Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » NAMAwatch (Pt. I)

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:03 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 22471
Location: Over Macho Grande? I don't think I'll ever be over Macho Grande...
Open Window wrote:
An email header would do it for me.


Like...

Quote:


Give me a break, anything like that, even jpeged is 100% non verifiable.

Let them forward the juicy ones to Harry McGee and let him publish them! :twisted:

_________________
People change. Hairstyles change. Interest rates fluctuate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:55 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 1, 1970
Posts: 22913
There are more specific details in email headers.
Not always easy to reveal in gmail but you can in an email client.

For example

Image

_________________
Follow The Pin - https://twitter.com/dailypinster

"Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers." - Buckminster Fuller

"I was comfortable with a couple of banks being married today, instead i wake up and find I'm married to the banks." - Catbear

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:57 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Nov 22, 2007
Posts: 6073
Open Window wrote:
There are more specific details in email headers.
Not always easy to reveal in gmail but you can in an email client.


Every header is as easy to fake as the From header.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate
User avatar

Joined: May 15, 2008
Posts: 744
Location: Reviewing
provost wrote:
Open Window wrote:
There are more specific details in email headers.
Not always easy to reveal in gmail but you can in an email client.


Every header is as easy to fake as the From header.


:nin How to trace the source of an email http://whatismyipaddress.com/forum/index.php?forum=13

_________________
“The CEO was personally bought off by being given IPO allocations, ... Small investors were left holding the bag.” Eliot Spitzer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:39 pm 
Offline
Holiday Home Owner

Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Posts: 323
Interesting reply from somebody connected to the economic policy group of the Green Party....

Nate

Quote:
Hi Name,

Just to let you know that I have posted an extract from this {my original email} to the relevant members.

Your position on NAMA is shared by a large, and increasing, number of members of the Green Party.

The way the Greens are structured means that there is a reasonable chance of these ideas making it to the mainstream of Party opinion, and consequently influencing the legislation itself. There is an intensive debate going on on this in the Party at the moment. I can’t say much more at this stage, except “watch the media.”

Thank you for sharing your concerns--

Regards,

GP person


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:32 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2107
Pat Rabbitte Plugs the "No Money Up Front" Campaign.

http://www.independent.ie/business/iris ... 67277.html

Quote:
TDs returning to Leinster House after the summer break are in for something of a shock. The email traffic is not about pharmacists or knife crime or swine flu. It is not even about how Irish ministers slum it when abroad or the expenses of TDs (though there is some of that). True, the McCarthy report does get a look in. But one topic above all else motivates the public and that topic is Nama.

Judging from my postbag, the correspondents at least are not motivated to support the proposed Nama strategy.

Not even the imposition of the pension levy attracted such a torrent of feedback. If there are still some ministers in denial about the anger, bitterness and fear that is out there, let them take time out to read a sample of the emails pouring in. They would also be well-advised to work out clear answers to the pertinent questions being posed before coming into the Dail.


_________________
"Bankruptcies of governments have, on the whole, done less harm to mankind than their ability to raise loans."- R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 1926

"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.- John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of Peace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:46 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail
User avatar

Joined: Jan 20, 2009
Posts: 3240
Location: My imagination
I emailed everyone on the long list more than a week ago. From FF I've gotten only one or two responses asking for my details other than one or two asking for my details but nothing else. Labour responses are still dribbling in but zero from FF, who don't seem to have even organised a canned reply.

Arrogance? Disorganisation? Dissent?

_________________
“The only calibration that counts is how much heart people invest, how much they ignore their fears of being hurt or caught out or humiliated. And the only thing people regret is that they didn't live boldly enough, that they didn't invest enough heart, didn't love enough. Nothing else really counts at all.” Ted Hughes

“And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.” Anais Nin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:08 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate
User avatar

Joined: Oct 25, 2007
Posts: 580
Kate P wrote:
I emailed everyone on the long list more than a week ago. From FF I've gotten only one or two responses asking for my details other than one or two asking for my details but nothing else. Labour responses are still dribbling in but zero from FF, who don't seem to have even organised a canned reply.

Arrogance? Disorganisation? Dissent?



I'm the exact same Kate. Got 2 FFers replies - both simple acknowledgements of recipt of my emails. I don't know what to make of it to be honest. Are they just keeping their heads down and hoping the issue goes away? Do they just not read email? Are they all on holiday? Who knows...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:29 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: Stuck in Ahernistan
I've had two substantive FF replies. I don't have the text of the first in front of me (snail mail) but it essentially said that the IMF report and international consensus supports NAMA. The second was as follows:
Quote:
Thank you for getting in touch with me. I wish to confirm to you that I will be supporting the NAMA legislation I can tell you ... that the most prevalent complaint that I receive from employer's, small, medium and large is lack of access to credit.

This in itself is having a very serious negative effect on the real economy. It is stifling business and inhibiting growth. Growth which is required to create jobs and reduce unemployment. This is one of the reasons that the step of creating NAMA has been taken.

