• Home
  • NAMA property for sale
  • About
  • The Developers
  • The Tranches

NAMA Wine Lake

Click the green link above for latest news and over 2,600 related articles. NAMA – National Asset Management Agency – part of Ireland's response to its banking crisis and property bubble

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« NAMA grounds developer’s helicopter with latest receivership
NAMA reveals it expects to slow down its disposal of assets »

NAMA before the Oireachtas finance committee later today

March 14, 2012 by namawinelake

[The transcript of the hearing is now available from the Oireachtas here]

At 2pm this afternoon, NAMA will appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. NAMA will be represented by its CEO, the owlish Brendan McDonagh and its chairman – and now also, a member of the politically accountable NAMA advisory board – the hawkish Frank Daly. NAMA last appeared before this committee last September 2011 and it can expect to be as robustly questioned today.

We are set to find out that NAMA has been exceptionally busy in the past month. The NAMA chairman Frank Daly told the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on 9th February 2012 that NAMA had dealt with 6,000 credit decisions since its inception – an average of 12 per working day. NAMA is set to tell the Committee later today that just one month later, the Agency has dealt with 7,000 credit decisions, an almost incredible 1,000 increase in the space of a month!

Not only that, we are set to learn that NAMA has approved €147m of new advances to developers in just three weeks –  it told Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams on 16th February 2012 that it had approved €980m, and that is understood to now stand at €1,127m. And with 45% of this in Ireland, that’s up from the 41% just four weeks ago!

NAMA is also likely to defend its record with delivery on its social and economic objective, and to strongly affirm its commitment to job creation and investment. The Sunday Independent claim that NAMA nearly cost 230 jobs in southDublin is likely to be again refuted in the strongest terms. In fact, NAMA is set to claim that it is directly supporting nearly 10,000 jobs in Ireland through its workings with developers.

There will be a review of the hearing here later today.

UPDATE (1): 14th March 2012. The opening statements from the NAMA CEO and the NAMA chairman are now available.  There will be a summary of proceedings here shortly.

UPDATE (2): 14th March 2012. Here are the highlights interpreted on here from the 3.5 hour hearing this afternoon.

(1) NAMA “would be confident” of recovering the €32bn it has paid for loans plus NAMA’s carrying costs – interest, new advances and operating costs. NAMA says it will be a “huge challenge” but there is nothing that would “seriously suggest”  NAMA won’t reach that figure and furthermore, the board of NAMA doesn’t accept that it is looking into “loss territory”. All of this despite banking expert Deputy Peter Mathews suggesting that NAMA was now looking at a €5-10bn loss.

(2) NAMA has a cash mountain of €4.3bn of which €2bn is on deposit with the Central Bank ofIrelandand the remaining €2.3bn is “invested” in short term Government bonds.

(3) NAMA has “no intention” of borrowing money to fund advances to developers, as provided for under the NAMA Act which places a cap of €5bn on such borrowing. Instead NAMA will use its cash mountain to fund any such advances.

(4) Of the 790 developer business plans, NAMA has “assessed” 550, enforced 180 and has yet to “assess” 60. Although NAMA told a public accounts committee in November 2010 – after it had acquired 90%-plus of its loans from participating banks – that it had a process of agreement which involved a memorandum of understanding, heads of terms and final agreement and each needed be signed by NAMA, the developer and potentially the developer’s spouse, NAMA subsequently abandoned this system for “assessments” which involves taking control of rent rolls and agreeing an asset disposal schedule.

(5) Following the introduction of a scheme in December 2011 to deal with Upward Only Rent Review clauses in agreements with NAMA developers, NAMA has received 150 applications from developers and tenants to reduce rents and 120 have been reduced and 30 more are pending.

(6) NAMA describes the Irish property market as “very moribund”. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett described it as the “absolute doldrums”. In 2006 there were some €45bn of residential, development and commercial property transactions, last year there were less than €3bn.

(7) NAMA has softened its stance on selling property back to defaulting developers and says that legislation may be needed in future to deal with this prohibition which can impede NAMA’s ability to maximise revenue. This is the first time that NAMA has expressed any level of desire to change the NAMA Act.

(8) NAMA’s cost of funding is close to 2% – given the six month Euroibor rate is just over 1% and the subordinated bonds, which comprise 5% of the consideration paid for the loans, carry a rate of 6%, it seems as if NAMA has some major interest hedging costs.

(9) The loan relating to Priory Hall was not acquired by NAMA because the Agency assessed the loan was not just worthless but had a negative value because of the remediation work required. NAMA says it was prevented by section 85(3) of the NAMA Act from acquiring loans with a negative value.

(10) NAMA claims that in ALL cases, if a developer has a tenant, then it has pursued a mandate for the rent to be paid directly to NAMA.

