Nothing new really. viewtopic.php?f=50&t=24661

Just that NAMA and landlords are now lobbying the government like hell to get it to weigh in with all its might behind it. (according to the FT as per previous post)

On this lobbying - there was a big play initially that NAMA was separate from the state, whereby formal ownership of NAMA's property loans was to be held by a special purpose vehicle (SPV), with Nama having a 49 per cent stake in this SPV, with the remaining 51 per cent owned by private investors.

It was pointed out at the time here how often such SPVs are used by the 'puppet-masters' who originally structured the SPV in the first place, to hide their identity, while they direct the show. ie. The board makes investment “decisions,” but these are virtually dictated by others.

Is that SPV still there? If so, does that not add a much more sinister tone to what is happening with respect to this legislative lobbying? NWL?

Healy Rae Junior just tried to raise this issue in the Dail and got shouted down.

Who were the investors in the NAMA SPV?

Irish Life? AIB? EBS? BOI?

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2010/ ... nvestment/



I'm confused now as to who's lobbying who.

We know what he would have said anyway. Despite having been told, specifically, that there is AG advice that these contracts cannot be reneged on, and despite the fact that seems a perfectly plausible explanation, JHRJr would have stood up and gone on a populist rant about broken promises and burning bondholders which would have been all heat and no light. Some people might call that kind of grandstanding representing his constituents, which it might be on some level, but to me, above all, it would have been wilful hot air.

I think this is an example of *turns on Clichemaster 2000* a stopped clock telling the right time.

Contracts are renegotiated all the time. They are not carved in stone. Value of your commercial property investment may go down as well as up. It went down, if you want to salvage anything out of it, renegotiate. This is basic commerce. Having legislation in place to enforce non-viable commercial agreements is to the detriment of the entire economy and therefore the entire country, which the AG is appointed and the government is elected to serve.

I do not think this is hot air, and if the government or the AG is wrong, we should be told this. If that's populism, bring it on. And if Bill Nowlan is given what now seems like a daily column in the Irish Times to put forward the views of the persecuted investor, then that should be balanced by another view, even if it be put forward by Michael Healy Rae.

Edited to correct Healy Rae's forename.

"The compensation can often be very substantial, for example up to 90% of one year's turnover, based upon the average of 3 or 4 years turnover of the business using the premises or perhaps the equivalent of 2 year's profit, but the overall amount of the compensation will ultimately always depend on the formula adopted by the expert witness which generally varies greatly according to the type of business carried out."

Might be a cheap way to buy a successful business?