Display:
The Nama write-down (47% to date) is to reflect "long term economic value", not current market value, and Kelly is on record as saying it is grossly inflated and unlikely to be realised even over the longer term.  So I presume his further loss calculation are on the Nama discounted price the Government Nama has already paid.

In have to agree its not clear from his text, but then his article takes Nama as a given and is looking at the what the total Government debt will look like in the next year or so before much, if any, value has been extracted from the Nama portfolio.

What he is saying is borrowing €100 Billion isn't such a problem if you are getting €100 billion assets in return even though popular discourse on state balance sheets tend to only look at the debt side of the balance.  It is our inability to finance and service that debt by (in part) selling of assets or accruing revenue from those assets that is the problem from a debt service/repayment/affordability point of view.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue May 25th, 2010 at 12:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd have to look at the make-up of the debt they're buying again. There seems to be a belief that it's all useless development land in Ballygobackwards, which isn't true at all.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue May 25th, 2010 at 12:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series