Harry Crosbie as much as boasts the tax payer will pay his debts

Slideshowbob · 05-10-2011 07:39PM #1

Anyone see this on Sat night?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ-sAQOolfc&feature=player_embedded

These reviews were spot on in my opinion:

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/%e2%80%9cin-four-years-time-%e2%80%a6-we%e2%80%99ll-have-paid-back-everyone-and-we%e2%80%99ll-be-laughing%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-harry-crosbie-and-nama/

http://politico.ie/irish-politics/7927-harry-crosbie-reveals-the-truth-about-nama.html

foxyboxer · 06-10-2011 08:38AM

I love how he says that "the platform for a recovery is there"

Recovery to what exactly? Jan 2007 house prices? Another credit fuelled property bubble? The man is deluded.

20Cent · 06-10-2011 08:46AM

foxyboxer wrote: »

I love how he says that "the platform for a recovery is there"

Recovery to what exactly? Jan 2007 house prices? Another credit fuelled property bubble? The man is deluded.

Recovery for him.
At the expense of everyone else.

Tipp Man · 06-10-2011 09:36AM

Have just glanced over the link in op so i could have this wrong but my reading of it was that he says that he only has to pay back the amount he owes NAMA and not the amount he originally borrowed? Am i reading that correct??

If so then this is an absolute disgrace of the highest order

femur61 · 06-10-2011 09:42AM

Who have we to blame but ourselves. Me included, we let b$llocks of politicians make inept decisions and then we realise how wrong they are we do nothing. At least Greece and the US have had the balls to protest.

20Cent · 06-10-2011 09:45AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Have just glanced over the link in op so i could have this wrong but my reading of it was that he says that he only has to pay back the amount he owes NAMA and not the amount he originally borrowed? Am i reading that correct??

If so then this is an absolute disgrace of the highest order

Yes you are. Meanwhile people are being evicted, jailed for small fines and losing their homes, SNA's laid off etc.

But sure he helped with the children s hospital and he's a nice guy so..............

Tipp Man · 06-10-2011 09:58AM

This is a bloody outrage

So basically he has had over 50% of his loans written off scot free for him and the rest of us are picking up the bill.

I puzzled - people have said that NAMA could make a profit over its lifetime, or break even anyway. My impression was that for it to make a profit would be largely dependant on how much received from the developer (or sales of his properties) over the price they paid for the loans. But we is now being said that that will be impossible as a developer only has to pay bag the NAMA amount

If this is correct we really have been taken from a complete ride

Boskowski · 06-10-2011 12:53PM

Ye thats not true though.

NAMA bought the loans at a discount but the face value hasn't changed.
The discount reflects the risk attached as to whether the full amount can be recovered or not.

I'm not a fan of NAMA and whether they can make a profit or break even is highly debatable. I would assume they can't. But that's more a matter of whether there was enough of a discount and of course over the whole process behind NAMA. It doesn't change the fact the debitor is still liable for the full amount.

ArmaniJeanss · 06-10-2011 12:58PM

It was always NAMA's stated aim to eventually recover the full value of the loans, i.e. developers would continue to owe the full amount.
Has that position officially changed?

Boskowski · 06-10-2011 01:33PM

No, it hasn't and if you listen carefully he doesn't actually deny that. What he says is

"it (paying back just the discounted amount) is the only way it is going to work."

Thats what he would say of course and that's just a brassneck attempt at his version of the truth disguised as an 'amicable, jovial little 'Arry on the late late' thing. Nothing has changed you see and people are easily fooled. How come he wasn't booed off the stage? Cheek of him.

thebman · 06-10-2011 01:53PM

Yeah so basically he said, that is the only way he sees NAMA working. Of course that this would benefit him massively does not bias his opinion in any way :pac:

Tipp Man · 06-10-2011 02:02PM

Boskowski wrote: »

No, it hasn't and if you listen carefully he doesn't actually deny that. What he says is

"it (paying back just the discounted amount) is the only way it is going to work."

Thats what he would say of course and that's just a brassneck attempt at his version of the truth disguised as an 'amicable, jovial little 'Arry on the late late' thing. Nothing has changed you see and people are easily fooled. How come he wasn't booed off the stage? Cheek of him.