Of course the valuation of the assets is crucially important. There is no doubt that the assets will be transferred to NAMA at a substantial discount. This option has been looked at in great detail. You mentioned that NAMA had received no support from Independent experts. Your contention here is actually not correct. It has been endorsed independently by the European Commission and indeed the IMF. I would generally put more faith in the European Commission and the IMF than Prof. Lucey et al. The "good bank" option was looked at, as well as nationalisation.

There are many aspects to this legislation that are difficult to cover all in one e-mail. I would be more than happy to meet you to discuss this in more detail and to give you an opportunity to put across your views to me. I am available to meet should you wish to do so. My constituency office number is ... and you can call to arrange an appointment. Alternatively you can give me a ring and we can discuss over the phone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:59 am 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 3133
Location: In a greener field.
Just got this reply from a FF Senator seems FF are saying that there is no market price!

Quote:
What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of property, land etc is in fact the incorrect price to pay?

There is no “current market price” for land and development projects because there is no market for these activities at present. Purchases of land and development projects are mostly financed using bank loans. But banks are not making new loans for land and development because past bad loans are clogging up the banking system. This means there are no buyers. That is not to say that land has no value, but rather that the market for land and development is illiquid and therefore not functioning. There is a vicious circle in operation and as a result banks are not in a position to provide the credit necessary to support economic recovery.

NAMA is not buying “property, land etc” but rather is buying loans that are secured on properties and other assets – there is a fundamental distinction. The EU Commission has set the rules on how State schemes such as NAMA should work. As members of the EU, we of course must follow these rules. The Commission is very clear that the loans are to be transferred at values based on what the Commission refer to as “long-term economic value”. This value is the amount that NAMA expects to realise over time from the loans or selling the properties on which the loans are secured. As in other such schemes in Europe and elsewhere, NAMA will not pay “fire-sale” values for assets for which there is currently no market due to a lack of liquidity.

What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of these is not in fact going to decline for a number of years, as would be the case if Ireland were to follow the common experience of previous property crashes?

Again, there is no “current market price” for land and development projects because there is no market for these activities at present. Since NAMA can be patient in disposing of property assets that it has seized from delinquent borrowers, it is the expected price for property over a longer time horizon (say 5-10 years) that is relevant for NAMA, not near-term prices.

It is worth noting that in the case of an undeveloped site in a more remote part of the country where there is no reasonable prospect of profitably completing the development project, NAMA will purchase this loan based on the agricultural value of the land. In fact, in some cases the banks will have to pay NAMA to take assets off them (e.g. a brown field site where the cost of demolition or clean up is more than the agricultural value of the land).

Why would temporary nationalisation of the banks be a bad thing, given that this would provide the taxpayer with a valuable asset which could be sold in future years?

There is no doubt that NAMA will require the banks to bear substantial losses on transfer of the assets. This will reduce the banks’ capital. Should further recapitalisation of a bank be necessary as a result of NAMA, the Government has made it clear that any further capital injections which it has to make will be by way of equity capital. This will increase the State’s ownership stake in the bank. The extent of State ownership in the banks therefore will be a natural consequence of the price paid by NAMA for the loans it will buy. Following EU Commission guidelines, NAMA is in the process of valuing each loan separately and the actual price paid by NAMA will depend on the quality of the underlying property and other collateral. It would not make sense for the Government to preempt NAMA’s work in this regard. The entire process will be subject to rigorous oversight and audit by the EU Commission.


Why does no independent analyst support the governments view on NAMA? This includes the Swedish finance minister who ran their bad bank system, who said to the Irish Times that he "favours the more severe mark-to-market write-down of assets rather than a ‘through the cycle’ valuation.", and that "it (NAMA) does not sound like the right solution to buy assets from private banks." It also includes the IMF who said " Insolvent institutions (with insufficient cash flows) should be closed, merged, or temporarily placed in public ownership until private sector solutions can be developed ... there have been numerous instances (for example, Japan, Sweden and the United States), where a period of public ownership has been used to cleanse balance sheets and pave the way to sales back to the private sector", in the context of saying that the likely losses for Irish banks were such as to render them insolvent.

On the contrary, the IMF strongly supports NAMA. In their recent report on Ireland they recognise that NAMA is a crucial step in resolving the banking crisis as it will deal with the uncertainty about the asset quality, in particular those relating to land and property and associated loans, on the banks’ balance sheet. The IMF and most experts agree that as long as this matter is left unaddressed, the banks will not be able to play their part in the restoration of economic growth. The IMF describe NAMA as “pivotal to the orderly restructuring of the financial sector and limiting long-term damage to the economy.” The IMF have never said that Irish banks are insolvent.

Financial markets and international commentators have reacted positively to the draft NAMA legislation. Spreads on Irish Government bonds over German bonds have narrowed to near their levels prior to the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank in January. The Financial Times said last week that “nine tenths of the detail of the plan are absolutely right”, its only concern being that the proposed bank levy in the event of NAMA making a loss might be too hard on the banks.


Why not force the equity and bond holders in Irish banks to take the first place in the queue to absorb the losses that the banks would have to book were current market prices to be paid for the loans made. After all, that’s what risk capital is for?


Developers and banks will be first place in the queue to absorb the losses stemming from property speculation over recent years. This is the way it should be. The Government is determined to protect taxpayers to the greatest possible extent.

