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

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 207 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:36 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17329
Location: To the right of the decimal place
woodrow wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
NWL makes the point that the portfolio was forecast to generate £1.65bn in cash before 2020; if correct then selling it doesn;t make much sense. I'm not sure which NWL this was though.


that's the SF shill NWL :x

all this talk about valuations and 190mln lost is a side show, the valuations were all subjective and the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding (willful or not) in the media today has been unsurprising - the process and criticism of it is the important thing to focus on


Yeah I can't keep track -- the NWL who writes the blog seems to still occasionally put out good analytical stuff, while whoever's on the Twitter is most def a SF operative. Neither seems to be the "real" NWL though.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:04 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2565
http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0915/816675-nama/

The government's aim now will be to keep Noonan's role and all talk of "political and cross jurisdictional context" that the CandAG referred to away from any inquiry. You can be sure that just like the DoJ and Shatter, Noonan doesn't document any decision making process (or anything at all)

It's all about the terms of reference baby :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:22 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
GameBlame wrote:
I'm only on page 1 and 2 of the report and you see the amazing lack of arse covering by Daly and McDonough
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/spec ... _Eagle.pdf

Point 8

Quote:
NAMA has stated that, although not recorded formally, it considered and rejected alternative disposal options including aggregation by location of the property collateral or by property type (e.g. retail, offices, development land), and separate sales of loans of individual debtor connections


There was literally no formal scenario analysis :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Quote:
NAMA has stated that the factors that influenced its decision to change its Northern
Ireland strategy were the emergence of the loan sale option, the political and crossjurisdictional
context
in which it held the Northern Ireland debtor assets, and its assessment that its relationship with the Northern Ireland debtors was deteriorating.


Where is that allowed in the NAMA act as a factor for the board in its decision making? oh I remember now. Nowhere

Fire the board
Fire the CEO
Fire Noonan


What a load of codswallop.

The only NAMA-created possible problem that the report seems to have highlighted is a disagreement of £190m over the price achieved. On one hand we have NAMA who were active in the property market and received the price they felt achievable to get a curates egg of a portfolio off their hands, and with all the problems of the usual array of snakes in the grass hustlers in NI. On the other hand we have the theoretical price proposed by the C & AG.

Daly has made the important point that 8 parties were invited to bid and the fact that in the end 6 did not bid suggested that they didn't see any great value on offer. Why not let a couple of independent property specialists look at the 2 valuation figures and make a determination on the sale price in the context of the market at that time? We don't need a frigging enquiry in the Republic over this issue.

So on the sell side (NAMA) there is no suggestion of impropriety whereas on the buy side the NI police are looking into the shenanigans of various parties there trying to extract fees from the Yank buyers. Let's see what they come up with and let them pursue anyone guilty of any impropriety.

As Observer35 has pointed out the real meaty issue affecting the ROI, and causing probable loss to the Irish taxpayer, is the Section 110 structure of winning bidders for NAMA portfolios, which should be the subject of an inquiry, not the freaking sale price.

But no, we have the usual ragbag alliance of Wallace, with a personal financial interest and vendetta against Cerebus, and SF with their witness-coaching and local NI political interests, stirring shit on this non-issue. And the press here seemingly cant judge what is important and what is a big to-do about nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:47 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Feb 19, 2009
Posts: 2506
What an absolute racket NAMA is.
Totally predictable.

A sovereign (even one without its own currency) has one big advantage over a normal investor .... timeline.... an ability to sit and wait for decades and decades ....
But not in Ireland, bundle them up and sell, sell, sell. A completely hypocritical approach that is clearly founded on the idea of an efficient market pricing mechanism, despite the fact that NAMA exists because the market FAILED SPECTACULARLY as, oh, an efficient pricing mechanism.

_________________
Profits = Investment – Household Savings – Government Savings – Foreign Savings + Dividends

(i.e. company profits are directly fed, in part, by government deficits)

BANKS DON'T LEND RESERVES
As confirmed by the Bank of England


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:13 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Oct 11, 2012
Posts: 698
Daniel Plainview wrote:
What an absolute racket NAMA is.
Totally predictable.

A sovereign (even one without its own currency) has one big advantage over a normal investor .... timeline.... an ability to sit and wait for decades and decades ....
But not in Ireland, bundle them up and sell, sell, sell. A completely hypocritical approach that is clearly founded on the idea of an efficient market pricing mechanism, despite the fact that NAMA exists because the market FAILED SPECTACULARLY as, oh, an efficient pricing mechanism.