(11) Here’s a nugget. It seems as if any ultimate loss made by NAMA over its lifetime may not now be recouped from the banks – AIB/EBS and Bank of Ireland. Brendan McDonagh says that once the subordinated bonds which comprise 5% of the NAMA acquisition consideration for the loans is used up, then it is the taxpayer that will foot the bill for any loss. This is not what the NAMA Act says, so it will be interesting to examine this claim further.

(12) NAMA is confident that once it gets approval for its negative equity mortgage product – was apparently expected in February 2012 from the European Commission but seemingly still hasn’t been given – then it will be able to offload property to people currently renting NAMA property.

(13) NAMA acknowledges that some developers have gone to the UK to seek bankruptcy but NAMA menacingly (or reassuringly depending on your perspective!) that even after bankruptcy has ended after one year, there is a further two year probationary period and if, during the period, previously undisclosed assets are uncovered then the bankruptcy starts all over again.

(14) NAMA says that in its opinion, the Irish residential property market is nationally down 57% from peak values, compared with the 48% published by the CSO in February 2012. NAMA says that although the CSO says that prices outside Dublin have fallen by just 43%, that NAMA’s experience is that they have fallen by much more.

(15) Both Deputy Pearse Doherty and Deputy Stephen Donnelly raised a general question as to how the Committee and politicians generally can be reassured about NAMA’s performance. The response from Frank Daly was process-focussed, that decisions within NAMA were rigorously examined. Furthermore the Comptroller and Auditor General was on site at NAMA to ensure it operated properly. And that was that – what expertise does the CAG’s office have in asset management?

(16) Both Brendan McDonagh and NAMA’s Director of Asset Management said they were very keen to speak to people who wanted to buy NAMA property, especially if they were not getting satisfaction with the developer or receiver. They could phone either of them, or contact them via email at info@nama.ie .

(17) NAMA says that its plan to send 15 of its existing staff into the banks to “intensively” oversee the management of the smaller loans by the 500 bank staff will satisfy their interpretation of the recommendation in the Geoghegan report that NAMA take back the smaller loans from the banks.

(18) A year after the conclusion of the Paddy McKillen case, NAMA still hasn’t got a final figure for its legal costs.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Irish economy, NAMA, Politics | 8 Comments

8 Responses

  1. on March 14, 2012 at 12:32 am John Gallaher

    Good luck to the committee did a great job last time,expecting a few questions on the Nama Cash Mountain.
    With access to such historically and artificially cheap money,unused lines of almost 4Billion,why are they hoarding cash like Silas Mariner…after all they have their golden haired “boy” building away in London and Bratislava.


  2. on March 14, 2012 at 3:03 am who_shot_the_tiger

    Someone should ask how many “staple” loans they have provided against Irish assets. Because until some entity (and there is only NAMA) provides liquidity into the system, there will be no normalisation of the economy.

    Just like the the effects of the TARP money in the USA, the economic status quo will never be restored until funds are provided into the domestic economy.


  3. on March 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm sf ca writer

    NAMA boss describes the use of internal controls and in-house rules to deal with conflicts of interests. Doesn’t that say it all?


  4. on March 15, 2012 at 12:32 pm dorothy jones

    I was at the hearing until 4:30; was surprised at some of the questions which would have been desktop research exercises. Some were more probing.
    – If 32bn not recouped; taxpayer liable, after first loss piece 55 by banks [ok, not new, in the legislation]
    – Amazingly only 13m allocated to 29 ghost estates. This compared to the other sums allocated to other projects is risible
    – Pearse Doherty’s researcher should have done their homework on the pending case re Information request wrt NAMA. The hearing is due in Apr 2012 [request made 2010]. All on Gavin Sheridans blog; he gave a free lecture on it this week. It’s not FOI but under SI 133 of 2007 [will check]


    • on March 15, 2012 at 12:48 pm namawinelake

      @Dorothy,

      I’m not sure what you mean by “after first loss piece 55 by banks ” but yesterday Brendan McDonagh said that if NAMA had made a loss at the end of its lifetime, then in the first instance NAMA wouldn’t honour the c€1.5bn of subordinated debt that it had used to pay 5% of the purchase price at the banks, but he said after that, it would be the taxpayer that picked up the bill because the Government had guaranteed NAMA bonds. There was, strikingly I thought, no reference to recouping losses from the banks, as provided for by s225 of the NAMA Act.

      With the Gavin Sheridan court case, that’s really between NAMA and the Information Commissioner and relates to NAMA being classified as public authority and consequently being subjected to environmental information requests, which Gavin seems to suggest might be akin to freedom of information requests. So the question was why one state body, NAMA, was opposing another state body, the Information Commissioner, in a bid to suppress transparency and run up legal costs. A fair question, no?


  5. on March 15, 2012 at 12:44 pm who_shot_the_tiger

    OK, so we squeeze the truth out little by little…… but with a few “porkies” still thrown in to placate the great unwashed and the media.