Equity holders and holders of bonds not covered by the State Guarantee Scheme have already incurred very large losses – and indeed may make incur further losses. Other types of bonds that are covered by the State Guarantee are not part of the banks’ risk capital – rather they are part of the banks normal funding in the same way deposits are. These bonds include instruments such as Certificates of Deposits and commercial paper issued by the banks. The interest rates attached to these securities are usually based on short-term interbank interest rates (in the same way as deposit rates are) and do not include a premium for risk. These bondholders are usually insurance companies, pension funds, and other long-term investors.

Relating back to the previous question, it is interesting to note that both the IMF and Swedish finance minister referred to in that question have strongly endorsed the inclusion of banks’ bonds in the State Guarantee Scheme.

If the state overpays for the loans relative to current market prices, what, apart from a functioning banking system, does the taxpayer gain?

There is no “current market price” for land and development projects. NAMA will not “overpay” for loans because the maximum it can pay for the loans under EU Commission rules is the amount that NAMA expects to realise over time from the loans or selling the properties on which the loans are secured.

What percentage of book value of the loans should NAMA pay, given that current market prices for land and development properties are somewhere around 30% or less of book value?

“Current market prices” for land and development projects do not exist because there is no market for these activities under current conditions. Commentators can speculate as to the value of the banks’ loan and development book – but without detailed knowledge of each individual loan these guesses should be taken with a very large grain of salt. NAMA has this information and will value the loans using these details and in accordance with EU Commission guidelines.


If NAMA were to pay say 60 billion euro for loans that are worth only 30 billion euro, how can this transfer of a full years tax revenue to private speculators be justified in this economic time?

Again, commentators can make guesses as to what the loans are worth – but these guesses are mere speculation.


If, as is entirely possible, the loans transferred to NAMA do not provide sufficient income to meet the coupon payments of the bonds issues by NAMA, will the taxpayer, at least in the short term, not have to meet these payments?

NAMA will have its own income stream through the collection of interest due from the loan assets transferred to it. Based on information from the financial institutions, these income generating loans pay an average margin of 2% above the floating interest rate on the bonds issued to buy the assets so the income stream will be sufficient to meet the interest payments.

_________________
The best way to predict your future is to create it. - Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:33 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jan 3, 2009
Posts: 1914
BrendanG wrote:
Just got this reply from a FF Senator seems FF are saying that there is no market price!

Quote:
What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of property, land etc is in fact the incorrect price to pay?

There is no “current market price” for land and development projects because there is no market for these activities at present. Purchases of land and development projects are mostly financed using bank loans. But banks are not making new loans for land and development because past bad loans are clogging up the banking system. This means there are no buyers.

That is not true! Properties are still being bought and sold, as long as they are properly priced. Banks are still lending out money - my local bank tells me that they issue about 2-4 mortgages a week.

Again, there is no “current market price” for land and development projects because there is no market for these activities at present. There IS a current market price for land, but the developers generally won't take anything less than what they wanted for it some years ago.


_________________
http://www.daftdrop.com/#!homeView


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:35 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jan 3, 2009
Posts: 1914
What's interesting about the Senator's reply is that you get all the Government spin and waffle in one place. Now that we know their "spin", we can negate its errors.

_________________
http://www.daftdrop.com/#!homeView


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Operation Phase I - DIY (No Money Up Front)
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:54 am 
Offline
Homeless

Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 19
BrendanG wrote:
Image

Bombs away!


Here is the actual result of the "Preferendum" at the recent Green Party conference in Athlone. It has just been released to the members. While it is true that the largest number of points went to an option favouring a version of NAMA, this still represented less than 25% of the support, and the support for ANY version of NAMA was less than 40%. Furthermore, the version of NAMA that was favoured was one that incorporated CURRENT MARKET VALUATIONS. (Whether this could be called NAMA at all is a moot point.) It's all to play for, folks.

O P T I O N S Points [Consensus co-efficient]
A MARKET FORCES, BANKS MAY FALL, FOREIGN/STATE/IRISH BANKS MAY BUY, OR GREEN BANKS 411 [0.49]
B NAMA AS IS 387 [0.46]
C NAMA + BANK REGULATION + PARTIAL NATIONALISATION + MEASURES AGAINST SPECULATION ON NAMA ASSETS + RISK SHARING + CURRENT MARKET VALUATIONS + GREEN ECONOMICS* + SOCIAL QUOTIENT 657 [0.78]
D “THE SWEDISH MODEL” MULTIPLE AMCs WITH INSOLVENT BANKS PLACED IN PUBLIC TRUST 563 [0.67]
E “GOOD BANK” 369 [0.43]
F TOTAL NATIONALISATION; TRUSTS RUN LOCAL BANKS 383 [0.45]

* GREEN ECONOMICS MEANS ALL SUGGESTIONS ON TRANSPARENCY, SOCIAL JUSTICE, PROVISIONS FOR THE POOR AND THOSE ON NEGATIVE EQUITY, SUSTAINABILITY, A ‘NO-GROWTH-ECONOMY’ AND THE PLANNING ACT.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

    Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » NAMAwatch (Pt. I)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com