Last week, Roisin Burke in the Sunday Independent reported that Starwood Capital, the US-headquartered global property investment company, was the top bidder for Project Aspen, the €810m of loans owned by NAMA which relate to some of, though not all, developer David Courtney’s properties. Initial enquiries on here last week indicated the Sindo article was speculation and it was ignored. But the Starwood bid has been confirmed this week by usually-reliable sources, with final bids having been submitted on Tuesday last to Eastdil, which is managing the sale on behalf of NAMA, with additional news that Pimco is the second-highest bidder. All fine and dandy, so far, another shower of foreign investors buying a barrowload of Irish assets.
What is generating ructions in the property world though, is the association of David Courtney – the Dublin developer whose loans are being flogged – with the Starwood bid. The Sunday Independent claimed “David Courtney, a top NAMA client, has teamed up with US investment firm Starwood and local finance house Key Capital to bid for the loan book.” Rival parties are whinging – as loudly as they can without burning their bridges with NAMA – that if the Sindo story is true, what is the point of any investor bidding for NAMA assets when the original borrower can simply team up with one specific bidder and use their inside knowledge to enhance the bid, and afterwards pick up a lucrative role managing the asset.
David Courtney’s role in the Starwood bid in unclear with the Sindo and some confidential contact on here suggesting he is right now central to the bid, though he is not providing funding. There has been talk of David approaching Andrew Gunne at Key Capital which in turn attracted the attention of Starwood Capital to the portfolio.
Others suggest that David is entirely removed from the bid, but is likely to be part of the future management of the portfolio under Starwood, should Starwood win the bidding.
Indeed, there may be unease in NAMA itself about David’s precise role in the bid. NAMA is proscribed by the NAMA Act from selling assets to defaulting debtors, and in 2011, when the Grehan brothers were associated with a consortium’s bid for their UK Glenkerrin assets, it is understood that NAMA was dismissive of the notion. But, on the other hand, NAMA has sold the €250m Donal Mulryan UK loan portfolio to Morgan Stanley, and Donal himself is employed to manage those assets.
NAMA doesn’t comment on individual transactions, and it is clear that the bidding for the Project Aspen portfolio has been fierce, though alas, that won’t be reflected in the final price which is likely to be around €200m or 25c in the euro. It seems though that if Starwood wins the Project Aspen bidding, the future role of David Courtney will be closely scrutinized by NAMA and the market.
Developers themselves are wryly observing that the likes of Starwood are chasing returns from Irish property, which internally in those organizations, are targeted at 20% per annum. If NAMA is supposed to be an asset management agency, then why is NAMA itself not delivering returns of 20% rather than “gifting” them to international investors?
Investigating the Starwood bid during the week uncovered another hitherto-unreported bid for a second portfolio, a portfolio which has not yet been pitched by NAMA to the market generally. It seems that Starwood has submitted a second bid on a €120m par value portfolio relating to some of NAMA Top 30 developer, John Flynn’s assets including the Harcourt Street Children’s Hospital, a 50% stake in Burlington Plaza and Belfield Office Park. John might be most associated with the development of Smithfield, and partnered up with other Irish developers in commercial and residential developments across Dublin. NAMA is understood to be slowly considering the bid in light of its newly-acquired experience with bundling loans up for sale.
UPDATE: 27th April, 2013. Sources close to the matter claim that the Project Aspen sale has been closed at €180m or 22c in the euro and that Starwood Capital (SWC) was the winning bidder. NAMA doesn’t comment on individual sales. There was no comment from SWC at time of writing.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Starwood Capital is a Public as opposed to Private equity capital company, and therefore does not seek the inflated and aggressive IRRs that others like Goldman Sachs, The Carlyle Group and TPG do.
The financial markets suggest that asset pricing theory requires less liquid assets (private equity capital) to have higher expected returns to compensate for lower liquidity. However, there is a lack of data on private equity returns that does not suffer from survival bias. Despite the hype and false promises, the existing historic evidence, such as it is, says the returns have not been high, given the risks. But in truth, because private equity investments are risky, good estimates of expected returns are not possible with the limited data that are available.