Well thank f##k it hasn't. I thought it couldn't have changed its stance so dramatically

Sponge Bob · 06-10-2011 07:56PM

Crosbie stated that his belief is that NAMA was a deliberate programmed writeoff for developers in order to save them while the taxpayer was mugged instead. He is very happy with the programmed writeoff in his case and so would I be if half my car loan disappeared just because it was taken over by NAMA..for example. :cool:

take everything · 06-10-2011 08:27PM

Tipp Man wrote: »

This is a bloody outrage

So basically he has had over 50% of his loans written off scot free for him and the rest of us are picking up the bill.

I puzzled - people have said that NAMA could make a profit over its lifetime, or break even anyway. My impression was that for it to make a profit would be largely dependant on how much received from the developer (or sales of his properties) over the price they paid for the loans. But we is now being said that that will be impossible as a developer only has to pay bag the NAMA amount

If this is correct we really have been taken from a complete ride

The double talk and mendacity with this stuff would do your head in (Lenihan going on about profit etc).
I was actually under the impression that these developers wouldn't even be able to pay back what NAMA paid for them (it was recently reported that NAMA would make a fairly big loss IIRC on these loans).
Not to mind the original value of the loans.

Welease · 06-10-2011 08:34PM

Does a NAMA profit actually matter?

If NAMA make a profit.. the banks make a loss..
If the banks make a loss.. NAMA make a profit..

(allowing for movement in the completion of developments to realise full value etc.)

Given we essentially own both, is it safe to assume we (the taxpayer) pay back the loans irrespective?

Tipp Man · 06-10-2011 11:12PM

Welease wrote: »

Does a NAMA profit actually matter?

If NAMA make a profit.. the banks make a loss..
If the banks make a loss.. NAMA make a profit..

(allowing for movement in the completion of developments to realise full value etc.)

Given we essentially own both, is it safe to assume we (the taxpayer) pay back the loans irrespective?

Well yes i think it is important that NAMA makes a profit as it will reduce the debt of the state and this whole sorry mess

Say we have paid 70billion (can't remember number) to recapitalise the banks, if Nama makes a profit of say 10 billion then the cost we can reduce the 70 billion by 10 billion or to look at it another way it will go someway towards covering the interet. If Nama loses 10 billion then the bank cost goes up to 80 billion plus interest.

If it it didn't matter then why would we bother with it at all? The banks would just write off the bad loans, we'd recapitalise them and that'd be it

That's how i see it anyway but maybe i'm wrong. Of course NAMA making a profit is higly debatable and probably unlikely

cyberhog · 07-10-2011 05:24AM

I think some people are getting a little carried away.

Business & Finance asked a legal expert operating in this area for their opinion on some of the key issues.

Despite the idea that developers will be bailed out by Nama, that does not appear from a legal perspective to be the case.

"None of the loans are being impacted on by Nama as it relates between the borrowers and the banks," he says. "The transfer is taking place of the loan book but that doesn't impact whatsoever on the developers' liability to the bank. For example, if Nama acquires an asset for €60m that the developer borrowed €80m for, the developer is still on the hook for the €20m difference. His primary liability remains with the bank and not with Nama."

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=366&n=372&a=1448

Welease · 07-10-2011 07:52AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well yes i think it is important that NAMA makes a profit as it will reduce the debt of the state and this whole sorry mess

Say we have paid 70billion (can't remember number) to recapitalise the banks, if Nama makes a profit of say 10 billion then the cost we can reduce the 70 billion by 10 billion or to look at it another way it will go someway towards covering the interet. If Nama loses 10 billion then the bank cost goes up to 80 billion plus interest.

If it it didn't matter then why would we bother with it at all? The banks would just write off the bad loans, we'd recapitalise them and that'd be it

That's how i see it anyway but maybe i'm wrong. Of course NAMA making a profit is higly debatable and probably unlikely

But that's my point.. NAMA appears to make a profit (bar completing developments) by having paid the banks less value than it (NAMA) will receive when it liquidates the asset.. The market value of the asset has essentially stayed the same with regard to the amount borrowed on it..

The gap was what was needed to recapitalise the banks so that all bonds could and will be paid.. So liquidity issues aside (which did need to be tackled), the banks could have gotten the same value for the asset as NAMA did, and the recapitalisation could have been lower..

