Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform debate -
Wednesday, 22 Oct 2014

Operations and Functions: National Asset Management Agency

I welcome the delegates from the National Asset Management Agency, Mr. Frank Daly, chairman, Mr. Brendan McDonagh, CEO, Ms Gillian Barrett, head of group financial reporting, Mr. Michael Moriarty, deputy head of asset recovery and Mr. Seán Ó Faoláin, head of strategy and communications.

The format we will follow today is that Mr. Daly and Mr. McDonagh will make their opening remarks. In advance of the meeting, we collated questions from committee members and submitted them to NAMA. I thank Mr. Daly and Mr. McDonagh for responding in writing to these and their responses have been distributed to members. These responses, together with the input of our witnesses today, will I hope cover all the key topics. We will follow the presentations today with a question and answer session to clarify any matters.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery that all mobile phones must be switched off. I advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they will be entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Good afternoon. Yesterday, we reverted to the committee with our responses on the 37 questions submitted to us and we are happy to elaborate on those responses later. I propose to focus now on some of the major issues that arise for NAMA at this point in its evolution.

I am pleased to note the remarkable transformation which has taken place in the Irish property market since we last appeared before this committee, almost two years ago. In my address to the committee at that time, I noted that we were beginning to see a positive movement in the Dublin commercial market, as evidenced by buyer inquiries and transactions. That reflected a desire among institutional investors to spread their real estate risk over wider geographic areas and also reflected improving sentiment towards Ireland. I also observed that we were seeing some signs at that stage that the residential market in Dublin was bottoming out.

Since then, both of those tentative signs of recovery have gained momentum and 2014 in particular has seen investment in the Irish commercial property market on an unprecedented scale. Current projections indicate that the volume of direct investment activity will exceed €4 billion in 2014. The previous peak was €3.5 billion in 2006. Italy, by comparison, had €4 billion of commercial property transactions in 2013. When all this activity is taken into account, including loan sales, it is estimated that the aggregate of all Irish market transactions in 2014 will be of the order of €12 billion. In addition to NAMA sales, that projection includes the loan sales activity of the special liquidator, IBRC and a number of other banks with activities in Ireland. This is an exceptionally high level of investment activity by historical standards or even by reference to activity elsewhere in Europe.

NAMA has not been slow to respond to the opportunities created by the much improved market conditions. Up to last Friday, 17 October, we had generated €6.6 billion from loan and asset sales to date in 2014, including close to €3 billion from sales linked to assets in the Republic and €800 million from sales linked to assets in Northern Ireland. Since inception, the total amount generated from the NAMA portfolio has been over €22 billion, approximately €17.5 billion in asset sales and almost €5 billion in recurring income.

While we in NAMA see the improved market conditions as a strategic opportunity to de-risk our portfolio and to reduce the contingent liability exposure of Irish taxpayers, there has been some commentary to the effect that NAMA should slow down the pace of deleveraging so as to manage out its loan portfolio over a longer time period. There has also been some commentary to the effect that we should not sell asset and loan portfolios to private equity and similar funds. As regards this commentary, I would like to make a number of points.

Our strategy in each of our main markets has been to release assets for sale in a phased and orderly manner, consistent with the level of demand, the availability of credit and the absorption capacity of the particular market. In Ireland, over the period from 2010 to 2012, this meant limiting asset disposals into a market where demand was practically non-existent, where the trend in prices was still downwards and where other non-Irish banks were selling off large portfolios quickly. Releasing too many assets for sale could have intensified and prolonged the market downturn here. In 2013, the Irish market stabilised and the subsequent recovery has enabled NAMA to increase the flow of assets for sale and to sell loan portfolios and properties at very competitive prices. This in turn has enabled us to accelerate our redemption of NAMA senior debt. Today, we are redeeming another €600 million in senior debt, thereby bringing to the total to €7.6 billion in 2014, which brings us to our 50% target two months ahead of schedule.

This 50% target was one that we originally thought we would only meet at the end of 2016. Our revised target for end-2016 – which has been endorsed by the Minister for Finance - is to redeem 80% of our senior debt by then. Achieving this 80% target will require a substantial volume of NAMA loan and asset disposals in Ireland as well as in Britain and elsewhere; for the most part, sales will involve commercial assets, including offices, retail, hotel and leisure and industrial assets, or loans secured on such commercial assets.

I am also pleased to inform the committee that we are also redeeming today the last tranche of €134 million of the senior bonds that we issued to the Central Bank to acquire the floating charge over IBRC assets at the time of its liquidation. That means that all of the €12.9 billion in senior bonds that we issued in February 2013 as part of the IBRC liquidation process has now been fully redeemed.

While NAMA is commercially autonomous in how it goes about its business, it cannot ignore the wider ramifications of its activities. The Minister, through his recent section 227 review, which was published in July, endorsed the view of the NAMA board that it should take advantage, to the greatest extent possible, of favourable Irish market conditions by increasing the flow of assets to the market. Such deleveraging creates wider collateral benefits. NAMA senior debt represents a contingent liability on taxpayers and its reduction yields benefits in terms of the creditworthiness of Ireland as a sovereign. This was clearly demonstrated some months ago when the credit rating agencies stated that their upgraded ratings for Ireland reflected, were in some part due to NAMA’s planned and actual accelerated disposal programme which would improve the country’s creditworthiness.