To me, the private equity market is the next big bubble. When I spoke with one of them a month ago, and asked how they hoped to achieve a profit from some of the rubbish they were buying, I was told that they could always sell it down to another fund within the Group. Madoff or Ponzi would have been proud of them. Private equity is driven by fees and commissions. The promise of 20% plus returns is, as it mostly always has been, a Ponzi style pyramid and delusion, fit only for the “sucker” money.
In relation to the Courtney portfolio, on the basis of an unpaid principal balance (UPB) of €810 million and a discount of 75%, it would indeed suggest a sales price of €200 million. However, I can’t understand Pimco’s interest, as this is not their territory at all. Bonds, mutual funds, equity funds…. yes, but a property fund in Ireland, of all places, with a mixed bag of assets requiring a lot of “boots on the ground” management, I don’t see it.
Most of the remaining loan portfolios of any size (over €100 million) in Ireland will be bought by equity funds of one sort or another because they are the only entities with the money to buy them. These funds are managed by bankers and accountants and have no skill sets in property management or development; and there are not enough property platforms with those skill sets in Ireland to serve the needs of the Funds, hence we have the likes of KKR utilising the UK arm of Delancey to manage Irish property assets.
David Courtney is recognised by his peers as one of the best property asset management specialists in the country. It would be no surprise if Starwood sought to retain his services as part of the deal. It is extensively known in the industry that, contrary to Roisin Burke’s erroneous assertion in the Independent and grumbling from the naysayers within NAMA, there is no agreement on that issue between the parties.
In relation to other loan portfolio sales; the gossip in the debt sale industry is that NAMA wants to sell €2 billion of loans (€8 billion UBP) this year. That is a hugely ambitious target given the competition from IBRC and the foreign owned banks. The problem that NAMA has in achieving its target is its own inexperience in the area. Hence the “one at a time” mentality (it is not capable of multi-tasking the loan sales yet) and the time that it is taking to get its act together. This is causing tremendous frustration to the bidding parties, who complain that they can not even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement of receipt of their offer from NAMA after a month or more. And these bad manners are displayed to people who are putting more than €100 million on the table, with no staple funding requirement from the Agency.
Clearly NAMA’s inter-personal techniques and business etiquette could do with being brushed up a bit, if it hopes to sell €2 billion this year.
For a start, Starwood IS a private equity firm (see link below to their own website). They own a publically listed REIT-style property fund but, the Starwood Capital parent entity is a very typical private equity firm. This is a self-evident fact.
http://www.starwoodcapital.com/Overview.aspx
The facetious suggestion that private equity returns do not support the implied yields for asset purchases is akin to reading the disclaimer for any basic retail investment… “Past performance is no indication of future returns”. Attempting use this blindingly obvious concept to downplay the implied yield on a property purchase is extremely deceiving considering the type of assets in this portfolio. We are not talking about development land in Co Leitrim, assuming the ability to sell luxury apartments to gullible yanks… This portfolio includes performing assets such as the Shelbourne Hotel and various other buildings let to rent paying leasees. This means there is an identifiable cash flow from these assets, which justify the implied yields.
This post strikes me as a deceiving attempt to distract people from asking why NAMA would sell these assets at such a distressed price, to a consortium including the original debtor. General office space in Dublin is trading at about 8-9% inside the M50 and, while retail is a slightly riskier prospect, the supposed 20% yield that this is reportedly trading at would make me wonder what advantage the winning bidder had in having David Courtney in the bid party.
There have been many anecdotal stories heard through the recession about heavily leveraged developers managing to negotiate beneficial restructuring of liabilities due to the complete lack of documentation held by the lending banks. I can’t help but think that since the assets were never fully repossessed, that Courtney had some sort of control over the sale process. NAMA has an obligation to taxpayers to recover the maximum return on asset sales however, the ownership transfer process from the banks to NAMA would seem to me to be the biggest, and sadly retrospective, concern.