To use your example.. If the "system" borrowed €70b... and that pot has been split into €50 controlled by NAMA, and €20b controlled by the Banks.. As we essentially own both.. we will end up paying back the €70b either way..

I'm sure I'm missing something, but it just seems like the term "profit" is an accounting exercise at best...

Sand · 07-10-2011 06:44PM

Vincent Brown rang up NAMA to clarify if developers like Crosbie would be pursued for the full amount of their loans. Getting it from the horses mouth so to speak.

Now remember, back when NAMA was being announced, there was a lot of wild accusations that NAMA was a bailout for developers. The green jersey brigade were dismissive of such claims, and even members of the doom and gloom brigade like myself largely only saw NAMA as a developer bailout in so far as it gave the developers an "extend and pretend" deal that they would never have got in normal market practise. And also, that essentially, pursuing a bankrupt developer for debts he couldnt and would never be able to repay would be essentially pointless.

As Vincent quotes Brian Lenihans assertion:

“The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end. The Bill also provides the agency with the wide range of powers it needs to pursue borrowers and enforce security.

Now, theres an interesting turn of phrase there which I will return to.

Here is the reality:

I phoned Nama and asked to speak to their press office. I was told they did not have a press office, that their communications were being handed by Gordon MRM. I got to talk to the managing director and owner of Gordon MRM, Ray Gordon, who told me: “The priority of Nama is to recover the amount Nama paid for the loans”.

He went on to say that Nama would pursue the full amount in many cases, depending on the level of co-operation they had received from the borrower but often there was no point. He said the focus of Nama on recovering the amount Nama paid for the loans had been stated in the latest annual report and in statements made recently on behalf of Nama.

Now you might say theres a disconnect there - Lenny gave the impression developers would be pursued for the full amount of their debt, that it was a statutory duty of NAMA. He didnt though. If you notice, what he actually said was that it was a statutory duty of NAMA to maxmise the taxpayer return...

Thats a whole different ballpark, when you remember that NAMA and assorted insiders determine what the taxpayers interest is. Perhaps they determine the costs involved in pursuing a developer to his grave outweigh the benefits...so essentially the debt is forgiven, ignored, and no longer pursued. And yet, Lennys statement still holds true - under some interpretations theyve maximised the taxpayer return, and yet NAMA is still a developer bailout - stiffing the taxpayer with the losses on the loan to the developer.

As Vincent goes on to note - NAMA take a realistic, world wise view of the debts of the connected developers. No talk of moral hazard there. Meanwhile, heavily indebted nobody outsiders will be pursued for every single penny to prevent the dire threat of moral hazard. Badly needed reform of the bankruptcy law is delayed again and again to prevent moral hazard for little people. Meanwhile, insider developers will never even have to enter a bankruptcy process - so long as they co-operate, NAMA will just write off their debt.

Dont worry though - I'm sure NAMA will make an accounting profit. When accountants are involved you can make any profit you want.

cyberhog · 08-10-2011 01:21AM

Sand wrote: »

Here is the reality:

What Vincent Brown claims someone else allegedly said is what's known as hearsay.

cyberhog · 08-10-2011 05:23AM

Michael Noonan explains what "maximising the taxpayers' return" really means.

A misconception seems to have arisen because the agency’s minimum target is to recover what it has paid for the loans, as well as any other moneys advanced as working capital or for development, plus interest on these moneys. This does not mean, however, that NAMA will stop at that threshold.

...

when NAMA decides to work with developers, developers have to be given some incentive to work with NAMA. Otherwise, they could decide to let NAMA foreclose, with the result of a diminished return for the taxpayer.

The following is an example of how NAMA incentivises a debtor to repay more than the minimum target. Where NAMA has paid €50 million for a debtor’s loans which aggregate to €100 million nominal value, NAMA might set a minimum repayment target of €55 million for the debtor. If, by year seven, the debtor reaches that minimum repayment target, an incentive arrangement will apply whereby thereafter, the debtor will be allowed to retain 10% of any excess sum realised. If a total of €60 million is realised, therefore, this is an excess of €5 million over the minimum target and the debtor retains €500,000. In such a case NAMA’s profit will be €9.5 million over the amount paid for the debtor’s loans. This is an example and different repayment targets will apply to different borrowers depending on the particular circumstances of each case. The key factor in determining what NAMA pays for any debtor’s aggregate debt is the current market value of the underlying property securing that debt. Therefore, if NAMA pays €50 million for the loans, as in the example, it is likely that the value of the underlying property is of the same order.

