS inflation in the years it took to reach that new level. The silly days were silly because of the quick explosion in prices.. sustained growth over years will happen.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A certain amount of investment which would counteract that is welcome; it would be a loss, but it would pay off in the long term.

Also, it doesn't have to be €54 billion; it could be any amount based on the same principle, and it would be given ONLY on the premise that it would be lent out (subject to sensible credit terms, and not the all-or-nothing of the banks).

That keeps businesses in operation and keeps jobs, thereby reducing dole and other welfare costs.

So again, we're talking about offsetting the "zero return" that you suggested against a negative value which would otherwise result due to additional outlay for welfare.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

My main point of suggesting this is that everyone claims that there's no-one suggesting alternatives. I'm not an expert economist, but it's a suggestion worth looking into, instead of claiming "there is no alternative".

Well that was the point of the thread, to get some suggestions and we can discuss the merits of each

Whats the point of marching on the Dail complaining if people can't think of a better idea. You have provided a idea, and personally i think it interesting to discuss the merits.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Even if it were €20 billion spent on my scheme, it could be better than NAMA, which is a gamble and - as I said - has already resulted in a negative starting point of approximately €40 billion.

Well exactly, i was merely attemping to discuss the scheme, and you took exception to that.. No offence was meant on my part.. But like everything else, if people are prepared to rip NAMA to shreds, then we should at least give due diligence to alternatives.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The fact that you even used the word "haircut" to describe the overpayment is surprising....only FF spin-doctors use that term.

lol trust me, i have never voted FF (nor am i a particular supporter of NAMA as such).. I used to term to clarify we were talking about the same 30% which i had missed, and it was the common term used by NAMA and the media.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

All I'm saying is that this "NAMA is the only way to go" is bull****, as is the "no-one is suggesting alternatives".

Well in fairness, i have seen only your and the McWilliams ones.. and all have their merits and failings.. So nothing jumps out as being so much better than the vilified NAMA (just my opinion)

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But at least mine has potential, is fair, and doesn't reward corruption and incompetence.

It does..

But there are some parts that don't seem to add up (to me anyway).. again if we can pull apart NAMA we should subject alternatives to similar rigour.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If I were paid €300,000 a year, I'd investigate it fully for you and provide a full report.

But the person in that position - Lenihan - is not willing to even consider an alternative.

Celtic Tigers over mate.. 200K is the most I'm paying

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:25AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Slightly simplistic.

If people were prepared to buy it at it's current €37,000,000,000 price, they would be buying it.

So there is no guarantee that this will only mean €17,000,000,000 wasted.

But let's take that figure. Let's just assume that we're giving the €17,000,000 ONLY to the Credit Unions.......I mean, it's gone anyway, and if the Government sees nothing wrong with wasting the €20,000,000,000 - then they'd have no problem with risking wasting less.

Well thats kinda long the lines i was thinking.. credit extensions needed could be as low a 2-3 billion.. why not set aside this amount in banks (protected by law) for certain business accounts in return for certain bank guarantees already in place.

The banks know who, when and where the credit is needed (they were providing it), so we have the access to average numbers...

Granted it still requires the banks to be kept open, but a) we are so far down the hole protecting them now, we should try and get a return b) it saddles them with the bad property decisions they made, so they have to work their way out of it.

(now you can shoot holes in my suggestion, and I'm sure there are plenty

)

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:30AM

Welease wrote: »

It does.. But there are some parts that don't seem to add up (to me anyway).. again if we can pull apart NAMA we should subject alternatives to similar rigour.

Without sounding like I'm glossing over anything, I'm not an expert with a team of lawyers and so-called financial "experts" at my disposal being paid for by the taxpayer.

So if someone in authority could do a full proposal, then great.

But without being defensive - subjecting the idea to "similar rigour" to the one that is being imposed on us after supposedly being thought out for 2 years is a little unfair.

My main point is the "there is no alternative" claim; there are a few - including mine - and they should be looked at before risking our money on a gamble.