Just re-reading the blogpost above and it strikes me how little the whinging rival parties to Starwood know about the NAMA sales process and how much rubbish media hacks like Roisin Burke, and indeed disgruntled observers talk.
First of all, any offer that is pitched in an acceptable “ballpark” should start the sales process. It does not mean that the initial party’s offer or indeed any offer will be accepted, but under the NAMA Act it is required to:
“take all steps necessary or expedient to protect, enhance or realise the value of acquired bank assets, including—
(i) the disposal of loans or portfolios of loans in the market for the best achievable price.”
In cases where the initial bid is at a level that reflects current market value, it is arguable that NAMA is obliged under the legislation to begin a sales process.
It then appoints an independent third party to invite and process bids. In the case of the first two Irish portfolios that it is selling, these two parties are Eastdil and CBRE (UK). All negotiations are conducted through these agents and all information is provided by them.
All bidders are prohibited from any discussion with the borrowers. The vendor is NAMA – not the borrower. Therefore, there should be no practical advantage to any one bidder over another. The Data Room is open to all bidders on an equal basis. The same information is available to all. In theory, it should be a level playing field. Sealed tenders are submitted to the Agents and opened by NAMA. The process is about as watertight as it can get, so I don’t know why the losers whinge. But it’s something losers always do anyway.
That assumes (a big assumption) that the lender knows as much about the assets as the borrower. If you believe that then your thesis is correct. Unfortunately, that is never the case. The lender only knows what it is told by the borrower.
If SWC had previously been approached by Key/DC then it would have had both a better understanding of the assets (than NAMA) and, I presume, some form of deal with DC. SWC would have been prohibited from contacting the borrower during the Eastdil sales process, but they hardly forgot what they previously knew/agreed.
More to the point, borrowers (such as DC) are not going to sit idly by while their assets (via their loans) are disposed of. The nature of these guys is to be stuck into the middle of the process. The best way to do it is Pre position a friendly party.
Anyhow, if the losers want to whinge then tough. Thats the way non performing loan sale with only one borrwer go all over the world, and the only way to stop it is to bundle a few different borrowers’ loans under the one portfolio (ideally more than 2) so as to inbibit this type of collusion.
If the lender does not have full information about the assets (it’s not rocket science), then that’s the fault of the lender, its advisors and its agents.
However, the point is valid if there is less than full information available. The price achieved by bundling loans relies on the same standard, and if pparticipation by the borrower is disallowed, the possibility that there will be less than full information available is always there and, as I said previously, is dependent on the expertise of NAMA and its advisors.
@tiger …. Lets look at one of your own statements…
“All bidders are prohibited from any discussion with the borrowers.”
Then how come DC is working with Starwood..?
Unfortunately the lender will only know what the borrower tells them. You said above that DC is one of the best property players in the country – so I assume that he has been working away on various initiatives that aren’t yet delivered. As for not rocket science, yes IF it’s just a plain vanilla collect the rent asset, I doubt that this is the case here, otherwise they would have appointed administrators (I believe they are called receivers in Ireland) and sold the assets.
As soon as loans are “on the block” any borrower is likely to retain certain valuable information such as leasing negotiations (until contracted), development and other appraisals etc. Borrowers do this so as to reduce the value of the loans in the eyes of the lender and so that he has more to offer the eventual buyer. The best advisers in the world won’t get that sort of insight without 100% disclosure from the borrwer.
Put yourself in a borrowers shoes and ask what would you do.
Ah stop,what skills we discussing,how to turn 800 million into 100-not much of an asset manager from my viewpoint…his market timing and finance skills questionable say the least.
Spose someone has to take out the garbage hire the cleaners,may as well be this chap….his problems don’t go away when the loans are sold.
