On 30th September, 2010 the Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan made a statement as part of the wide-ranging attempt that day to provide clarity, certainty and finality on the cost of rescuing the banking system. The Minister’s statement addressed the NAMA discounts on the loans remaining to be transferred and in respect of BoI he stated “to date the Bank has transferred €3.75bn of loan assets to NAMA at an aggregate discount of 36%. While the final tranche of NAMA loans may have a higher discount of up to 42%, the Central Bank has confirmed that the bank has sufficient capital to meet the PCAR standard to accommodate this increase”. This estimated discount of 42% on BoI’s remaining tranche of €6.85bn approximately of loans (after deducting the €5-20m exposures) raised eyebrows – after all AIB’s discount was increasing from 45% weighted average in Tranches 1 and 2 to 60% and EBS’s was increasing from 38% to 60%. Why was BoI insulated from the poor quality lending on smaller exposures, particularly when that week a Northern Ireland development company, McDaid Developments (Ireland) was reported to be burdening Bank of Ireland with an 85% loss on lending of GBP £42m. So the 42% estimate raised eyebrows and the speculation on here was that there were machinations to prevent BoI crystallizing losses so that the last remaining major Irish bank would stay out of state control.
On Wednesday this week, the MfF replied to a question in the Oireachtas from Labour finance spokesperson Joan Burton in which he set out a table of the remaining tranche discounts as follows:
He is showing BoI at 40% (down 2% in absolute terms from the forecast two weeks ago and a relative 5%). He is not rounding as he shows Anglo at 67% and the calculations which show overall NAMA consideration of €30.7bn also use 40%. Does this reduction in BoI’s discount reflect a further retreat from reality to preserve BoI’s status? With a market capitalization of €3.3bn and the State already owning 36.5% of BoI, it doesn’t need significant new losses to see the bank needing more capital. Is the hope that “something will turn up” by the time NAMA completes its due diligence and final valuation of BoI (up to 12 months after the loans have transferred).
The MfF also said that INBS’s remaining discount is estimated at 70%, down from the 75% that Emmet Oliver at the Independent reckoned based on “bank sources”.
It also seems that AIB’s NAMA-bound loans have increased by €1bn – in the June 2010 NAMA Business Plan AIB’s total NAMA-eligible loans were put at €23bn. As a result of increasing the threshold for exposures from €5m to €20m for both AIB and BoI, €4.5bn was to come out of AIB (and €2.1bn from BoI). But instead of AIB having €18.5bn, the MfF is now saying €19.3bn. Roundings alone would not account for the difference.
NAMA Wine Lake 
the numbers given in your ‘performance of NAMA icy properties’ at the top of the page shows these numbers were picked from the air by the government and are actually fantasy. Although on the day they may have been correct, it is still nonsensical to assign these high values to properties that are decreasing in value.
My confusion is in the connection between this fact, and the ongoing adjustment of discount estimates regarding the loans.
Do both of these facts reflect the ‘same’ extra cost for the taxpayer, or do they represent two separate hits? I cannot quiet figure that out, therefore it must be strikingly obvious, as only the confusing stuff makes sense anymore!