I think you're forgetting how precarious the State finances were when Nama was established, and how much pressure there was to refund Nama bonds to the State (or ECB). They couldn't just sit around waiting for the market to recover, but had to start covering their costs from day one, and then proceed according to a schedule toward full disposal. Plus, many (including many on here) thought that the market would take decades to recover, so again waiting indefinitely wasn't an option. (That's not to say Nama operated perfectly - I'm sure it didn't.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:43 pm 
Offline
Single Home Owner

Joined: Nov 2, 2007
Posts: 163
Daniel Plainview wrote:
What an absolute racket NAMA is.
Totally predictable.

A sovereign (even one without its own currency) has one big advantage over a normal investor .... timeline.... an ability to sit and wait for decades and decades ....
But not in Ireland, bundle them up and sell, sell, sell. A completely hypocritical approach that is clearly founded on the idea of an efficient market pricing mechanism, despite the fact that NAMA exists because the market FAILED SPECTACULARLY as, oh, an efficient pricing mechanism.


Doing nothing was not an option - unless billions of assets sitting unproductively in limbo is a strategy
Selling by the way was what enabled prices to recover - they did not recover independently of asset sales but at least partially *because* of asset sales
Sales moved assets from the hands of the bankrupt and moribund to the well capitalised and active
Waiting 5 years to obtain a 20% better price is a flawed approach - duration is the enemy of IRR


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:25 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2565
onioneater wrote:
GameBlame wrote:
I'm only on page 1 and 2 of the report and you see the amazing lack of arse covering by Daly and McDonough
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/spec ... _Eagle.pdf

Point 8

Quote:
NAMA has stated that, although not recorded formally, it considered and rejected alternative disposal options including aggregation by location of the property collateral or by property type (e.g. retail, offices, development land), and separate sales of loans of individual debtor connections


There was literally no formal scenario analysis :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Quote:
NAMA has stated that the factors that influenced its decision to change its Northern
Ireland strategy were the emergence of the loan sale option, the political and crossjurisdictional
context
in which it held the Northern Ireland debtor assets, and its assessment that its relationship with the Northern Ireland debtors was deteriorating.


Where is that allowed in the NAMA act as a factor for the board in its decision making? oh I remember now. Nowhere

Fire the board
Fire the CEO
Fire Noonan


What a load of codswallop.

The only NAMA-created possible problem that the report seems to have highlighted is a disagreement of £190m over the price achieved. On one hand we have NAMA who were active in the property market and received the price they felt achievable to get a curates egg of a portfolio off their hands, and with all the problems of the usual array of snakes in the grass hustlers in NI. On the other hand we have the theoretical price proposed by the C & AG.

Daly has made the important point that 8 parties were invited to bid and the fact that in the end 6 did not bid suggested that they didn't see any great value on offer. Why not let a couple of independent property specialists look at the 2 valuation figures and make a determination on the sale price in the context of the market at that time? We don't need a frigging enquiry in the Republic over this issue.

So on the sell side (NAMA) there is no suggestion of impropriety whereas on the buy side the NI police are looking into the shenanigans of various parties there trying to extract fees from the Yank buyers. Let's see what they come up with and let them pursue anyone guilty of any impropriety.

As Observer35 has pointed out the real meaty issue affecting the ROI, and causing probable loss to the Irish taxpayer, is the Section 110 structure of winning bidders for NAMA portfolios, which should be the subject of an inquiry, not the freaking sale price.

But no, we have the usual ragbag alliance of Wallace, with a personal financial interest and vendetta against Cerebus, and SF with their witness-coaching and local NI political interests, stirring shit on this non-issue. And the press here seemingly cant judge what is important and what is a big to-do about nothing.


You clearly don't understand what this is really about. The valuation difference is merely an estimate of the cost of what happens when a political decision is made (with no commercial examination of alternative disposal methods or lot types or sizes) And then interference in the process (which they were advised was occuring but pressed ahead anyway)

A modelling exercise is of limited benefit and doesn't address the political or process causes for the fuck up.

Bidders pulling out of an auction is not at all a sign that you got best price and scared them off with your AMV . If I'm selling a farm but refuse to also offer it in smaller lots and ignore what frauds and lies my local agent is doing in the background (despite the main bidder telling me) then I fucked up.

NAMA fucked up here hugely


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:26 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Feb 19, 2009
Posts: 2506
Aston wrote:
Daniel Plainview wrote:
What an absolute racket NAMA is.
Totally predictable.

A sovereign (even one without its own currency) has one big advantage over a normal investor .... timeline.... an ability to sit and wait for decades and decades ....
But not in Ireland, bundle them up and sell, sell, sell. A completely hypocritical approach that is clearly founded on the idea of an efficient market pricing mechanism, despite the fact that NAMA exists because the market FAILED SPECTACULARLY as, oh, an efficient pricing mechanism.


Doing nothing was not an option - unless billions of assets sitting unproductively in limbo is a strategy
Selling by the way was what enabled prices to recover - they did not recover independently of asset sales but at least partially *because* of asset sales
Sales moved assets from the hands of the bankrupt and moribund to the well capitalised and active
Waiting 5 years to obtain a 20% better price is a flawed approach - duration is the enemy of IRR


Disagree.
The state should not be focussed on IRRs so duration is not the enemy of the state.

"Assets sitting unproductively" is your designation of what would have happened, not mine.
Listen every "pro market" argument, which yours effectively is, is completely dismantled by the fact that the market enabled a massive mispricing of assets higher, followed by a massive crash lower, followed by the Taxpayer paying in excess of the now vaunted "market price" (LTEV), followed by NAMA shovelling state assets out the door as fast as possible to predominately foreign purchasers (domestic purchasers can't get the finance) ....... followed by same foreign purchasers utilising questionable tactics to completely avoid Irish tax on their Irish gains!

Not just a racket, but a corrupt racket.

_________________
Profits = Investment – Household Savings – Government Savings – Foreign Savings + Dividends

(i.e. company profits are directly fed, in part, by government deficits)

BANKS DON'T LEND RESERVES
As confirmed by the Bank of England


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:04 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
GameBlame wrote:
onioneater wrote:
GameBlame wrote:
I'm only on page 1 and 2 of the report and you see the amazing lack of arse covering by Daly and McDonough
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/spec ... _Eagle.pdf

Point 8

Quote:
NAMA has stated that, although not recorded formally, it considered and rejected alternative disposal options including aggregation by location of the property collateral or by property type (e.g. retail, offices, development land), and separate sales of loans of individual debtor connections


There was literally no formal scenario analysis :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Quote:
NAMA has stated that the factors that influenced its decision to change its Northern
Ireland strategy were the emergence of the loan sale option, the political and crossjurisdictional
context
in which it held the Northern Ireland debtor assets, and its assessment that its relationship with the Northern Ireland debtors was deteriorating.


Where is that allowed in the NAMA act as a factor for the board in its decision making? oh I remember now. Nowhere

Fire the board
Fire the CEO
Fire Noonan


What a load of codswallop.

The only NAMA-created possible problem that the report seems to have highlighted is a disagreement of £190m over the price achieved. On one hand we have NAMA who were active in the property market and received the price they felt achievable to get a curates egg of a portfolio off their hands, and with all the problems of the usual array of snakes in the grass hustlers in NI. On the other hand we have the theoretical price proposed by the C & AG.

Daly has made the important point that 8 parties were invited to bid and the fact that in the end 6 did not bid suggested that they didn't see any great value on offer. Why not let a couple of independent property specialists look at the 2 valuation figures and make a determination on the sale price in the context of the market at that time? We don't need a frigging enquiry in the Republic over this issue.

So on the sell side (NAMA) there is no suggestion of impropriety whereas on the buy side the NI police are looking into the shenanigans of various parties there trying to extract fees from the Yank buyers. Let's see what they come up with and let them pursue anyone guilty of any impropriety.

As Observer35 has pointed out the real meaty issue affecting the ROI, and causing probable loss to the Irish taxpayer, is the Section 110 structure of winning bidders for NAMA portfolios, which should be the subject of an inquiry, not the freaking sale price.

But no, we have the usual ragbag alliance of Wallace, with a personal financial interest and vendetta against Cerebus, and SF with their witness-coaching and local NI political interests, stirring shit on this non-issue. And the press here seemingly cant judge what is important and what is a big to-do about nothing.


Quote:
You clearly don't understand what this is really about
.
Well I clearly understand that someone like you calling for Noonan to be fired on the back of the Project Eagle sale process is simply acting on a political agenda as Noonan was not involved in the sale process.

Quote:
Bidders pulling out of an auction is not at all a sign that you got best price and scared them off with your AMV . If I'm selling a farm but refuse to also offer it in smaller lots and ignore what frauds and lies my local agent is doing in the background (despite the main bidder telling me) then I fucked up.

NAMA fucked up here hugely


Really? You must be a commercial property expert so. Why don't you tell us precisely how NAMA should have divided up the Project Eagle portfolio in 2013, who their target buyers should have been, who would have financed each deal and what their overall portfolio return minus costs should have been?

Should they have divided up the portfolio in 10 lots of £150 million each or 100 lots of £15 million? Who were the buyers for all these lots? Would they have lost their big potential customers such as Cerebus and Pimco, who had their own finance, by dividing up the portfolio to suit Mickey Mouse players?