The economy is still so fu**ed Sam Zell,would have difficulty adding value.Whats he goona do magic up a few tenants……if anyone thinks NAMA is going away they mistaken.So he’s gonna be hired or retained by Starwood and possibly jeopardize their access to Aladins cave….unlikely…but more importantly its strokes his ego nicely,ah someone wants you sweet:)
@JG,,…. There’s no answer to that, John! I can’t fault it!
Nick asked me to put myself in the borrower’s shoes. If I was the borrower in this particular case, I would welcome the opportunity to leave NAMA and see my loans bought by a more commercial entity. As for managing them, Why? An old developer in Boston once advised me never to fall in love with an inanimate object – it doesn’t love you back. And it would be too negative for me, I am a lover of creativity. Overseeing a “run off”?.. Nah. I would not care who bought the loans. One thing is for sure, though – they have to be better than the current holder.
@WSTT,don’t know him at all but his experience with this portfolio was mixed,assume he’s half as ahem creative gifted special as alleged.
Why would you want bust r ba**s creating/ading value on your old portfolio for bunch yanks,can only imagine the brain damage involved in reporting,committees,hand holding,cultural differences.If he’s this “good” go raise a fund,buy someone else’s bombed out crashed portfolio and have a fresh start.
The worst guy to work out loans is the one who made them,seconded only by the one who borrowed it….the tenants would think he’s a joke too from owner to hired help.
As they say here,the real estate neither knows nor cares who owns it.
@JG. Everything is relative, John. I don’t know DC, but Ireland is a small pond. The description “good” needs to be taken in that context. Big fish, small ponds etc. He would have local knowledge and has a reputation as a detailist – I don’t know how that balances with a 75% write-down on the loans though. I do agree about the perception of reduction in status to “hired help” though. It’s probably why the likes of Bernard McNamara didn’t stay.
Developers are mainly unemployable. No discipline, or office etiquette. They prefer “builders’ brew” in a site hut. Nobody’s going to keep them over a long period. They don’t make good employees. The buyers will put the bean counters and “office managers” in on top of the borrowers and will complete the takeover as soon as they have sufficient information to dump the borrower – about 12 months at the outside, I reckon.
I’d rather own a beach bar on the Jersey shore.
@WSTT…never been Jersey Shore but agreed would suit some x Irish masters of the universe.Short season though…..a strange article…loose lips and and all that.
One could interpret the article as more damaging to his rep. than enhancing.
I doubt that he’d care once he has a big debt write down and a share in any future upside.
He might even be able to live that Jersey dream.
Better than owing a few hundred k’s to a covered bank, at least he gets a second chance and a leg up!!
@Nick he’s getting a debt write down,really….not au fait with his PG’s or lack thereoff,but given the hosing the Irish taxpayer is taking on his ahem “vision” best case is hired help.
Upside,what’s he bringing to the party…,, bit of oul sweat equity…sweaty irish developers a dime a dozen all looking for a start,carrying an awful lot of baggage.Barry at Starwood is not know to be altruistic,they pick his brains,slim picking from what I hear !
@WSTT….DC slurping tea in the hut……more like breakfast with Anglo:)
It all depends how much you pay for the assets…. Pay €800m and you loose, pay €200m and you should make a few bob. ’twas always thus.
SWC doesn’t have a platform in Dublin, and buying a portfolio without any manager in mind is not their M.O. As @WSTT says, he does seem to have a good rep (albeit relative) and so would be as good a place start as any other.
It’ll be interesting to see how it unfolds.
@Nick,his platform such that it is,now London based,if its boots on the ground required,why utilize a London based asset manager ?
Oh look that not even paying this……
http://spaincourtneydoyle.com/aboutSCD/aboutSCD.asp
Ah well his wife has nice spacious gaff in leafy Rarhmines,so at least he has place to crash if he gets the gig.
“A second developer, David Courtney, of estate agents Spain Courtney Doyle, has also registered his family home in his wife’s name. Registered to Eileen Courtney on October 20, 2008, the property is a spacious two-storey Victorian pile on Belgrave Square in Rathmines. A similar property there is currently on the market for €1.975m.”
