
NAMA: There is More Than One Game in Town
Over on Progressive Economy Terry McDonough has written what I think is an important primer on the NAMA situation, one which goes through several options that are available to deal with our banks’ bad debts. They are ordered from best solution at the top - ‘a good back’ to the worst at the bottom ‘NAMA’, as it currently stands.
What is great about Terry’s post is that it deals directly with the main objection that Brian Lenihan has made to alternative proposals, that they will hit bondholders and undermine confidence in our banking system on international markets and make future borrowing more expensive. Contrary to Fianna Fails main narrative, bond holders don’t hold grudges.
Describing the good bank proposal Terry says:
“The government takes over the deposits of the banks. These are liabilities. In exchange for taking the liabilities the government also assumes the best performing assets of the banks. This creates a clean bank with deposit obligations backed by performing assets. The government then invests in this bank to top up required capital. The bad assets are left with the shareholders and bond holders to work out in the “legacy” bank.
The advantage of this is that it doesn’t cost the government anything, as the bad assets are not bought and the capitalization of the banks confers ownership of a valuable asset, the clean bank. The losses are left to the shareholders and the bond holders.”
Of course, this has upsides and downsides. But even the downside is not so bad when you look at it:
“Upsides: Taxpayers leap free. The good bank under government control can decide to extend credit. Shareholders and bond holders take the hit.
Downsides: Bond holders take the hit and the bond markets are mad at Ireland.
Response to downside arguments: Since the Irish government is no longer responsible for the bad debts of the banking system, it is more solvent and better able to borrow on the bond markets. The bond investors are businessmen. They don’t hold grudges. In fact, they respect taking the tough decisions in the national interest.”
As Terry’s list emphasizes, of all the ‘games in town’ the NAMA solution, as it is envisaged is the worst one, as it protects bondholders, unnecessarily, at the expense of taxpayers, holding the entire economy to ransom.
There is also the problem of the bank guarantee. As part of the good bank proposal this will have be withdrawn, which would be easier to do under a new government:
“A complication with this is the government has guaranteed the bond holders until September, 2010. This can be dealt with in several ways. The legacy bank can be required to manage its assets so as to meet all obligations falling due prior to September 2010. The government can withdraw the guarantee. This is not the same as defaulting on sovereign debt but does undermine government credibility. It could be done more easily by a new government.”
Nat O’Connor, also on Progressive Economy, addresses another aspect of NAMA: it’s lack of transparency. This is a point that Brian Lenihan felt NAMA had plenty of. However, if he was interested in real transparency, Nat suggests, he could include under the Freedom of Information Acts. This would
“ensure that individuals directly affected by NAMA have a right of access to documentation relevant to their cases. It would also allow the public to have access to the background material that informed NAMA’s decision making.”
Also, in the current proposal The Minister is to have the power to require NAMA “to report to him or her, at any time and in any format that the Minister directs, on any matter,” (section 49). And all such reports will automatically be “deemed to be confidential information”.
The Minister could delete this latter clause and allow
“opposition parties on a committee …call for information that they deem necessary to perform their duty of holding NAMA (and the Government) to account.”
Of course, that is if NAMA goes ahead, barring a general election. Maybe stopping it, and forcing an election, is the real game in town.

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.