Please tell us exactly how your sale process would have played out as you obviously know more, even in retrospect, than NAMA and their expert advisers who you say "fucked up hugely" on this? I'm all ears for a breakdown of your strategy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:27 pm 
Offline
Single Home Owner

Joined: Nov 2, 2007
Posts: 163
Daniel Plainview wrote:
Aston wrote:
Daniel Plainview wrote:
What an absolute racket NAMA is.
Totally predictable.

A sovereign (even one without its own currency) has one big advantage over a normal investor .... timeline.... an ability to sit and wait for decades and decades ....
But not in Ireland, bundle them up and sell, sell, sell. A completely hypocritical approach that is clearly founded on the idea of an efficient market pricing mechanism, despite the fact that NAMA exists because the market FAILED SPECTACULARLY as, oh, an efficient pricing mechanism.


Doing nothing was not an option - unless billions of assets sitting unproductively in limbo is a strategy
Selling by the way was what enabled prices to recover - they did not recover independently of asset sales but at least partially *because* of asset sales
Sales moved assets from the hands of the bankrupt and moribund to the well capitalised and active
Waiting 5 years to obtain a 20% better price is a flawed approach - duration is the enemy of IRR


Disagree.
The state should not be focussed on IRRs so duration is not the enemy of the state.

"Assets sitting unproductively" is your designation of what would have happened, not mine.
Listen every "pro market" argument, which yours effectively is, is completely dismantled by the fact that the market enabled a massive mispricing of assets higher, followed by a massive crash lower, followed by the Taxpayer paying in excess of the now vaunted "market price" (LTEV), followed by NAMA shovelling state assets out the door as fast as possible to predominately foreign purchasers (domestic purchasers can't get the finance) ....... followed by same foreign purchasers utilising questionable tactics to completely avoid Irish tax on their Irish gains!

Not just a racket, but a corrupt racket.


You say IRR is not the 'focus' - but suggest waiting 'decades' to achieve the best price. Either getting a return is important or it's not. Considering the time value of money is logical on the part of Nama.

Assets sitting unproductively is exactly what would have happened. 50bn of property assets in possession of a near bankrupt state with no funds or capability or expertise to put them to use. A recipe for stagnation.

The fact that markets are prone to extremes or mispricing is not an argument for or against Nama.

Was every commercial decision made by Nama correct? If your standard is that everyone Nama sold to must then have lost money, then clearly not.

But second guessing those decisions now from a vantage point of recovery is utterly invalid. Two minutes reviewing your previous posts indicates that you held super bearish viewpoints at exactly the wrong time - viz April 2011 – “I fully expect that anybody who bought last year — at 55% "off peak" — will have to endure the moniker of "knife-catcher" and will have their ass handed to them.”
But having been an apostle of doom – and there were many of us - you now claim that it was obvious that Nama should have actually held on to everything and run the price to the sky. It doesn’t stand up.

Based on the evidence I've seen the Nama timeline and approach remains probably the least worst way of dealing with the mess created in 2002 – 2007. The counterfactuals of Portugal, Italy and Spain point in that direction and your ‘decades’ strategy looks even worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:07 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Feb 19, 2009
Posts: 2506
Aston wrote:

You say IRR is not the 'focus' - but suggest waiting 'decades' to achieve the best price. Either getting a return is important or it's not. Considering the time value of money is logical on the part of Nama.


So if getting a return is important .... then why pay a premium to the market (LTEV)?

You can't have it both ways -- a focus on return and paying a makeyuppy premium....

You're just giving up return, on the taxpayers back, then you're saying "now let's focus on return"..... It's like that debacle of an interview Kevin Nowlan of Hibernai REIT gave with McWilliams .....

THIS IS A RACKET wrote:
McWilliams: “But the difference is the 35c in the euro means somebody else has paid the 65c, the 65c – and that’s the taxpayer.”

Nowlan: “The 40 to the 80, unfortunately, ends up on our…”

McWilliams: “On the taxpayer.”

Nowlan: “On our national debt.”


Trefuckingmendous.

Oh and I was wrong about the recovery in house prices, definitely. But I'd happily put my economic/trading calls up against anybody's.

_________________
Profits = Investment – Household Savings – Government Savings – Foreign Savings + Dividends

(i.e. company profits are directly fed, in part, by government deficits)

BANKS DON'T LEND RESERVES
As confirmed by the Bank of England


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:58 pm 
Offline
Old Time Landlord

Joined: Jun 23, 2011
Posts: 382
And Cerberus move to have Wallace declared bankrupt, luckily for Wallace, that no longer means the loss of his Dail seat

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/co ... 94699.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 207 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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