Some may see the incentive scheme as being a cash reward for paying back loans. Unfortunately, if a debtor is not incentivised to exceed a minimum target set by NAMA, the agency believes it will get very little over and above that target. The objective of the incentive is to get the debtor working not so much for himself or herself but for the taxpayer and NAMA. NAMA’s overarching objective is to maximise the return to the Irish taxpayer.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/10/06/00007.asp

krd · 11-10-2011 04:32AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It was always NAMA's stated aim to eventually recover the full value of the loans, i.e. developers would continue to owe the full amount.
Has that position officially changed?

Yes. That was their stated aim. But anyone who knew what was going to happen - NAMA developers included - knew the NAMA developers would be protected from bankruptcy, and the assets would be cherry picked and handed back to them at a discount, that would be enough, or really, more than enough to make it worth their while. (we would be the suckers left paying - and then paying twice by buying the developments off the developers -- Do ya see)

I knew that would happen. The bums of NAMA are even on salaries, to keep them in fine wine etc.

We'll be left with the dingle-berries.

I'll explain the thinking behind the theory.

The wealthy are the wealth creators (the have access to capital) So, to protect wealth creation, the wealthy must be protected and kept wealthy.

So, in effect, we'll have to pay for Harry Crosbie's junk at the full boom time price, plus interest. He'll be allowed realise a profit (a massively subsidised profit). Harry will be a very wealthy man again. And the rest of us will be, in near permanent state of being broke.

The wealth creators must be kept wealthy at all costs.

The funny catch in all this, is as a society - we have to accept a permanent transfer of wealth to our wealth creators, in both good times and bad - so we never really get a slice of the wealth cake. So, it could be asked, why do we bother doing it this way. And who is really creating the wealth in first place.

Sand · 11-10-2011 06:48PM

cyberhog wrote: »

What Vincent Brown claims someone else allegedly said is what's known as hearsay.

Ring up Gordon MRM yourself then. Nobody at Gordon MRM or NAMA have come out to contend that Vincent Browns claims are inaccurate or wrong or that he has lied.

Im tempted to point out the research on innate optimism again.

Cyberhogs quote:

A misconception seems to have arisen because the agency’s minimum target is to recover what it has paid for the loans, as well as any other moneys advanced as working capital or for development, plus interest on these moneys. This does not mean, however, that NAMA will stop at that threshold.

...

when NAMA decides to work with developers, developers have to be given some incentive to work with NAMA. Otherwise, they could decide to let NAMA foreclose, with the result of a diminished return for the taxpayer.

You are quoting this like its important. Here is Brian Lenihans quote from the NAMA debates again:

“The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end. The Bill also provides the agency with the wide range of powers it needs to pursue borrowers and enforce security.

So the amount a borrower owes. will. not. change.

No ifs, buts, maybes or wordly wise clarification about "co-operation" or incentives. Just a very simple will. not. change.

Now, a lot of intelligent people were absolutely convinced that this implied that borrowers would be pursued for the full value of their loans. In fact, people to this day still refuse to acknowledge NAMA has anything to do with property, as they will tell you NAMA bought loans - not property. I could quote very smart, capable people who were fully convinced that NAMA was going to pursue developers for every single penny and hence couldnt fail to record a profit (and as I've said, with accountants involved its quite likely NAMA will record a profit). These people would then go on a length to sneer at and bemoan others who would claim NAMA was a bailout for developers. They would say "No - Lenny has said the amount developers owe will not change!"

But now that NAMA is loosed upon the world, suddenly we learn that Lenny was employing coded language - that actually, the amount borrowers owed would change, if NAMA decided arbitrarily and without reference to anyone to change it.

And lets face it - in a country where people are jailed for failing to pay their TV licence, where bankruptcy law is from the Victorian era, what additional incentive is required for developers to co-operate with NAMA? What additional "incentive" is extended to little people to ensure they co-operate with extracting the maximum return for the taxpayer on the amounts owed to state owned banks? Moral hazard is for little people I guess.

