Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: House prices down by up to 43% from the peak

  1. #51
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,630

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    For NAMA to break even LTEV only has to be 10% above the current market value, the banks only get their last 5% is it goes to 15% above.

    He said this on the Irish economy blog the afternoon of his article in the Irish times and possibly on his own blog as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Simbo67 View Post
    Any chance of that link?
    First response is by Ronan Lyons
    The Irish Economy Blog Archive Ronan Lyons on NAMA and Property Prices

  2. #52
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    172

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    Sounds to me like a clarification, not an error.
    And following on from this, given that the banks' liability is capped at €2.5bn, the line in the graph above will asymptotically approach one that strips out a fixed amount of €2.5bn...

  3. #53
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,630

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpio View Post
    Sounds to me like a clarification, not an error.
    And following on from this, given that the banks' liability is capped at €2.5bn, the line in the graph above will asymptotically approach one that strips out a fixed amount of €2.5bn...
    So, your point is that if the property market goes low enough he'll eventually be right, more or less?

    I'd say it was an error, I wouldn't like to think it was deliberate.

    The fact is there's a 10%, not 15%, breakeven point for NAMA, he used 15% in his graph.

  4. #54
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    172

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    So, your point is that if the property market goes low enough he'll eventually be right, more or less?

    I'd say it was an error, I wouldn't like to think it was deliberate.

    The fact is there's a 10%, not 15%, breakeven point for NAMA, he used 15% in his graph.
    I think we might be down to semantics here. Let's call RL's one gross, the total shortfall, and yours net, taking out the government's arbitrary €2.5bn at each point along the graph.

    Better yet, email Lyons and get him to redo his graph, if you think it's wrong.

    Incidentally, my original point still stands - the 10% breakeven point you use so definitively only applies at that one single point along the graph. The bigger the fall, the smaller the €2.5bn is compared to the government/taxpayers' contribution.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Similar Threads

  1. House prices
    By MacCoise in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2nd December 2011, 03:31 AM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 28th December 2009, 11:26 AM
  3. House prices.
    By st333ve in forum Northern Ireland
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23rd December 2006, 04:33 AM
  4. Inflated House Prices
    By Rockall in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15th February 2006, 10:47 PM
  5. Stance on House Prices
    By STaN in forum Progressive Democrats
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st April 2004, 11:19 AM