Real Estate Opportunities Share Discussion Threads

[caveat_emptor] 24/2/2012 08:03

Beats me how you can have "debts" of 2.7bn and "liabilities" of 859m?

[caveat_emptor] 24/2/2012 08:02

I see what you mean?

[tiltonboy] 23/2/2012 18:47

C_E

Worthless.

[caveat_emptor] 23/2/2012 18:04

Tiltonboy...

How do you read things?

That 20 million was a bummer?

[caveat_emptor] 22/2/2012 21:16

One can't help noticing that the boys are arguing their case
quoting common sense and logic and reason?

That's not quite how the law works!!!

[caveat_emptor] 20/2/2012 09:01

Anyone know if the hearing is still scheduled for tomorrow?

[lbo] 29/1/2012 14:34

Why should NAMA sell assets just because the price is above the NAMA price especially when it means developers are left with other assets and the taxpayer is left with losses on the original bank loans?

[caveat_emptor] 29/1/2012 07:22

Sunday January 29 2012

Nama, the lumbering State bad bank, is believed to have turned down a straight cash offer for the full amount of a loan associated with Treasury Holdings' ambitious project at Battersea Power Station.

It is understood that Malaysian investment group Setia offered to buy Treasury's €120m Bank of Ireland loan that had transferred to Nama. Setia approached Nama through Deutsche Bank last year to offer to buy the loan at its full value plus interest.

Nama did not follow through on the offer. The €80bn state body has been widely criticised for its failure to do deals or to engage with potential buyers.

Recently, the Sunday Independent revealed that the UK Durkan Group had paid off all its Nama loans as it became frustrated with the lack of progress in refinancing "good" loans with the agency.

Last December, Nama and Lloyd's Bank had an administrator appointed to the €6.4bn landmark development project. Ernst & Young is seeking a buyer for the site.

Nama sources indicated that the Battersea loans were held jointly by Lloyd's and Nama, with Lloyd's as the lead bank on the loans. Nama had "no comment on market rumours regarding offers", according to the agency.

Last week Nama moved to appoint a receiver to Treasury Holdings, owned by the flamboyant duo of Johnny Ronan and Richard Barrett. Treasury took legal action following the move.

A court hearing on the matter will take place in just over three weeks.

- Nick Webb
Sunday Independent

[lbo] 28/1/2012 15:34

I agree they should not be demonised for falure but if some are trying to use NAMA as a means to have debt written off at taxpayers expense while they still have assets directly or indirectly that could be sold then they should be demonised!!!!

[caveat_emptor] 28/1/2012 08:23

Oh!!
Now you have answered all my questions.
What a house of cards!

'nuff said!!

Irish entrepeneurs should take heart when they go bang wallop.

They should'nt be demonised, and the begrudgers should'nt get sway.

When they have paid their dues, they should be encouraged
to work for this country again.

Poachers turned gamekeepers...sort of!!!

[lbo] 27/1/2012 23:13

Seems the rest of REO/Treasury assets that Nama is not putting receivers in is because it only has a secondary charge on these assets and according to Fitch are underwater for the primary loans already!

[lbo] 27/1/2012 22:56

Yes the company is safe as no direct Nama loans that we know of and not named in the list of assets that Nama is looking to place in receivership but in theory the shareholdings owned by Barrett, Ronan and if Treasury holds shares could be sold to pay back Nama if Nama went after this asset if Treasury had not enough assets to cover the €1.5bn/€2bn face value of Loans.

According to REO interims last August the REO shareholding in creo/TCT was sold but according to TCT website Barrett, Ronan and a company called Treasury Asian Investments ltd own shares (could be a Treasury holdings subsidiary)

[caveat_emptor] 27/1/2012 18:41

Yeah!!
See what you mean

[lbo] 27/1/2012 16:47

Thats the point! NAMA is not a bail out for developers at Taxpayers expense!

Your article suggests that NAMA was offered between €1.1 to €1.3bn for the loans that NAMA paid €900m for. Which sounds great for NAMA but remember the banks took a hit of another few hudred million on these loans and the taxpayers picked up that bill via the bank recapitalisations.

And why should Treasury et al be allowed gain at taxpayers expense? why should they not have to sell personal assets, shareholdings in Treasury or CREO or other assets in Treasury to cover the difference. Remember Treasury is an unlimited company so PGs or not NAMA should go after the full face value of the loans be it €1.5b or €2bn including Ronan loans as suggested by Tresury. (under the current Treasury plan they are short changing at least €200m to €700m off Irish taxpayers)



The face value of the loans is put at just shy of €2 billion by Nama. Treasury puts the figure at close to €1.5 billion, arguing that the balance relates to companies connected to Johnny Ronan rather than Treasury

It is understood that other conditions were attached and that Treasury would have had an involvement in the investments going forward, something that might not be acceptable to Nama.

[caveat_emptor] 27/1/2012 16:33

Well.....if that is true, it is obvious that
no one connected with a NAMA debt will ever
be able to buy their receivership assets back, even
through an intermediary.

[lbo] 27/1/2012 16:25

I think you will find that NAMA is going after the full €2bn face value of the loans and thus the recieverships. Only certain Irish developers who are still living in fantasy land are dreaming that the difference between what NAMA paid and what they originally owed on the bank books has been written off at Irish taxpayers expense!!!

NAMA is not supposed to be a bail out for Developers to get debt write offs and who have money stashed away personally so they can then buy back in when assets are sold off by NAMA!



Nama was "very close" to taking court actions against unco-operative debtors who had transferred assets to family member out of the reach of the State agency, he said.

Mr Daly said that no developers have had their debts forgiven but that if there were no assets remaining to repay loans then their debts would eventually have to be written off. "It is only something that would be considered way down the line," he said.

Mr Daly told the committee that it was Nama's intention to recover as much of the €72.3 billion face value of loans it has acquired for €30.5 billion but that it would become more difficult for every billion beyond the price paid for the loans and that the agency would stop seeking repayments "where it is uneconomic to pursue it further

[caveat_emptor] 27/1/2012 13:38

Anyone read the Irish Times article this morning...


A fascinating read.

[caveat_emptor] 27/1/2012 10:12

Has'nt it already been written off?

[lbo] 27/1/2012 09:34

And what about the €1.1bn writedown on the loans the banks took when the loans were transfered to NAMA? Should the Irish taxpayer pick up that bill via the state recapitalisations and let the likes of Treasury holdings off at taxpayers expense?

[caveat_emptor] 27/1/2012 08:43

Makes you wonder what's in it for Treasury or Reo now that the
receivers are installed preparing for the resale of all these properties?

Should'nt the the name of the game to refloat Irish entrepeneurs, and get them
up and running again?

[caveat_emptor] 27/1/2012 08:30

Reo rns............

[caveat_emptor] 26/1/2012 23:16

I was just reading The Phoenix magazine dated June 4th 2010.

Ooops

Wrong Board

[lbo] 26/1/2012 20:59

Other banks joining in now!



Senior Counsel Michael Cush also told the Court that KBC Bank and the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation were to be joined to the proceedings