Slideshowbob · 11-10-2011 06:57PM

Like: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

cyberhog · 12-10-2011 02:50AM

Sand wrote: »

So the amount a borrower owes. will. not. change.

No ifs, buts, maybes or wordly wise clarification about "co-operation" or incentives. Just a very simple will. not. change.

No one is saying the amount owed has changed.

Deputy Michael Noonan: NAMA remains as focused as ever on pursuing each developer for the full amount owed....It is not correct to say that NAMA does not try to realise the full amount owed by any debtor. The intention is to get 100% but we know that that is unrealistic in many cases.

Senator Thomas Byrne: We accept that.

Deputy Michael Noonan: NAMA assures me that it is determined to recover everything that can be recovered, in order to generate the best achievable financial return for the State.
...

if a debtor is not incentivised to exceed a minimum target set by NAMA, the agency believes it will get very little over and above that target.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/10/06/00007.asp

So NAMA is doing what it can to maximise the taxpayers' return. The idea that NAMA is going to forgive, ignore, or no longer pursue debt is not rooted in reality.

Sand · 12-10-2011 07:15PM

cyberhog wrote: »

No one is saying the amount owed has changed.

So NAMA is doing what it can to maximise the taxpayers' return. The idea that NAMA is going to forgive, ignore, or no longer pursue debt is not rooted in reality.

I phoned Nama and asked to speak to their press office. I was told they did not have a press office, that their communications were being handed by Gordon MRM. I got to talk to the managing director and owner of Gordon MRM, Ray Gordon, who told me: “The priority of Nama is to recover the amount Nama paid for the loans”.

He went on to say that Nama would pursue the full amount in many (not all...not even most) cases, depending on the level of co-operation (so totally within their own whims...) they had received from the borrower but often there was no point. He said the focus of Nama on recovering the amount Nama paid for the loans had been stated in the latest annual report and in statements made recently on behalf of Nama.

NAMA is saying they are going to forgive, ignore and no longer pursue debt. That idea is straight from their appointed intermediaries with the public. Ignoring that as you are doing doesnt change it.

cyberhog · 13-10-2011 04:28AM

Sand, what you have quoted there is not from an official statement. The fact is what Vincent Brown claims Ray Gordon told him in a private conversation remains unsubstantiated and so should not be treated as anything other than hearsay at this time.

Sand wrote: »

NAMA is saying they are going to forgive, ignore and no longer pursue debt. That idea is straight from their appointed intermediaries with the public. Ignoring that as you are doing doesnt change it.

Micheal Noonan is on record as saying that NAMA will pursue each developer for the full amount owed. Can you show me an official statement issued by NAMA or Gordon MRM saying otherwise?

Sand · 13-10-2011 06:34PM

Theres official statements on the NAMA website. I'll requote this for the third time now as you dont seem to be reading it:

I phoned Nama and asked to speak to their press office. I was told they did not have a press office, that their communications were being handed by Gordon MRM. I got to talk to the managing director and owner of Gordon MRM, Ray Gordon, who told me: “The priority of Nama is to recover the amount Nama paid for the loans”.

He went on to say that Nama would pursue the full amount in many cases, depending on the level of co-operation they had received from the borrower but often there was no point. He said the focus of Nama on recovering the amount Nama paid for the loans had been stated in the latest annual report and in statements made recently on behalf of Nama.

Check out the 2010 annual report issued in July 2011.

A key measure of success is to shrink our balance sheet, having recouped at a minimum all of the expenditure incurred by NAMA on loans, working capital advances and costs. This is clearly in keeping with the purpose of obtaining the best achievable return for the State as laid down in the NAMA Act.

NAMA will pursue all debts and debtors to the greatest extent
feasible.

NAMA’s policy is to pursue all personal guarantees to the
greatest extent feasible.

So Gordon MRM are saying that debts will only be pursued as far as is considered reasonable by NAMA, and NAMAs official publications are also saying that they will only pursue debts as far as they consider feasible in their view, that their minimum target is not the full value of the loan but the value that NAMA paid for that loan. I.E. entirely in line with the comments reported by Vincent Brown. Probably not too surprising theyre aligned in a common message given Gordon MRM are the PR for NAMA. So a Gordon MRM director speaking to a reporter like Vincent Brown is very much making a public statement on behalf of NAMA.

