Well one thing is for sure, the period between NAMA delivering its quarterly report and accounts to the Department of Finance and the DoF publishing said documents is growing larger with the passage of each quarter as illustrated below:
| Quarter | Covering period to | Delivered to DoF | Published |
| 1 | 31st March, 2010 | 30th June, 2010 | 13th July, 2010 |
| 2 | 30th June, 2010 | 30th Sept, 2010 | 2nd November, 2010 |
| 3 | 30th Sept, 2010 | 31st Dec, 2010 | Still waiting……… |
There was a detailed entry on here at the start of January, 2011 examining the likely features of the Q3, 2010 report and accounts. From an incumbent party political viewpoint, the sensitive issue with these accounts will be the fact that NAMA has lost some €2bn+ since its incorporation. How? NAMA purchased loans by reference to a valuation date of 30th November, 2009 and although some markets have improved since then, the home market where the assets underpinning two thirds of NAMA’s loans are located has tanked. Also NAMA paid a Long Term Economic Value of an average of 10% above the value of the asset. Now it is true that 5% of NAMA consideration for loans is in the form of subordinated debt which will only be honoured if NAMA breaks even and it is also true that the NAMA Act provides for a levy on the banks proportionate to the value of loans absorbed (so Anglo and INBS will need cough up more than 50% of any ultimate loss which is of course ridiculous but practically speaking it is also ridiculous for AIB and EBS which are effectively State-owned, Bank of Ireland faces a challenging future). Taking all of this into account the loss on NAMA’s portfolio of €71bn is some €2bn.
So it may be the case that the Department of Finance (prop: Brian Lenihan, minister) may try to delay the publication of the accounts which remember are already four months out of date as they relate to the quarter ending 30th September, 2010. And remember also, the role of the DoF is not to change the accounts so arguably they should be generally published simultaneously with their delivery to the DoF. And even if the accounts are published, they are unlikely to show a loss because NAMA is unlikely to revalue tens of billions of euros of loans each quarter. But I think it will be perfectly reasonable to ask NAMA for a ballpark of the loss in value of the loans compared with their acquisition value (the answer should be €2bn +).
Thank you for keeping me informed.
What’s the betting we get the “smoke ‘n mirrors” version? From a public optical perspective, NAMA has to be seen to be successful. Truth is about to be sacrificed.
Hi WSTT, from an accounting perspective, NAMA will not need to revalue its loans on a quarterly basis. NAMA may also correctly say that it just needs a 12% blended average rise in property prices to break even and that NAMA was set up to operate for nearly a decade. However it was also the case that NAMA was supposed to value at the bottom of the market – remember Minister Lenihan’s words in August 2009 “The (property) yield is at an all-time high relative to the assets, which is a clear, objective economic indicator that we are approaching the trough”. As well as this statement being deeply economically illiterate (yield = rent divided by property value, high yields can lead to more investment in property it is true but they can also lead to lower yields if rents reduce which is precisely what has happened), the decision by NAMA to value by reference to a date when its primary market was still far from stable has led to NAMA’s portfolio of loans being worth some €2bn less than was paid.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/31/ireland-banks-idUSLV60042320090831?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11604&sp=true
That sums it up nicely, NWL!