Peter Bacon - Original scope for NAMA was €158bn

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
On Newstalk, Peter Bacon confirms that €158bn worth of non-performing loans were considered for NAMA including commercial properties.

Government decided it was 'too big' to cope with.

So just left them there to rot under the whole system
 
Last edited:


MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
On Newstalk, Peter Bacon confirms that €158bn worth of non-performing loans were considered for NANA including commercial properties.

Government decided it was 'too big' to cope with.

So just left them there to rot under the whole system
Where they the portion of loans under the 20 million cut off?
 

Propforward

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
149
On Newstalk, Peter Bacon confirms that €158bn worth of non-performing loans were considered for NAMA including commercial properties.

Government decided it was 'too big' to cope with.

So just left them there to rot under the whole system
so it was supposed to be twice as ridiculous??

peter bacon hasn't a rashers
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Where they the portion of loans under the 20 million cut off?
No, but I came in on it late. Seems like he was specifically referring to commercial property loans. He was only stating this on the record now because the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) had stated it two weeks before. He wasn't having a go against the government, because if they had included the commercial loans we would where we are now in 2009.

Which to be honest with you, would have been a better thing. What it does do, is open up the potential scale of the bad debts the banks had as being double the original estimate by the government, which they well knew about, but chose to ignore and sweep them under the carpet.

He is right when he says that the discount applied to the loans was higher than even the worst pessimist could have expected, but he did indicate that the public interest directors have questions to answer - as in Alan Dukes.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
No, but I came in on it late. Seems like he was specifically referring to commercial property loans. He was only stating this on the record now because the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) had stated it two weeks before. He wasn't having a go against the government, because if they had included the commercial loans we would where we are now in 2009.

Which to be honest with you, would have been a better thing. What it does do, is open up the potential scale of the bad debts the banks had as being double the original estimate by the government, which they well knew about, but chose to ignore and sweep them under the carpet.

He is right when he says that the discount applied to the loans was higher than even the worst pessimist could have expected, but he did indicate that the public interest directors have questions to answer - as in Alan Dukes.
I was the same as yourself, in that I missed the start.

I got the impression though that he put in hisreport the 158 billion figure as the total amount of Commercial loans and that the Govt then decided to leave a portion out.

I just assumed that this portion was the loan book containing the loans of less than 20 million. Interesting to know for definite, but either way he was more asking questions about the Public interest directors role in this and I wonder was this a dig at Michael Somers who ridiculed NAMA last week.

Even if it was, it opens up the need to ask a lot of questions about what Lenihan told the Dail and the Greens while trying to get the legislation for the NAMA passed.
 

loner

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
8,085
Every member of the Government should be specifically asked to answer the question--"were you aware of the figures given to Brian Lenihan in the Bacon Report and did you receive a copy of that report".The public interest directors of the banks should also be asked to account for their stewardship in the light of the disclosures on the Newstalk programme.
 
Last edited:

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
I was the same as yourself, in that I missed the start.

I got the impression though that he put in hisreport the 158 billion figure as the total amount of Commercial loans and that the Govt then decided to leave a portion out.

I just assumed that this portion was the loan book containing the loans of less than 20 million. Interesting to know for definite, but either way he was more asking questions about the Public interest directors role in this and I wonder was this a dig at Michael Somers who ridiculed NAMA last week.

Even if it was, it opens up the need to ask a lot of questions about what Lenihan told the Dail and the Greens while trying to get the legislation for the NAMA passed.
I'm pretty sure what we both agree is that we really won't find out what happened until after the next GE, and that rather disappointingly, there won't find some grand conspiracy, just total incompetence, stupidity and a dereliction of duties.

What we're seeing now is those associated with government strategy distancing themselves and engaging in a blame game exercise. Bacon was on specifically to talk about the €158b, he had Yates saying 'quantum' during the interview before he started using that term himself. I can't ever recall hearing Yates saying 'quantum' before hence they must have had a chat beforehand.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
Brian Lenihan is totally discredited, he has continually lied to the Irish People
Joke doing the rounds at the minute

The Tullamore priest lay on his deathbed and summoned the 2 men to fulfill his dieing wish.

Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan entered the room and approached the bed.

Ah, Lads said the Priest, take a hand. Both men stood either side of the bed and held the priest by the hand.

After a few moments of silence Cowen said, what do you want us for Father.

I just want to die like Jesus, the priest replied.......With 2 robbing, lying Bastards either side of me.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
I'm pretty sure what we both agree is that we really won't find out what happened until after the next GE, and that rather disappointingly, there won't find some grand conspiracy, just total incompetence, stupidity and a dereliction of duties.