Re the inflationary aspect.....would you put borrow money @ 5% in the hope that inflation of, say, 3% would make you a profit ? The impact of the whole project on the interest cost of the national debt (Ireland's borrowing is more expensive nowadays) needs to be factored in too.

If NAMA's "assets" increase by 1 or 2% per year in real terms, we'll be lucky.

And in compound terms, that'll take an awful long time to even recoup the 30% haircutoverpayment.

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:30AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this part, because we'd be paying back international loans with our new devalued currency, so it wouldn't benefit us.

Thats what would worry me.. Yes, exports would be cheaper but in a recessed global economy does that solve much, when our base production costs are so much higher than our competitors?

Imports become very expensive.

AND as you point out, or colossal loans are now being repaid with a devalued currency.. although we don't have a 54 Billion hole from NAMA.... (which offsets a lot of the issue)

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:34AM

Welease wrote: »

The banks know who, when and where the credit is needed (they were providing it), so we have the access to average numbers...

I'm not convinced that they do.

They thought they knew where the profit was, and they showed themselves to be more interest in allowing people to get into crazy debt (cue "pre-approved loan letters through letterboxes) so that they could maximise profit, instead of where money was actually needed and would be repaid sensibly.

So it's not just about punishing the banks (although they deserve it)....it's about the fact that they don't know (or don't have any interest in ensuring that money goes ) where money should go in terms of what's best for the economy.

Credit Unions do, which is why they were my first consideration.

theghost · 03-02-2010 01:36AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what people have to say about David McWilliam's solution to the crisis.

He agreed that there was no easy way to solve the crisis but he advocated a big hit now in order that we could recover faster (like an amputation I guess)

He proposed not renewing the bank guarantee when it expires later this year and letting the banks sink or swim. In all likelihood they'd fail and the loss would be borne by the bond holders (who he claims are owed nothing since they are effectively gambling by buying irish bank bonds).

His second action would be to pull out of the euro so that we have control over our interest rates again and to then devalue our new currency in order that we can be immediately competitive.

This is probably a stupid question, but I'm economically illiterate. If the bank guarantee is not renewed, what happens to ordinary bank customers' deposit and currant accounts? If the banks fail do all customers' money go with them?

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:37AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But without being defensive - subjecting the idea to "similar rigour" to the one that is being imposed on us after supposedly being thought out for 2 years is a little unfair.

My main point is the "there is no alternative" claim; there are a few - including mine - and they should be looked at before risking our money on a gamble.

Well in fairness what i mean by that is.. the same rigor that people use to attack NAMA in here.. We don't need armies of lawyers to play with some numbers and guess what the outcome is.. and we shouldn't be afraid to do the same to all our counter suggestions to NAMA either

Noone can guess the future.. so its all hypothetical anyway.

Yep, no problem on the alternatives.. I personally (apart from the Mcwilliams one) had not seen any other suggestions.. Was this the first time you posted your here? If so, then can I can be forgiven for not knowing about it?

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:42AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not convinced that they do.

They thought they knew where the profit was, and they showed themselves to be more interest in allowing people to get into crazy debt (cue "pre-approved loan letters through letterboxes) so that they could maximise profit, instead of where money was actually needed and would be repaid sensibly.

So it's not just about punishing the banks (although they deserve it)....it's about the fact that they don't know (or don't have any interest in ensuring that money goes ) where money should go in terms of what's best for the economy.

Credit Unions do, which is why they were my first consideration.

Ahh maybe I'm not being clear.. what I mean is.. they have historical data which should show
Company X has 30,000 Euro credit line.. average usage is 50%... so average is 15000 credit needed
Company Y has ....
Company Z has
Top up fund of X required for variance.

Add it all up..

So for 50,000 business customers, credit line of X euro's would be required to put us back to the credit flow of 2007 or whatever.. that would be the figure required to satisfy the business need for credit to operate.
Government would supply that amount (with restrictions in place).

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:42AM

I'd reckon that I'd mentioned it, but maybe not as detailed.

