Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

So after 2 years of acquiring a property portfolio at 70% discount, it has sold less than a quarter of that portfolio and you think that they are fantastic?

What remains in the rest of the 75%? Does it tally with real property or is it infested with multiple mortgages scams? If you were to put its entire property portfolio up on e-bay today, would your beloved NAMA still be profitable?

BTW - The original portfolio was €31.5 Billion. That €7.9 Billion is not included in the €24.8 Billion current balance. Please do try to source the original report before adapting the pretense of knowledge.

And where did I say they're great?

Oh, yes: I didn't. I pointed out that anything sold had, of necessity, been marked to market. Strawman.

BTW: a company can make an operating profit while still having debt. If I lost €1,000 last year, and made a profit of €500 this year, I have a debt €500: but that doesn't mean I didn't make a profit. What was that about pretence - note spelling - of knowledge, again...?

Originally Posted by Diawlbach

And where did I say they're great?

Your intent of what you posted.

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~billmann/WMl...upgrade-v2.pdf

I pointed out that anything sold had, of necessity, been marked to market. Strawman.

Do you understand how mark to market accounting works and how changes in the fair value of the realistic appraisal of a financial assets in current market conditions affect the balance sheet and income statement / P & L account?

I'm not going by that FASB 2009 nonsense ruling, that should have been obvious in my post to begin with.

BTW: a company can make an operating profit while still having debt. If I lost €1,000 last year, and made a profit of €500 this year, I have a debt €500: but that doesn't mean I didn't make a profit.

What has that got to do with anything? Besides, we are talking about Net Profit here. If you made a loss of €1,000 last year that effects your retained profit and loss account. That does not infer that you have extra debt of €1,000. In fact your liabilities may have declined and it was your assets that fell by €1,000 more. Changes in the P & L can effect the balance sheet in so many different ways.

I never claimed that you cannot have a profit without debt. In fact which company does not have debt? Apart from Google and Apple, very few companies are debt free.

The point is if NAMA was forced tomorrow to use proper mark to market fair value accounting on its property portfolio, it would have to record the horrific loss on the difference between book value and market value by calling it Unrealised Loss in the Profit & Loss account or Income Statement.

What was that about pretence - note spelling - of knowledge, again...?

Here is what was that about Pretense

pre·tense
noun \ˈprē-ˌten(t)s, pri-ˈ\
Definition of PRETENSE
1
: a claim made or implied; especially : one not supported by fact

Pretense - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Originally Posted by Gimpanzee

That would be best for all concerned.

Ah, don't be like that, ye luv me really,

Don't ya

Originally Posted by Howya

I think the original estimate was a 10bn profit on the written down value of the loans but that has subsequently been re-estimated to zero.

Which, again, is on a wildly written down value for the loans so .. in fact , that makes it less than zero.. which sounds about right.

Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

So after 2 years of acquiring a property portfolio at 70% discount, it has sold less than a quarter of that portfolio and you think that they are fantastic?

What remains in the rest of the 75%? Does it tally with real property or is it infested with multiple mortgages scams? If you were to put its entire property portfolio up on e-bay today, would your beloved NAMA still be profitable?

BTW - The original portfolio was €31.5 Billion. That €7.9 Billion is not included in the €24.8 Billion current balance. Please do try to source the original report before adapting the pretense of knowledge.

NAMA STILL AROUND IN 2032?
Are the profits coming from low hanging fruit in the relatively buoyant London market? If so,that is not indicative of profit potential in remaining assets.

Recently,Alan Greenspan spoke of his experience as a director of the Resolution Trust Corp set up to dispose of bankrupt Savings and Loans industry assets from the 80s crash.He thought they made the right decision quickly to auction off most properties,many of them low quality and the Trust closed out with profits. Probably the highly efficient US real estate market for distressed properties enabled this. If NAMA was in charge of that job,it would still be at it.

It seems that NAMA and the government hope for a good recovery in property prices,a forlorn hope. According to Gary Shilling,an economist with an uncanny track record on forecasting major economic trends since the 1970s,deflation will continue for at least seven years until completion of financial deleveraging in private sectors internationally. In Ireland,deleveraging will continue longer given colossal debt,including 100,000 mortgages in arrears that are undermining bank capital.

NAMA should copy the RTC and quickly auction off all its secondary properties provided it can stir up enough interest from investors in distressed real estate. Given the scarcity of mortgage money,the latter should include US and UK investors who are more experienced than most in international property. As for fears of asset stripping,economic nationalists should be comforted by the injection of foreign capital and the government could do with the money.

The biggest problem with NAMA was that it was designed to do one thing, then in the length of time it took to set up it was tasked with a totally different job with a far bigger scope.[/QUOTE]

Wrong!

NAMA is, was and always will be, created by insiders, for insiders and if you are not in that happy brigade, you should be as pissed off as I am at its existence.