    (1) NAMA “would be confident” of recovering the €32bn it has paid for loans plus NAMA’s carrying costs …
    Outright “porkie”. Not a chance – but NAMA will not own up to it just yet.

    (2) NAMA’s cash mountain.
    True

    (3) NAMA has “no intention” of borrowing money to fund advances to developers.
    No doubt about it. The developers have the proverbial “two chances” of getting any money out of NAMA for development.

    (4) Developers business plans.
    As pointed out here long ago the system of MoUs has been abandoned. The new wheeze is to issue a “letter of rejection” and concurrently issue a “letter of support”. In other words, as a borrower, you can live day to day at NAMA’s whim – or not, as the case may be.

    (5) Tenants and UORRs.
    I have no first hand knowledge on the NAMA assertion, so I can’t comment.

    (6) NAMA describes the Irish property market as “very moribund”.
    Too true, but that state is mainly caused by NAMA itself, who won’t sell its assets and allow the market to function.

    (7) NAMA has softened its stance on selling property back to defaulting developers.
    The penny has eventually dropped that in the main, these are the only people interested in buying them and historically in every other similar situation worldwide have been the buyers willing to pay the most for their assets. A small glimmer of commercial realism.

    (8) NAMA’s funding costs are close to 2%.
    Hard to believe as 95% of its funding is at 1%. Something else is happening here, probably hedging as NWL suggests.

    (9) Priory Hall loan.
    Unusual and seems like a great excuse to do a Pontius Pilate, but I’ll take their word for it.

    (10) All tenants’ rents are “pursued” to be mandated to NAMA.
    Weasel words. As Frank Carson might say “It’s the way I tell them”

    (11) to (17) just more “spin”, except it is unlikely to receive approval for its negative equity mortgage product from the EC as proposed as it would be in breach of the EC competition policy.

    Which brings us to (18) Paddy McKillen… NAMA’s nemesis. The legal expenses will be the least of its worries before this particular saga is finished.


  6. on March 15, 2012 at 12:46 pm John Gallaher

    @Dorothy Jones,NWL linked it before here is Hayes on FOI and fruits,ehm…saying exactly what I have no idea,but he’s talking…..

    “Deputy Brian Hayes:    The Deputy has a fair point to make on the Freedom of Information Acts. I have heard similar comments being made by other Members of the House. This is something at which the Government is looking. We have given a commitment to amend the legislation. In that context, we will look at applying freedom of information legislation to NAMA, or parts of it. This would lead to the provision of useful information for all Deputies and the public.

    Are we comparing apples and oranges? NAMA has purchased the assets at supremely discounted prices. The Deputy’s question is whether this should be reflected in the actual value they once had or at their current market value. We can look at that aspect.”
    http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/02/22/00011.asp


  7. on March 15, 2012 at 4:47 pm Dorothy Jones

    Thank You @NWL and John Gallagher



Comments are closed.

  • Recent Posts

    • Test – 12 November 2018
    • Farewell from NWL
    • Happy 70th Birthday, Michael
    • Of the Week…
    • Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of European Commission commitments
    • Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne’s bankruptcy
    • NAMA sues Maria Byrne and Graham Byrne in Dublin’s High Court
    • Johnny Ronan finally wins a court case
  • Recent Comments

    Wisemama on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    Dorothy Jones on Of the Week…
    Sean Bean on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    John Foody on Of the Week…
    Wisemama on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    otto on Of the Week…
    Frank Street on Of the Week…
    Wisemama on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    John Gallaher on Of the Week…
    John Gallaher on Of the Week…
    who_shot_the_tiger on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    Sean Bean on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    otto on Of the Week…
    Brian Flanagan on Of the Week…
    Robert Browne on Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to b…
  • Twitter Updates

    • Funniest case in Irish legal history? 1. ex-Cllr Fred Forsey convicted of RECEIVING a corrupt payment 2. developer… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Really looking forward to this at 9pm tonight, esp the first Garda on the scene. Well worth reading this background… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Tea time on the day the president of the ECB tells us we [in Ireland] are paying more interest on our loans than th… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • “I am grateful for you to refer to Mr Sugarman...on the specific question of Unicredit, responsibility at ECB lies… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • @JMcGuinnessTD now confronts ECB about "the honest whistleblower" @WhistleIRL and his disclosures of liquidity issu… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Details, including court documents of class action in New York against Ryanair and CEO Michael O'Leary.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Draghi tells @paulmurphy_TD the ECB doesn't remove govts, the people do, that's democracy. Bet the people will be m… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Wow! Draghi says there is no net interest cost for the Anglo bonds whilst they're held by the Irish central bank. T… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    Follow @namawinelake
  • Click on date for that day’s posts

    March 2012
    M T W T F S S
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
    « Feb   Apr »
  • Blog Stats

    • 5,114,122 hits

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • NAMA Wine Lake
    • Join 1,326 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • NAMA Wine Lake
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: