NAMA is a lame duck

Laminations · 09-10-2010 07:40PM #1

Unable to pursue transferred assets, NAMA is a lame duck

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nama-cant-touch-developers-wives-2371941.html

NAMA cannot claw back millions of euro in assets belonging to developers who transferred properties to their wives and families just before the State's 'bad bank' was set up.
The National Asset Management Agency only has the power to pursue assets transferred to relatives since December 2009 as part of its efforts to recover billions of euro owed by indebted developers.
It cannot seize properties and other assets transferred before that date, the Irish Independent can reveal.
The revelation is in contrast with the strong statements being made by Finance Minister Brian Lenihan. He has said that while the Government couldn't prevent developers from moving abroad they would not be able to escape their debts.
Yesterday, a NAMA spokesman said the agency would use all powers at its disposal to collect monies owed by developers.
"Our preference is to work with debtors with a view to their loans being repaid," he said. "However, where that is not possible, then we will use all the means at our disposal within the law to pursue debtors."
Mr Lenihan included a provision in the NAMA legislation to give the bad bank power to "set aside" or reverse transactions that favoured family members and allowed developers to avoid using them to repay their debts.
But it is now clear that this will only apply to assets in a developer's name after December 2009.

I think this is disgrace for a Minister of Finance with an honours law degree to get something so wrong. They could of, and should of, put in place mechanisms in which any assets owned by the debtors over the past few years are fair game if transferred to family members. This is more evidence of the untouchable elite getting away with it again. It's time for the NAMA fanboys to chew down apologetically on a gun barrel of shame. Disgraceful, but what else can one expect from FF and the Greens.

Liam Byrne · 09-10-2010 07:48PM

Interesting......and might explain the delays getting everything up and running.

I'd assume 12 months is long enough to get everything transferred ?

FF at its best.

Richard tea · 09-10-2010 07:54PM

People often say ''things cant get any worse ''

They can, and will after reading the op:(

round tower huntsman · 09-10-2010 08:23PM

"oh we cant touch the money of our developer friends once they transfer it to their wives. how could we make such a silly mistake?(snigger:D). ah well looks like joe tax payer will pick up the tab(snigger:D)".....says ff'er.

galwayrush · 09-10-2010 09:07PM

NAMA suits some builders, without it, they could have been daclared bankrupt, with it, they can run their loss making business for an agreed salary of up to 500,000 per anum, i call that a bailout for builders, despite the spin to the contrary by the Government.:mad:

oppenheimer1 · 09-10-2010 09:22PM

Laminations wrote: »

Unable to pursue transferred assets, NAMA is a lame duck

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nama-cant-touch-developers-wives-2371941.html

I think this is disgrace for a Minister of Finance with an honours law degree to get something so wrong. They could of, and should of, put in place mechanisms in which any assets owned by the debtors over the past few years are fair game if transferred to family members. This is more evidence of the untouchable elite getting away with it again. It's time for the NAMA fanboys to chew down apologetically on a gun barrel of shame. Disgraceful, but what else can one expect from FF and the Greens.

If it this is true, and one always has to doubt the veracity of the Irish Independent, I believe it is unconstitutional to legislate retrospectively.

AlekSmart · 09-10-2010 10:46PM

I think this is disgrace for a Minister of Finance with an honours law degree to get something so wrong. They could of, and should of, put in place mechanisms in which any assets owned by the debtors over the past few years are fair game if transferred to family members.

Ah but,Laminations....this is "getting it wrong" only from the viewpoint of the Little People...never was Leonora Helmsley proven more correct..."Taxes my dear...why they`re only for the little people".....

It`s just taking a while for it to sink in that the entire premise behind NAMA as a concept,was and is,to find a mechanism by which the well connected and powerful supporters of democratic Irish politics ( :rolleyes: ) can be allowed to maintain the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed.

It`s how we do things here.....Irish solution to an Irish problem.

femur61 · 10-10-2010 06:30AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I believe it is unconstitutional to legislate retrospectively.

€100bn debt, who cares about the constitution.

As a mother of 3 why are they going to be saddled with debt before they are even in secondary school.

deelite · 10-10-2010 06:51AM

I don't understand NAMA. I always thought and still do that we should have just created one new bank and let people put their savings / pensions / mortgages etc., in that.

ontour2 · 10-10-2010 07:43AM

femur61 wrote: »

€100bn debt, who cares about the constitution.

As a mother of 3 why are they going to be saddled with debt before they are even in secondary school.

By the time that the 3 children are 18 they will have received about €100,000 from the state in children's allowance based on current rates. If you save some of it, they will be well able to afford their share of the debt without ever doing a day's work.

femur61 · 10-10-2010 09:00AM

ontour2 wrote: »

By the time that the 3 children are 18 they will have received about €100,000 from the state in children's allowance based on current rates. If you save some of it, they will be well able to afford their share of the debt without ever doing a day's work.

Givith with one hand take back with another! I for one think childrens allowance is ridicolous anyway.

