Peter Mathews on Prime Time NAMA Special

[Hal]

Mathews explains irrefutably that NAMA will lose €13.5 Bn minimum and probably €20 Billion. No wonder they don't want a smaller panel.

Irrefutably?, his 3 scenarios have mores holes in them than a string vest. His last and worst case fable, if he did it correctly, should come out at about a 16 billion loss, but instead he manages to come up with 26 billion. He confuses loan values with asset values in all 3 variations and never makes allowance for the 2.7 billion risk sharing in any one of them, despite not reaching the 54 billion value for the 2.7 billion to come into play.

[Digout]

Irrefutably?, his 3 scenarios have mores holes in them than a string vest. His last and worst case fable, if he did it correctly, should come out at about a 16 billion loss, but instead he manages to come up with 26 billion. He confuses loan values with asset values in all 3 variations and never makes allowance for the 2.7 billion risk sharing in any one of them, despite not reaching the 54 billion value for the 2.7 billion to come into play.

Alrite Tonys, you agree that SCAMA needs a 10% increase in property prices over 10 years to break even?

[Eamonn76]

Irrefutably?, his 3 scenarios have mores holes in them than a string vest. His last and worst case fable, if he did it correctly, should come out at about a 16 billion loss, but instead he manages to come up with 26 billion. He confuses loan values with asset values in all 3 variations and never makes allowance for the 2.7 billion risk sharing in any one of them, despite not reaching the 54 billion value for the 2.7 billion to come into play.

Hal, even the Greens concede the risk-sharing is a sham.
Remember we are recovering loans not property - you can't make more than 100% on a performing loan. Current recovery rates are 25% as shown by Zoe, Fleming and Irish Glass Bottle (IGB) and prices are continuing to drop. Would the Cyber Unit pension fund put all it's money into the IGB site even with an 80% fall in prices as Judge Peter Kelly observed? Property prices will fall for several more years. You would run a mile from it.
No public figure has questioned Mathews figures and because they are irrefutable they never will.
That €23 Billion in personal guarantees you mentioned on another thread that will be called in from bankrupt developers is a fantasy. NAMA will be lucky to get back a tenth of it. NAMA will definitely lose €13.5 Billion and probably lose €20.4 Billion.
Plus net interest. Plus economic costs of higher rents. Plus social costs of slowing reform of personal bankruptcy. Plus higher debt repayments for country.
Read the summary below. And remember that Morgan Kelly is predicting worst case losses of €42 Billion excluding all the above costs.

Banking Crisis NAMA Losses - Summary Proj. Alt. Realisations Outc - Google Docs

[Hal]

Hal, even the Greens concede the risk-sharing is a sham.
Remember we are recovering loans not property -

So, you’re saying because he thinks the risk sharing 2.7 billion is a sham, despite being in there in black & white, he decides to disregard it for the purposes of his calculations and nationally proclaimed results, but he also decides he won’t mention that he’s disregarding it and thereby inflating his result.

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.

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.

[Stroke]

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1059229

22 mins in, Mathews sums it all up simply. Would love to see a head-to-head between him and Peter Bacon......

[Hal]

RTÉ player: See What You're Missing

22 mins in, Mathews sums it all up simply. Would love to see a head-to-head between him and Peter Bacon......

So would I.

[Stroke]

So would I.

He'd absolutely fillet Peter Bacon.....

[Dman]

I have listened to Peter Matthews on a few appearances now and he has been consistent and clear in his analysis, he has an excellent experience in property management and in banking.

My wife who has no interest in financial matters has stated she is impressed by him and the way he explains the scenarios in a simple way

Banking is a simple business - you lend out X money and you get back X + 1
If problems occur you rely on/enforce your security - your loss/profit is what is left after the assets have been disposed of.

No need for a degree to understand it - if the bankers kept to the simple rules of lending this mess would never have happened - it's down to greed and a lack of ethics and a government that allowed it to happen....and in most cases encouraged it !!

[droghedasouth]

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.

The ultimate accolade for "plucked out of the air" figures belongs to Minister Lenihan who in spite have having 1000 euro a day accountants crawling over the banks for the last 400 days still cant come up with one concrete figure.

And then his business plan for NAMA makes the egreguious error of confusing Baclays overall loss experience for all types of lending in the '90s with our property bubble.

Very very very shoddy work from Minister Lenihan by any standard.

Just as well we always took his numbers with a pinch of garlic.

[H.R. Haldeman]

The chairperson was appalling.

Mark Little is woefully incapable of thinking on his feet (or, erm, arse as the case may be). He needs to stick to the line of questioning in his script and simply cannot ask probing follow-up questions or spontaneously take up something an interviewee says. Miriam may be a bit better, but not hugely.