That is exactly what you two implied.
Itâs okay guys, youâve managed to sweep sweep away from Brendan Ogle and the general public being scammed. Job done.
Why do you think a free market fan like me would be a fan of NAMA anyway? I will say whatever they did they were on a hiding to nothing.
I raised questions about how the assets were packaged to suit a certain type of buyer. C&AG also stated their belief that NAMA did not realise as much as they should. They were selling loans at 40c in the euro. They could have given a write off of 40% to the mortgage holder and been better off but they decided to give a 60% write off to US Hedge Funds and didnât tax them on their profits. People like you will use âmoral hazardâ as an excuse. Can you explain how this has maximised return for the taxpayer.
You raised the question as to why there were portfolios, then yourself and Martty backslapped one another with brown envelopes and talk of âin Irelandâ.
I have huge issues with the very idea of NAMA but this is classic pub talk and Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
Brendan Ogle hasnât cost the country billions of euro. Youâre falling for the âlook over there, welfare scammerâ chestnut as Hedge Funds receive assets at knock down prices and pay no taxes on the profits they make.
Think about what would have happened if the mortgage holder was given a 40 per cent write off. allowed buy back the asset and who a lot of the mortgage holders were.
If you really gave a fuck about the public purse being swindled you wouldnât give a fuck about small fry like Brendan Ogle.
The Home Sweet Home lads also have 100k sitting in an account as a result of their fundraising activities.
Who swindled? Surplus of 3 billion. The socialists wanted to burn down the economy and collapse all the banks.
Do a Greece on it. We are at full employment again. Greece is at 24 per cent.
You still havenât answered my question about Project Eagle.
Theyâll get another chance within 15 years the way we are going
Probably. Short term politics and beggar thy neighbour approach.
I get the moral hazard argument but if you have the choice to sell something at 60 or sell at 40 you need to go with the best price. Not only that but the number of repossession applications by hedge funds puts more pressure on the tax payer as they have to fund the new homeless who are being evicted. For those who were never going to pay their mortgage back then let the local authorities take the house, donât be giving it to outsiders. This is a society not a balance sheet. You believe all the spin by the government, they sold us down the river. Knock on effects can be seen where cuts to the blind, elderly, carers etc. The cost of which is small fry when compared to the tasty deals given to outsiders.
100%, had some dealings with a bank recently around a loan, and I really donât think theyâve learned their lesson at all (which suited me).
What question?
Itâs time to leverage the fuck out of it.
Let the local authorities take the house. Again think about how that would happen in practice. Would homeowner/mortgage holder go willingly. Would local authority be comfortable with mass evictions being carried out by it?
Winning bid was higher than minimum price set by NAMA board.
it had a commercial mandate and took what it saw as a good deal. When this was happening the ârecoveryâ was still shakey. What are those assets worth now Post Brexit.
Eviction would be a last resort if the local authorities were involved. It is the first resort for the vulture funds. Youâre trying to give reasons why it canât be done, Iâm giving an opinion on how it could be done. The govt spin is working on you.
So a sale that has cost the state about âŹ440 million and was pushed through despite being mired in scandal is grand with you. Youâre a gas man.