Laminations · 10-10-2010 10:40AM

ontour2 wrote: »

By the time that the 3 children are 18 they will have received about €100,000 from the state in children's allowance based on current rates. If you save some of it, they will be well able to afford their share of the debt without ever doing a day's work.

And that excuses the socialisation of what should have been private debt? That excuses a now seemingly quite toothless NAMA from buying up bad loans that it can't chase? Why don't we all go round robbing social welfare recipients or people on disability allowance, I mean they are getting money so why can't 'we just take it? Deelites children should not be in debt, and the receiving child benefit does not make them any more liable

ontour2 · 10-10-2010 10:57AM

Laminations wrote: »

Why don't we all go round robbing social welfare recipients or people on disability allowance, I mean they are getting money so why can't 'we just take it? Deelites children should not be in debt, and the receiving child benefit does not make them any more liable

Robbing social welfare recipients? Are many of them not robbing the working poor? Being on welfare or disability seems to automatically classify those people as 'vulnerable'. There are no excuses for the mess that is the banking bailout but it is not an excuse for continuing unsustainable levels of benefits.

The point is that complaining about the debt ignores that the same people benefited from the excesses that resulted in the collapse. Without the huge stamp duty and other tax takes in the boom, state benefits would not be where they are now.

It is not about cutting welfare payments across the board, it is about focusing it those in need. How much of the welfare payments goes on loans for luxuries that were bought on credit in the boom times?

Laminations · 10-10-2010 11:12AM

ontour2 wrote: »

Robbing social welfare recipients? Are many of them not robbing the working poor? Being on welfare or disability seems to automatically classify those people as 'vulnerable'. There are no excuses for the mess that is the banking bailout but it is not an excuse for continuing unsustainable levels of benefits.

Cutting benefits and overhauling systems because they are not in line with reality is a separate argument, that concerns the budget deficit, not the banking strategy. For the record i dont think there should be any golden cows when it comes to making cuts but there should be fairness. We all need cuts but it needs to be proportional.

The point is that complaining about the debt ignores that the same people benefited from the excesses that resulted in the collapse. Without the huge stamp duty and other tax takes in the boom, state benefits would not be where they are now.

Was that the deal? If you take this money/increase now, we own you? I could say that kids benefitted in catholic church institutions and that analogy would get very ugly very fast. People were definitely not aware they were selling their souls for the Celtic tiger.

If benefits are too high, they should be cut because they are too high, not because we need the money for Anglis mismanagement.

It is not about cutting welfare payments across the board, it is about focusing it those in need. How much of the welfare payments goes on loans for luxuries that were bought on credit in the boom times?

this thread isn't about welfare payments at all. It's about the logic in setting up a debt collection agency and not putting in place measures to seize transferred assets so essentially many millions may be wiped off the debts of a golden circle elite.

maninasia · 10-10-2010 11:34AM

This one was just too obvious, blind man could have seen it coming.

ontour2 · 10-10-2010 11:35AM

Laminations wrote: »

People were definitely not aware they were selling their souls for the Celtic tiger.

Then they were fools. House price rises at the rates from 2000 - 2007, levels of wage growth, new car purchases, the need for SSIA scheme, buy property in places we couldn't find on the map etc. etc. etc. Very many people sold their soul, others were prudent but all will suffer now.

Laminations wrote: »

It's about the logic in setting up a debt collection agency and not putting in place measures to seize transferred assets so essentially many millions may be wiped off the debts of a golden circle elite.

There is a whole range of regulation and law that needs to change and this should be done now. Most of my hopes lie in Matthew Elderfield, worryingly focused on one person! The problem is that it will not change what happened in the past as a lot of it relates to appalling practices regarding the security required for loans by banks. If the security is correctly in place then the legal means are there to pursue it. If not there is little that can be done unless we want to change the terms of existing bank contracts and if we go down that road banks will be changing all their tracker mortgage contracts which were also a major mistake.

Fr0g · 11-10-2010 06:08PM

NAMA was always about saving the developers. Not all of them, just the party ffaithful.
It was never about getting banks lending again. The banks are dead.

The bank bailouts had nothing to do with bailing out banks we are bailing out bondholders not banks.

When a politician says there is no alternative it means there are alternatives they just don't want to discuss them because they are trying to sell their solution. Willie O'Dea did sterling work selling NAMA he even claimed on Primetime that NAMA was getting credit from the ECB at 2 points below ECB rate. He was barely challenged. RTE also did trojan work selling NAMA.

The D4 professional classes were up to their tonsils in bubble property. We cant have them losing their shirt can we. No that wouldn't do.

Gerry Ryan thought the guarantee was a great idea and NAMA was going to save us. It turns out the GR was heavily in debt. same goes for a lot of so called commentators.

Sand · 11-10-2010 06:13PM

Its a good thing there's apparently the possibility of a clawback in NAMA so we can get all the money back from the bank shareholders.

Oh wait, we're the bank shareholders. :pac:

NAMA is a lame duck

Comments