Thursday, 30 July 2009

Draft NAMA legislation

Click here to download the proposed legislation, and here to download the explanatory memorandum. The Minister's accompanying statement is available here.

In case you missed it first time around, click here to read Jim Stewart's post on NAMA, published in May.


Simon Carswell has a useful piece on the draft legislation in today's Irish Times, and Brendan Keenan's take in the Independent in available here. For political reaction, click here to read the statement by Labour's Ruari Quinn (Joan Burton is on holliers), and here to read the reaction from Sinn Fein's Finance Spokesperson Arthur Morgan. The Green Party's Dan Boyle has tweeted that it is the 'least worst of a number of bad options'. A statement by Fine Gael's Finance Spokesperson Richard Bruton is available here. Finally, SIPTU's Jack O'Connor's reaction is available here.


Slí Eile said...

Karl Whelan's presentation to the Greens, recently, on has the following parable:

* Two old friends meet in a bar. Mr. A says “Hey dude, I’m in big trouble. My balance sheet says my business is worth €20 million but actually Ive made some really bad investments and when the accountants come in next month, they’ll see that I actually owe €5 million more than I have in assets.”

Mr. B wants to help Mr. A. Let’s consider two possible reactions:
1 Ok, I’ll help out. Ill pay off your debts of €5 million. And then I’ll invest €20 million in your business to get it back in healthy shape. But, look, there are limits to my charity. Youve run your business into the ground and I’ll only do this for you on condition that I own the new company worth €20 million.
2 Ok, I’ll help out. Heres €25 million for you. And you know what? I couldnt be bothered taking an ownership stake in your company, so just carry on and keep up the good work.

It’s true that the amount of money paid out by Mr. B to fix the companys problem is €25 million in both cases. However, to say that the Mr. B is equally well off in the two cases is clearly wrong.

Anonymous said...

At last. The "No Bank Left Behind" Bill and we're not a lot the wiser. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde's Lady Bracknell "to lose one bank is unfortunate, to lose two or three seems a bit careless, but to lose them all (note all Irish banks are technically insolvent) is....?".

And those hugging themselves in delight that key proponents of the "Dublin consensus" are advocating nationalisation should remember that, in the absence of a bank special resolution scheme, they see it as a temporary measure to minimise the burden that will be imposed on citizens. There is no other country where all the native banks are insolvent.

There are only two sensible options. One, nationalisation of all native banks and a complete restructuring to identify two, possibly three, scaled down, cleansed, viable banks or, two, close down the banks, extract all retail deposits, match them with performing assets and auction them off to pre-qualified, somewhat more competent, internationally organised banks.

The burden that NAMA will impose by trying to save all banks will break the country. Let's get real. We had a banking system. We failed to control and regulate it. It's completely bust.

Anonymous said...

Joan Burton is abroad on holidays, and this was noted in the papers last week.