Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 
1.So, you’re saying because he thinks the risk sharing 2.7 billion is a sham, despite being in there in black & white,
2.You say we are recovering loans not property, that of course is only partly true, a pool you swim in all the time, but for everyone else they know that when we can’t recover the full loan, we then proceed to recover the money through the property. Your banker knows this as well as everyone else but again decides to produce figures & results by ignoring this fact, and again not mentioning that this is what he is doing.
3.The fact that you find this kind of nonsense acceptable tells us everything about your own “plucked out of the air” figures and your general arguments on everything else.
At the very least, very, very shoddy work imo.
|
1. The risk-sharing is bogus and was only 5% anyway. Check out irisheconomy.ie.
2. This will be the €23 Billion in personal guarantees from bankrupt developers who have had plenty of time to prepare - think €2.3 Billion instead. Maybe less.
Or is it the Irish property which Judge Kelly says has fallen not 43% as Lenihan assumes to break even but 70 to 80%? Inevitable massive losses.
Why would the banks sell us good foreign loans? Not like them to be generous. They will give us the Irish trash and any foreign trash.
3. No one has refuted Mathews' arguments, but the NAMA business plan has been torn apart on irishecoonony.ie and elsewhere and most recently derided by Dan Boyle (and he has very low standards). Comparing NAMA supporters and opponents generally I have taken the extract below from Constantin Gurdgiev's blog:
True Economics: Economics 19/10/2009: A proud member of National Mediocrity
"Compare supporters and critics of Nama:
Supporters:
•Stockbrokers and Irish Banks' economists - all with a major conflict of interest implied in their positions as their respective organizations will be the intended beneficiaries of Nama. In my books, this does not invalidate their points and analysis, but it does raise a question or two;
•EU Commissioner who actually negotiated with Minister Lenihan Nama solution;
•Ghosts of other - possibly independent - economists who have spoken to the Minister in private?..
(And not to forget supporter Hal).
Critics:
•4 Nobel Prize winners, several senior faculty members from the top 5 Finance Departments in the world, and one former SEC Board Member;
•46 academic and practicing economists and finance specialists;
•4 authors of comprehensive analysis of Nama proposals (myself, Brian Lucey, Ronan Lyons and Karl Whelan - in alphabetic order) that provided more detailed and more accurate costings of Nama and alternatives than the one supplied by Minister's own staff;
•1 former banker - Peter Mathews - who has extensive experience in managing bad loans within a special division for such loans set up by ICC bank in the 1980s;
•A range of independent economic commentators some with extensive finance experience in the past;
•A number of top class finance entrepreneurs, including Dermot Desmond;
•Hundreds of people from finance, international finance and economics who comment on this blog and the Irish Economy blog;
•One Governor of the Central Bank who proposed significant changes to Nama that were subsequently taken out of context by His Intellectual Excellence's Government colleagues and reshaped into an unrecognizable watered-down versions to suit original Nama".
I know whom I believe.