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/more-developers-put-wives-names-on-houses-26688573.html
What possible reason could there be for being London based????
The only reason anyone would stay for the crumbs that fall from the private equity capital table is to get released from PGs. No-one would do it otherwise. Getting out of NAMA’s clutches is the prime objective, because unless you are out there are no opportunities in Ireland – can’t buy any of the NAMA assets and can’t get a loan from a bank on any basis.
There is only one other viable choice, a foreign bankruptcy and a new life elsewhere. Many are taking that choice. It isn’t good for the price NAMA can achieve for the assets that they leave behind though. As NIck says, buying portfolios in Ireland without an asset manager (and preferably one that has the “long knowledge” of the assets) is not something the funds find attractive.
After 12 months, when they understand the assets well – it’s a different story. You’re dispensable…. very dispensable.
To get a PE style “promote” I presume
@tiger. You seem to believe that Starwood are buying the properties themselves, which would make sense of why you were dressing up Starwood as their publicly listed real estate fund. Lets be very, very clear, Starwood are NOT buying the assets, they are buying non-performing loans secured on these assets. The fact that NAMA would sell these loans at a discount rather than secure title and sell the underlying assets would suggest that DC’s involvement in the bidding team has a lot more to do with his control over the assets that his knowledge thereof.
@Nick, You are kidding…. aren’t you?
Which comment?
@Nick he’s taking the p**s……
“After initially attracting Germans, who face a minimum of six years in bankruptcy, the British system soon received an increasing number of Irish people. All applicants have to do is prove that their “centre of main economic interest” is in the UK; in other words, that Britain is the home of their business. Among the first prominent debtors to head to the UK was property developer John Fleming who, with his construction firm, owed €1bn to the banks. He declared bankruptcy in the modest setting of Southend county court, Essex, in November 2010 and was discharged a year later.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/ireland-bankruptcy-tourists-tougher-treatment-english-courts
Exactly – it doesn’t mean that he’s still not active in Ireland.
Anyhow, time will tell. Let’s see who’s managing it once SWC close.
@Nick, I was somewhat incredulous that someone with so much knowledge would not realise why most ex-developers are now based in the UK. It is as John correctly says because of the bankruptcy laws.. They all realise that if they do not exit from NAMA with their loan portfolio, it is the final solution.
I agree about the promote, but PE companies really have no intention of ever paying it. It is limited at best…. and do you honestly believe that the PE companies intend to have the borrower still around to collect it in 5 years time? No, the best they can hope for is a release of the guarantees and some pocket money until the PE companies learn the ropes.
I do agree with you though, DC will end up managing it. That’s obvious … but, for a limited time only. Wall Street warriors don’t carry much much extra baggage.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/14020
@WSTT it’s the Alois connection they want,complex capital stack….but good fit for them.
“After working as an apprentice waiter in the…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Hitler,_Jr#section_1
Have a look again at the double “??”, it was an attempt at being ironic…. Although perhaps not as obvious as it should have been. Apologies.
The promote can be easily documented in a short legal agreement. PE companies don’t tend to renege on them when they make $$$ as word would leak out and their future deals would be impacted. Typically, once they are making money they don’t mind in sharing it.
Anyhow, what’s clear is (as ever) you are better off owing millions rather than thousands.
@tiger… Your words…
“… I agree about the promote, but PE companies really have no intention of ever paying it. It is limited at best…. and do you honestly believe that the PE companies intend to have the borrower still around to collect it in 5 years time? No, the best they can hope for is a release of the guarantees and some pocket money until the PE companies learn the ropes…”
So, you now accept that Starwood are in fact a private equity company..? Why were you then trying to dress them up as a publicly listed company..?