None of this "Debts will be pursued to the ends of earth and time - we will never stop hunting them down until all debts are fully repaid!!!" Which is the impression given by Lenny and Noonan.

Instead NAMA will pursue the debts as far as they think is reasonable - in their own, unaccountable view, then wrap things up after a few years, declaring great success. Theyll take a reasonable, responsible view of the developers ability to pay and only pursue the debt as far as is feasible. Very enlightened and practical way to handle the debt issue.

Meanwhile, even moderate bankruptcy reform for little people will be delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed for fear of "moral hazard"...

No reasonable, enlightened or practical view taken of peoples ability to repay and their co-operation there. No, the priority must be to prevent moral hazard. Its ridiculous that having poured 70 billion and more into bailing out zombie banks that are of no economic use or value that spending at most 14 billion to save an economy is suddenly a moral redline issue. Reminds you of how this country works.

Now, I know you wont be able to accept or acknowledge that despite being told three times, with evidence provided. Its okay - its been recognised by research so its not your fault.

cyberhog · 14-10-2011 05:46AM

Oohhh getting sarky now, well I suppose that's to be expected from someone who makes completely bogus assertions.

Sand wrote: »

NAMA is saying they are going to forgive, ignore and no longer pursue debt.

NAMA say no such thing! that is a profoundly misleading claim on your part and makes your whole argument look disingenuous.

Here is a quote from the Chairman of NAMA from 2010

NAMA’s core commercial objective will be to recover for the taxpayer whatever it has paid for the loans in addition to whatever it has invested to enhance property assets underlying those loans. This objective has not been determined by NAMA; it has, in fact, been set for us by the legislature under Section 10 of the NAMA Act.There has been some comment that the consequence of this objective is that NAMA, having recovered its outlay, will then absolve borrowers of their further obligations. This is absolutely not the case. Borrowers, as both I and NAMA’s CEO Brendan McDonagh have already said on a number of occasions, will continue to be liable for the debts that they have incurred.

http://www.nama.ie/publications/?wpfb_file_year=2010&wpfb_list_page=2

And then last week the minister confirmed NAMA's policy has not changed.

Deputy Michael Noonan: The chairman of NAMA recently informed the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform that it remains the policy of NAMA to pursue developers for the full amount they owe.

A misconception seems to have arisen because the agency’s minimum target is to recover what it has paid for the loans, as well as any other moneys advanced as working capital or for development, plus interest on these moneys. This does not mean, however, that NAMA will stop at that threshold. NAMA remains as focused as ever on pursuing each developer for the full amount owed.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/10/06/00007.asp

No mention of forgiving ,ignoring, or no longer pursuing debt, as you keep trying to make out. Your interperatation of the facts is unsound, and you are gravely mistaken if you think all Harry Crosbie has to pay back is what Nama paid the banks on the transfer of the loans.

Sand · 14-10-2011 07:19AM

Your Source: "Here is a quote from the Chairman of NAMA from 2010"

My Source: "Check out the 2010 annual report issued in July 2011."

Time passes...things change...

Gordon MRM say it. NAMA official reports say it. Noonan is quite simply wrong. It is not the policy of NAMA to pursue developers for the amount they owe, it is their publically stated policy to only pursue all debts and debtors to the extent feasible, and their focus is on recovering the amount they paid for the loan - not the loan itself. NAMA have stated exactly that in their annual report issued only 3 months ago. Its a matter of public record.

Your response of "LALALALALALA not listening!!!!" doesnt change that. But I'll leave you in your state of denial - its not my job to correct your mistaken opinions.

cyberhog · 15-10-2011 03:55AM

Sand wrote: »

It is not the policy of NAMA to pursue developers for the amount they owe,

NAMA chairman Frank Daly speaking before the the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform on Friday, 9 September 2011

On pursuing the full amount owed

Mr. Frank Daly: is it still our policy to pursue developers for the full amount? My answer is yes, it is.

On debt forgiveness

Mr. Frank Daly: The Deputy asked about NAMA involvement in debt forgiveness. The reality is that we have not forgiven or written off any debt.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/FIJ/2011/09/09/00003.asp

The only person in denial here is you, Sand, and honestly, I hope you never realise it. It's more fun watching you trying to prove your false assumptions.

Harry Crosbie as much as boasts the tax payer will pay his debts

Comments