Mind you, another alternative was to just set up a new society-focussed, ethical bank using the €54 or €74 billion. I think FG proposed this - a "good bank".

Not sure why that was discounted either.

Welease · 03-02-2010 01:45AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'd reckon that I'd mentioned it, but maybe not as detailed.

Mind you, another alternative was to just set up a new society-focussed, ethical bank using the €54 or €74 billion. I think FG proposed this - a "good bank".

Not sure why that was discounted either.

Yeah i heard them mention it.. but I never heard any further details.. It just sounded like marketing spin.. all banks are bad.. we propose a "good" bank

Without any further detail its difficult to speculate.

Edit - but a society focussed bank really should be a winner.. you would imagine that the interest rates would be set to beneficial levels, and bonus's/profits kept to a minimum which allows them to do so... but is that really realistic when the brightest financial minds can go work for the big banks and become millionaires... Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:45AM

Welease wrote: »

Government would supply that amount (with restrictions in place).

Considering their lack of restrictions when the banks came begging - as I said, AIB's chief and his pay being a prime example, as well as the extravagant pay of the other incompetent bank heads who would be jobless if the banks failed - there seems to be no will to impose any restrictions on the banks.

I haven't a clue why (I always thought he who paid the piper called the tune) but it's definitely the case.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:49AM

Welease wrote: »

Yeah i heard them mention it.. but I never heard any further details.. It just sounded like marketing spin.. all banks are bad.. we propose a "good" bank

Without any further detail its difficult to speculate.

Unfortunately, given the level of opposition in this country, it probably got as far as "Lenihan told us to feck off and that NAMA was the only show in town" so let's go tell the electorate that FF won't listen and sure when they inevitably fvck up we'll get votes based on the fact that we were right.

Conversely, FF probably discounted it because they didn't come up with it (added to the fact that it wouldn't have helped out anyone from the Galway Tent).

In many cases, the only thing FG have going for them is that they're not corrupt and haven't screwed up the economy.

The "they couldn't possibly do worse" must have them happy out these days.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2010 01:52AM

Welease wrote: »

but a society focussed bank really should be a winner.. you would imagine that the interest rates would be set to beneficial levels, and bonus's/profits kept to a minimum which allows them to do so

And again, in the absence of this, the closest thing to "a society-focussed bank" is......?

Welease · 03-02-2010 10:25AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And again, in the absence of this, the closest thing to "a society-focussed bank" is......?

lol true.. but lets not assume anything CU's and Banks are completely different beasts... It seems like they could be interchangeable, but it would be interesting to understand the reason for the differences.

For example, a credit union has a max loan 38,092 (or 1.5% of the assets of a person whichever is greater). It has level such as that in order to ensure it always has enough capital available to continue to exist (and offer credit when required). Because it can control its own funds, it can change it's interest rates in isolation.
Now the vast majority of people who would be using the society focussed banks would probably not require that extent of credit line, but they would require a mortgage. The mortgage would exceed the maximum levels of loan offered. This would require the CU's to borrow money at the more publically quoted rate which vastly exceeds the CU's own interest rates. This would immediately drive up the interest rates to a level more akin to a traditional bank. They would be borrowing money from the same institutions as banks. Would this force them to act like banks to survive?

We also have the issues that credit unions are based on individual members are their equal right and common bond. They (to the best of my knowledge) don't offer services to companies, and are not constructed or chartered to do so. Would the voting rights of the individual be detrimental to the needs to small/medium/large business's?

Not insurmountable problems, but just pointing out that as we dig a little deeper into some simple solutions, there is a reason a simple solution might not work.

The society focussed bank does seem like the best solution though. Whether we would want to potentially destroy CU's to achieve this, I'm not sure

Brussels Sprout · 03-02-2010 10:39AM

theghost wrote: »

This is probably a stupid question, but I'm economically illiterate. If the bank guarantee is not renewed, what happens to ordinary bank customers' deposit and currant accounts? If the banks fail do all customers' money go with them?