Maybe I’m just too cynical… or had too many dealings with those in the Wall Street financial area. The ones that I’ve met are as excited as Johns negotiating with the most attractive hooker on the street before the main event….. no price is too high. After the event……. different story
@Tiger… I’d be very surprised you’ve ever had any dealings with anyone on Wall Street (let alone the shoeshine boy) if you fail to distinguish between debt and equity capital… One makes you a creditor and gives you a legal claim on an asset, the other gives you legal title over the asset. If a creditor fails to exercise their call on a non-performing asset financed by their capital, the most they would seem to be able sell is a potentially dubious loan with very weak documentation.
@Waldorf. I am well aware that NAMA is selling loans, not the underlying assets, NAMA can only sell what it owns – which are the loans. To sell the assets it would have to appoint receivers. Then the receivers sell, not NAMA.
Surprise, surprise! I have had dealings with Wall Street. And I do know the difference between equity and debt. So what’s your point?
Starwood gets most of its capital from Public Bodies not hedge funds, hence it is more competitive and can bid more than most of the vultures who need higher returns for their investors and also to cover their own generous fees.
If DC gets the gig, then good luck to him. I have never met him, but I do know that there was no pre-sale deal contracted with him.
These assets are not being traded at a 20% yield. By my calculation the yield represents a 7% plus cap rate. Private equity capital is looking for a 20% IRR return (which is different to yield). Whether they will achieve it or not in the Irish market is a moot point, as it has yet to be proven.
To me the Private equity funds are the next bubble – actually they are the next Ponzi. Ask them what happens if they can’t get out in 5 years and they will tell you that they will drop the assets down to another fund within the group. It’a all about earning fees for the fund. The investors are in a game of “musical chairs”…… who can get out first before it’s discovered that the assets are not worth the colour of the money paid for them. And that’s a Ponzi scheme by anyone’s standards.
@Tiger… “… To sell the assets it would have to appoint receivers. Then the receivers sell, not NAMA…”
Wrong… NAMA can force bankruptcy proceedings on an individual or force a holding company into liquidation in order to secure the legal call option which a debtor holds over secured assets. In that case, NAMA can secure title, and sell the underlying asset/property themselves, as the legal owner. The receiver of an insolvent/defaulted company is obligated to recover as much of the monies owed as possible… If the debt owed is substantially larger than the value of the asset (fairly common in Ireland given the NAMA transfer discounts) the creditor is perfectly entitled to take ownership, by dint of being the highest bidder below the loan principle amount.
NAMA’s inability to secure title on these assets raises a lot of questions over the legal enforceability of the loan documentation.
@waldorf: before NAMA can “force bankruptcy proceedings” it would have have to obtain judgement against the borrower. That takes longer and is not the route that it has chosen. Your answer displays an ignorance of the practicalities and the modus operandi used to date.
@Tiger… “… To me the Private equity funds are the next bubble – actually they are the next Ponzi. Ask them what happens if they can’t get out in 5 years and they will tell you that they will drop the assets down to another fund within the group. It’a all about earning fees for the fund…”
You do realise how fees are traditionally structured for leveraged funds..? The well known phrase ‘2 & 20’ depicts a 2% fee on assets under management and 20% fee on profits generated. Any fund only making fees on AUM wouldn’t last long. The concept of a traditional LBO is designed to buy assets for as little cash-down as possible. Purchase the asset with copious quantities of debt secured on the asset in question with a minimal level of equity, then engineer a cash extraction to repay the original cash investment so that it becomes a free option for massive returns should the company generate enough cash to pay down the debt. Numerous options such as Payment-In-Kind (PIK) bonds or simple opperational efficiencies to maximise cash generation are designed to repay principle investment early… The 5-year horizon is about the potential for return on the investment.
Comparing PE to the late-“great” Charles Ponzi is just lazy… The basic premise of debtor status is a put option on the secured assets, should the equity holder be unable to satisfy this option, then they lose control of the secured assets… Basic option theory dictates that an equity stock is a call option on the assets and that’s all… Should the asset value be lower than the strike, the option will expire, un-exercised.
