What's even worse is the anti-Nama people who don't read between the lines
There are some darn peculiar macroeconomic assumptions revealed by the
Nama Cashflows ... (there's a few worrying phrases in the plan)
It might be more befitting of some anti-Nama folk if they had questions :
"What is that... why?"
Then they would learn more...
Also as said: on
p.ie most of the anti-Nama folk were headless chickens, who knew nothing of the detail, nor how banking operates... and preferred hackneyed conspiracy theories. These gibbering loons drowned out some very important issues.
As I've previously said the anti-Nama people needed to coalesce around clear, evidence-based talking points- e.g.
1) Risk capital bonds: what nominal of these is not covered by the guarantee in each institution ? Why isn't the government seeking to liquidate these ? See
this thread on
p.ie ... the loons missed the fact that there was BILLIONS on the table
2) Kick to touch - why is Nama allowing developers roll interest for the first 3 years of its operation ? (see
thread here)
3) LTEV - how was that calculated ?
4) What level of funding is projected as required to restore Capital Adequacy for each institution post "haircut" ?
5) Is it the intent of the ECB to effectively continue injecting general liquidity (printing money) at low rates until 2013 (end of "kick to touch") and how does this tally with monetary policy (viz anticipated rate rises in Q2 2010) ? Furthermore what of the Nama liquidity swap rates ?
6) Will that liquidity in effect allow Irish banks buy Irish government debt- i.e. print money to "quantitatively ease" Ireland inc ? (see
here)?
7) How will the effect of cross collateralization of loans be dealt with when determining prices ?
8) What quantum of loans are not secured on property developments and what recovery rate rate is expected for this class ? And could you break this category into sub-categories : (Phantom equity etc)
9) Beyond a) aiding Nama be declared off balance sheet : will the Nama SPVs afford any additional features/potential not afforded by plain vanilla subsidiaries ?
Them 9 woulda been scary zingers of questions and woulda made Lenny poop in his pants were they repeated often enough... question 6 would cause the German proles to riot (they kinda merely just suspect it right now)
Instead the talking points were:
"The gombeenarchy of
FF & the Bankerati are engaging in conspiracy against the population"
or
"Fianna Fáil are corrupt: therefore they are stealing €54b"
Frankly, bar say Dreaded Estate: pretty much all of of those anti-Nama, didn't know what they were speaking of and it showed.
cYp