Well the idea was that it would be let known that the bank guarantee was going to lapse on a certain date in September 2010. This would then give time for both a new bank to come in and set up and for the depositers to switch over to it or simply take their money out. The money is guaranteed by the government so thee would be no need for a run on the bank.

That was his plan in "Follow The Money". Here's an article that he wrote a month ago about this topic.

OMD · 03-02-2010 10:42AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Well the idea was that it would be let known that the bank guarantee was going to lapse on a certain date in September 2010. This would then give time for both a new bank to come in and set up and for the depositers to switch over to it or simply take their money out. The money is guaranteed by the government so thee would be no need for a run on the bank.

.

Surely that assumes the banks have the money available to pay back all the depositors. Isn't that the problem? They don't have it.

Welease · 03-02-2010 10:44AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Well the idea was that it would be let known that the bank guarantee was going to lapse on a certain date in September 2010. This would then give time for both a new bank to come in and set up and for the depositers to switch over to it or simply take their money out. The money is guaranteed by the government so thee would be no need for a run on the bank.

That was his plan in "Follow The Money". Here's an article that he wrote a month ago about this topic.

But, to the original question, the worry would be that a Northern Rock situation would occur. In essence, everyone gets worried and doesn't want to risk losing their deposits so a frenzy of withdrawals occurs, which forces the bank into an unnecessary collapse.

OMD · 03-02-2010 10:58AM

Welease wrote: »

But, to the original question, the worry would be that a Northern Rock situation would occur. In essence, everyone gets worried and doesn't want to risk losing their deposits so a frenzy of withdrawals occurs, which forces the bank into an unnecessary collapse.

Not just one bank but all banks. That's 100 billion in deposits. Country then in total sh1te. If people thought NAMA was bad then this would be total disaster.

Brussels Sprout · 03-02-2010 10:59AM

OMD wrote: »

Surely that assumes the banks have the money available to pay back all the depositors. Isn't that the problem? They don't have it.

Welease wrote: »

But, to the original question, the worry would be that a Northern Rock situation would occur. In essence, everyone gets worried and doesn't want to risk losing their deposits so a frenzy of withdrawals occurs, which forces the bank into an unnecessary collapse.

Yes but now the banks are guaranteed by the government (Northern Rock was not at the time the run occurred).

How much do depositors have in the banks? (I'm not actually sure btw)
The key is that the deposits are guaranteed. These are a small fraction of the debt. It would be a lot cheaper than NAMA (I assume) to have the government pay back the deposits and let the debts go as opposed to trying to save all the toxic sludge along with the deposits. Basically we separate the banks between their deposits and their debts. The government pays the deposits and lets the debts go (which again I assume since I don't know the amount on deposit would be cheaper then NAMA)

OMD · 03-02-2010 11:01AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Yes but now the banks are guaranteed by the government (Northern Rock was not at the time the run occurred).

How much do depositors have in the banks? (I'm not actually sure btw)
The key is that the deposits are guaranteed. These are a small fraction of the debt. It would be a lot cheaper than NAMA (I assume) to have the government pay back the deposits and let the debts go as opposed to trying to save all the toxic sludge along with the deposits. Basically we separate the banks between their deposits and their debts. The government pays the deposits and lets the debts go (which again I assume since I don't know the amount on deposit would be cheaper then NAMA)

It would cost twice as much as NAMA. And not just that. At least with NAMA we have 10 years to sort things out. With this plan we would have 7 months

Brussels Sprout · 03-02-2010 11:07AM

OMD wrote: »

It would cost twice as much as NAMA. And not just that. At least with NAMA we have 10 years to sort things out. With this plan we would have 7 months

Where did you get that 100 billion figure from? (I'm not being skeptical, I just couldn't find a figure before I wrote my last post)

Do you think that the 54 billion will be the end of it? The banks have lots more debt. There's talks now about a NAMA for people who bought mortgages that they can't afford to pay off?

NAMA-Why do we take it lying down?

Comments