Comments on: NAMAed loans on Malta’s Phoenicia Hotel sold to third party

By: who_shot_the_tiger

who_shot_the_tiger — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:45:12 +0000

From checking with sources close to the Kellys, they were totally unaware of this action by NAMA. The news was obviously leaked, but begs the question “Why?”.

It also demonstrates NAMA’s complete failure at client / borrower relationships.

Thr public leak will have caused considerable damage to the possibility of Paddy engaging in any future activity or partnership that would enable him to repay his debts. The leak seems petulant, vindictive and self-defeating to me. It is certainly contrary to the spirit of NAMA’s responsibility as delivered in the Treasury certiorari judgment.

If it was me, I’d be reaching for my lawyer.

By: John Gallaher

John Gallaher — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:51:00 +0000

Bit sporty of NAMA..thought they never leaked or commented on individual clients ..
“..providers of Credit Verification (Investigative) Services to examine Paddy’s statement of affairs and the affairs of his family including the more famous son, Simon.”
So basically they have doubts about the validity of the net worth statements ..potentially damaging to future business prospects.May discourage future partners this type of on going investigation,NAMA should investigate how this info is making it into the public domain…unless its deliberate!

By: who_shot_the_tiger

who_shot_the_tiger — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:34:56 +0000

The JLL / NAMA sales methodology as stated of “an open competition for the loans presided over by JLL in London with a fixed closing date” just confirms the naiveté of NAMA (its advisors should not be naive) when it comes to selling its loans. Not to have a second round or further discussions with the bidders after receiving offers does not guarantee open market value. It just excuses shutting everyone out and guarantees that the vendor has not received the best price that could be available following further negotiations.

Amateurs?… Sweethearts?… Or the opportunity for something more minacious?

By: who_shot_the_tiger

who_shot_the_tiger — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:49:10 +0000

@NWL. Douglas Horton said of revenge -

“While seeking revenge, dig two graves – one for yourself.”

it seems an apt quotation in these circumstances.

By: namawinelake

namawinelake — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:37:58 +0000

@WSTT, in property you would say that the market value was the price struck between willing buyer and willing seller, both in possession of perfect knowledge and you would exclude special purchasers. In this case, the market price was arrived at excluding one special purchaser, the original borrowers, and I think you’re right, Minister Noonan and NAMA will again be challenged on this in the New Year, there is a cost to proscribing sale of assets to borrowers in default, and that has come about for political and not economically rational reasons, and we should know the cost of the revenge against borrowers!

By: who_shot_the_tiger

who_shot_the_tiger — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:33:45 +0000

@NWL, Ah, therein lies the rub, as the bard said….. What is “open competition”? Is it one where the borrower is excluded because it is proscribed by law?

That one will be challenged before too many more years pass – or when the taxpayers get tired of subsidising the carpetbaggers and passing on lottery sized profits to them.

By: John Gallaher

John Gallaher — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:21:18 +0000

@WSTT they will take the money and run..not familiar with Malta law but what judicial system except maybe Venezuela,would award the lender title if the borrower can pay back the loan in full.

By: namawinelake

namawinelake — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:16:36 +0000

@WSTT, of course there is generally no barrier to borrowers repaying their loan in full! Hazledene just wanted it stressed that there had been no discussions on its part to sell the loan, and also that there was an open competition for the loans presided over by JLL in London with a fixed closing date, so the price paid by Hazledene was the market value, no more or no less.

By: John Gallaher

John Gallaher — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:15:54 +0000

@WSTT,Hi WSTT greetings from sunny San Diego…70 clear blue sky…off to the ZOO today,no not Tresaury Building to meet NAMA!
With the emergence thankfully from BK of so many of the Irish developers,this is going to be an ongoing issue for NAMA.
Why would a hedge fund or private equity group NOT retain one the original principals to realize value…one of the most disappointing aspects of NAMA has been its failure to enter into any joint ventures or utilize the expertise of the likes of Paddy Kelly.
I’m sure the x HSBC chap is a font of knowledge on many topics..but Irish RE!
Expect next year some prominent developers to be back in the saddle recapitalized and earning,employing people and paying taxes..in the UK!
What’s NAMA to do…deed restrict the property so that it can never be sold to NAMA’d developers ….they need to get ahead of this issue.

By: who_shot_the_tiger

who_shot_the_tiger — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:10:58 +0000

@NWL, While Hazeldene’s CEO might not have any intention of selling the loan, he cannot prevent it being repaid at par. It is my understanding that the borrowers intend to repay the loan and Hazeldene will end up with a €2 million profit that NAMA should be pocketing on behalf of the taxpayer.

If Hazeldene refuse payment then I imagine that the proverbial “wigs on the green” will follow – or whatever is the equivalent in the Maltese courts.