NAMA committed itself to producing impairment estimates twice in 2012, firstly at the half year stage which is an innovation and secondly in the year end accounts, as is usual. Today NAMA’s report and accounts for the quarter ending 30th June 2012 were published and there is in fact a €128m impairment charge for Q2,2012. The “impairment charge” is the estimate in the decline in the value of NAMA loans, occurring in part as a result in the continuing decline of property prices in NAMA’s main market, Ireland where commercial fell 4% in H1, 2012 according to Jones Lang LaSalle and residential fell 6% according to the Central Statistics Office. The estimate on here was that the impairment charge would have been €300-400m, the actual impairment charge of €128m looks low.
So, what do the report and accounts tell us? This is a flash commentary, there will be a detailed commentary tomorrow.
(1) NAMA made a profit of €89m after impairment of €128m in Q2, 2012. That’s a better result than the €133m in Q1, 2012, a quarter in which there was no impairment charge. For H1, 2012 NAMA has notched up a profit of €222m which is reasonably impressive, but because NAMA hides behind “effective interest rates”, there is always a suspicion that the underlying performance is poor. But on the face of it, a very good result.
(2) The % of NAMA loans – by reference to the original loan values – that is performing is 19%, unchanged from Q1, 2012 but this includes restructured loans. NAMA doesn’t produce a performing % by reference to the original loan agreements but the estimate on here is that just 15% is now performing by reference to the original loan value and original loan agreement, it was 17% in Q1,2012.
(3) NAMA’s operating costs continue to be waaaay below budget which for 2012 was an annual cost of €194m. NAMA’s operating costs for H1, 2012 come to just €53.1m. NAMA spent just €23,000 on legal fees in Q1,2012 and in the Q2, 2012, legal fees came to just €887,000. Remember NAMA had a budget for legal fees of €25m in 2012. NAMA spent a whopping €566,000 on IT in Q2,2012 which will prompt some wry smiles given the IT failings that emerged in September 2012 in the Enda Farrell scandal.
(4) NAMA has taken possession of an additional €400,000 of “non real estate property” in Q2,2012 bringing its total property, including houses handed over in settlement of personal guarantees, to €7.2m – remember nearly all the loans NAMA has foreclosed have resulted in receivers overseeing the property – NAMA itself has very little property.
(5) NAMA has a healthy cash position (still) with €900m received from debtors during Q2, 2012 – this includes interest, normal repayment of loans and sale of properties with proceeds paying down loans.NAMA had €3bn of cash on hand at the end of Q2, 2012.
(6) NAMA has advanced €863m to debtors and approved an additional €470m which hasn’t been handed over yet.
There will be a detailed analysis tomorrow but this looks like a good result in Q1,2012.
NAMA Wine Lake 
@NWL,
In a number of ABS it’s common to have ledger’s for each loan. If a loan defaults, the costs incurred are entered here and not in the overall accounts. When the loan is foreclosed and all recoveries have been made; the foreclosure costs and interest costs are netted and then recognised in the general account.
It seems to me that NAMA may be doing something similar. This would explain the ‘low’ legal costs etc. Though it would place future performance under pressure.