Debt investment is all about the details… Not spurious claims about investment strategies one fails to understand.
I am aware of all that. Whats your point?
P.S. No PE is going to get highly leveraged debt from an Irish based bank. You would know that if you were out there trying. Your scenario does not work in the current Irish banking climate and only goes to prove the Ponzi comment – the truth of which will become evident over time.
@Tiger… “.. If DC gets the gig, then good luck to him. I have never met him, but I do know that there was no pre-sale deal contracted with him…”
How do you know this to be true..? If you do not know him, or are not involved in the process, how can you state this as fact..?
You have already, incorrectly and inconsistently, claimed the following…
“… All bidders are prohibited from any discussion with the borrowers.”
Yet he is very openly working for the buyer. I am getting the impression you may have a slightly biased perspective here…
It is a condition of the NAMA sales process that bidders do not contact the borrower.
How I know about Courtney’s position is my own affair. Believe it or not as you like. I don’t give a sh•t.
@WSTT, @WngC
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan this week set out NAMA’s position as regards involvement of the borrower in the sales process. Before a formal sales process, it’s fine, but once a portfolio or property has been put on the market, there shouldn’t be debtor involvement with any bidder during the sales process.
Deputy Pearse Doherty: To ask the Minister for Finance following news that the National Asset Management Agency is selling large portfolios of loans which bundle together loans to a single borrower, if he is concerned that the borrower may derive a benefit from providing pre-sale advice to certain bidders.
Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan: I am advised by NAMA that it cannot preclude market participants from approaching debtors to discuss their property assets or to indicate potential interest in acquiring either properties or loans. Nor can NAMA preclude debtors from engaging with such potential purchasers. To do either would be counterproductive and could stifle normal commercial discussions in the property market and in particular could discourage international investors from exploring acquisition possibilities in Ireland. However, NAMA has very clear rules regarding the open marketing of loans or of properties on which it holds security.
As set out in response to recent Parliamentary Questions on the topic of NAMA loan sales [44286/12, 44287/12, 44288/12, 44189/12, 1549/13, 8753/13, 8754/13], NAMA has adopted a very thorough approach in line with accepted international market best practice for the sale of loan portfolios. As part of the formal sales process, potential purchasers are required to provide an undertaking that they will not engage with the debtor or other obligors at any stage during the sales process. Both debtors and potential purchasers are aware that the infringement of agreed protocols or undertakings may have an impact on NAMA’s decisions as to whether and to whom it sells a particularly portfolio. Furthermore, where NAMA approves the sale of any loan or approves the sale of any secured property by a debtor, it requires a confirmation that the purchaser is not connected to the debtor or other obligors.
Having ensured, as far as possible, that the sales process is conducted on the basis of all parties having equal access to the necessary information at the same time and that such primary sales are not made to the relevant debtors or to connected parties, NAMA advises that it has no legal right to intervene in any further future management or sales of the loan or underlying property in question post disposal.
@NWL… And that is exactly as it is on the ground. No discussions between bidders and debtor during tha sales process, and no sweetheart agreements prior to the sale.
Plenty oh whingeing from the “also rans” though.
as they dont make too many appearances in Ireland,warning may put you too sleep……
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/gcprogram.taf?function=detail&EvID=3997&eventid=GC13
Mr Starwood wins!
Told you JG Starwood won it!
From Property WeeK
“Starwood Capital wins Project Aspen
30 April 2013 | By Sarah Stewart
Project Aspen, NAMA’s €810m non-performing loan portfolio has been bought by Starwood Capital.
Starwood Capital is expected to pay around €200m for the portfolio, which is made up of 30 commercial property loans extended to developer David Courtney by the Bank of Ireland before the financial downturn.
Project Aspen was brought to the market in February. It is secured by office and retail properties across Dublin and inclues shopping centres in Lucan and Waterford.
PIMCO was revealed as the under bidder.”
Congratulations NWL. Ahead of the news pack as always.