What we're seeing now is those associated with government strategy distancing themselves and engaging in a blame game exercise. Bacon was on specifically to talk about the €158b, he had Yates saying 'quantum' during the interview before he started using that term himself. I can't ever recall hearing Yates saying 'quantum' before hence they must have had a chat beforehand.
+1
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
The €158Bn represented Bacon's estimate for tainted loans in the six institutions. This represented
  • Property Loans
  • Greenfield Sites
  • Commercial Loans

He reckoned that the government left out the total for Commercial Loans when deciding their figure, he is not sure of this though.

So, there must be around €70Bn of impaired Commercial Loans sitting on Bank Balance Sheets.

Now this figure does not include impaired RMBS. I reckon there is anything from €60-80Bn of these that will go belly-up.

All Bank Bond Holders will be for the Guillotine!
 

Legacy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
636
You can hear the interview here:

Newstalk 106-108fm Media Player

He had put forward the figure of €158b but Govt decided that was too big to handle. The only reason he was putting this information out now was that he saw the figure in the WSJ two weeks ago. The figure was calculated covering land, development and commercial property loans. Government decided to only take into NAMA the land and development and some associated investments. He said he told them that the commercial property portfolio was deteriorating very rapidly at that stage - early 2009.

So they swept this under the carpet, closed their eyes and hoped it would go away some day...Mother of God, isnt it just unbelievable?
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
You can hear the interview here:

Newstalk 106-108fm Media Player

He had put forward the figure of €158b but Govt decided that was too big to handle. The only reason he was putting this information out now was that he saw the figure in the WSJ two weeks ago. The figure was calculated covering land, development and commercial property loans. Government decided to only take into NAMA the land and development and some associated investments. He said he told them that the commercial property portfolio was deteriorating very rapidly at that stage - early 2009.

So they swept this under the carpet, closed their eyes and hoped it would go away some day...Mother of God, isnt it just unbelievable?
He also did an interview on Morning Ireland in April 2009, where he said that valuing the properties destined for the NAMA was easy as the PTSB property figures had indicated a 15% drop in property prices.

This would have meant the NAMA paying 68 billion for the 80 billion loan book.
 

Lord Wellington

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
983
Even if it was, it opens up the need to ask a lot of questions about what Lenihan told the Dail and the Greens while trying to get the legislation for the NAMA passed.
Spot on.

Every Green minister should be hounded on this.

Particularly Gormley.

If he knew he lied to his out party when they had their NAMA meeting.

If he didn't then Lenihan and Cowen lied to him.

Either way the Greens should be spitting tacks.

How any "ordinary" Green could accept this is difficult to fathom.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
I'm pretty sure what we both agree is that we really won't find out what happened until after the next GE, and that rather disappointingly, there won't find some grand conspiracy, just total incompetence, stupidity and a dereliction of duties.
Usually the way of it. May also find a fair few half truths and misrepresentation by those seeking help. Misplaced trust, friendship abused etc.

The sooner there is an election the better. This lot should not be trusted with any negotiations. Carrying too much baggage.

But having made the mistakes etc what MPB and Lord Wellington point out is very pertinent.
 

jimbo99

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
574
Can anyone tell me anything useful that Peter Bacon has contributed to this economy. Some of his contributions have been disasterous with very long term structural damage caused to our economy as a result. He appears to have been a tool used by the FF gov to further their own twisted objectives.
 

Viva La Revolution!

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
313
.... he had Yates saying 'quantum' during the interview before he started using that term himself. I can't ever recall hearing Yates saying 'quantum' before hence they must have had a chat beforehand.
Noticed that myself on the use of the word quantum.
I wonder what canaries will start singing next...
 
Last edited:

karldaly

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
465
.
.

"Brian Lenihan is totally discredited, he has continually lied to the Irish People"
.

Duh!

.
.
 

paddywhack

Active member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
280
Brian Lenihan is totally discredited, he has continually lied to the Irish People
Consistently lied to Irish people. He has to go, preferably from ministerial office straight away and from the Dail at the next election. Indeed, none of the current cabinet deserve to be re-elected.
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
He is right when he says that the discount applied to the loans was higher than even the worst pessimist could have expected, but he did indicate that the public interest directors have questions to answer - as in Alan Dukes.
Alan Dukes was originally just a public interest director when Anglo was still a listed company in December 2008.

He has been the Chairman of the nationalised bank since June of this year.
Despite full access to the banks information, he and CEO Mike Aynsley were staggeringly wrong in their estimate of the haircut on the first tranche of loans transferred to NAMA. They assumed 28% - from memory the actual figure was about 50%.

He had no difficulty overlooking this error while p1$$ing on FG's banking policy.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top