The main constraint on asset disposal activity is that it must be managed in line with NAMA’s obligations under section 10 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, namely to obtain the best achievable return for the State. This means that NAMA must be careful to ensure that the volume of assets and loans which it offers for sale does not exceed the market’s absorption capacity and thereby adversely affect the pricing that may be realised. In that regard, the level of investor interest in the Irish market over the past year has had the effect of expanding substantially the market’s capacity to absorb new supply of assets and of the loans which they secure.

NAMA also fulfils its section 10 obligations by ensuring that assets offered for sale are subject to a competitive bidding process, involving the widest possible array of bidders, with the objective of obtaining the best price available in the market at the time of sale. We do not discriminate against certain bidders or give preferential treatment to certain other bidders based on their country of origin or on their future investment strategy. To do so would be to place NAMA and, by extension Irish taxpayers, at a competitive disadvantage relative to other deleveraging entities.

The strategies pursued by purchasers after they acquire NAMA loans or assets are a commercial matter for them. The imposition of conditionality in the sale of portfolios, even if enforceable, would have the effect of reducing the pricing NAMA would achieve and would also reduce the number of bidders willing to participate in sales processes, both of which would run counter to NAMA’s obligation to maximise the return on its assets.

NAMA is not a developer and has no ambitions in that regard. However, in its capacity as a secured lender, it facilitates development through funding of viable commercial and residential projects under the control of its debtors and receivers. With emerging shortages in the Dublin residential and office sectors, it is reasonable that NAMA should seek to contribute, in so far as this is consistent with achieving the best financial return, to meeting those emerging shortages. That position has been endorsed by the Minister for Finance recently in his section 227 review.

In addition to the revised debt redemption objective of 80% by end-2016, there are two other main strands to current NAMA strategy. One is to facilitate the delivery of office accommodation within the Dublin docklands SDZ area and the other is to facilitate the delivery of residential housing units in areas where supply shortages are most acute. The North Lotts and Grand Canal docks area of the Dublin docklands were designated as a strategic development zone, SDZ, and the scheme was adopted by Dublin City Council in May this year. NAMA has prepared a detailed business plan which includes strategies for each of the 13 individual sites in which it has an interest. These comprise 16.74 hectares, just over 41 acres, which is equivalent to 75% of the 22 hectares of development land in the Docklands SDZ area.

From the initial appraisal exercise conducted by NAMA, it is estimated that up to 3.4 million sq. ft. of commercial space and almost 1,900 apartments could be delivered if all the sites in which NAMA has an interest were fully developed over the next five to seven years. NAMA is engaging actively with Dublin City Council, in the council’s capacity as both planning authority and development agency, to ensure the earliest possible delivery of both commercial and residential space in the docklands area.

NAMA is also willing to advance funds for the early provision of necessary infrastructure to service the area. Already, terms have been agreed with Irish Water for a loan facility to fund the cost of delivering the required drainage infrastructure in the docklands SDZ area, which is at capacity at present. NAMA is also willing to provide up-front funding of €10 million to Dublin City Council to fund costs associated with the design and construction of a new pedestrian and cyclist bridge over the River Liffey to link the north and south docks.

When preparing portfolios of assets for sale, NAMA normally excludes from the sales process those sites that may be suitable for residential development within a three- to four-year horizon. Typically, these are sites in the greater Dublin area. This is in line with the commitment we gave to the Minister, as part of the section 227 review, that we would protect our ability to exercise sufficient control to facilitate the delivery, over the medium term, in the areas of most need.

As part of its contribution to address emerging residential supply needs, NAMA established a dedicated residential delivery team in April 2014. The team’s purpose is to co-ordinate and drive the delivery of NAMA’s commitment to facilitate the completion of 4,500 new residential units in the period to the end of 2016 and to assess the scope for delivery of additional units thereafter. With regard to the target for the end of 2016, it is envisaged that 1,000 units will be delivered in 2014 and another 1,500 units in 2015, with the residual in 2016. Very importantly, NAMA is engaged in preparatory work on a second group of sites in the greater Dublin area which are currently in the planning process or where additional planning work is required. If all of these sites were to be developed, they could deliver approximately 27,000 units in the years after 2016.

NAMA has been fortunate that it has been able to assemble very professional, dedicated and expert staff. Its success to date has been attributable to their very considerable efforts in helping the board and helping me as chief executive to deliver strategically. From my perspective, the biggest risk to NAMA's achieving its various objectives is the very real one that it will not be able to retain the specialist staff that it needs. In total, some 108 members of staff have left since NAMA started, including 23 in the first half of this year and 24 in the three months since then. The fact that staff are leaving as market conditions improve is hardly surprising, but the rate of exodus is accelerating. I am concerned not only about that but also about the fact that many of those departing have very specialist skills and experience that, in the current buoyant property and financial market conditions, cannot be replaced. It is vital that NAMA retain key staff if it is to deliver on the various objectives that I outlined. The business we are in depends crucially on market knowledge and specialist skills in property, banking, planning, finance and law. These skills are generally not available in the Civil Service. To recruit those with the necessary skills, we had to go to the private sector, and that meant hiring staff at private sector levels of remuneration to ensure NAMA’s mandate was carried out professionally. There was simply no alternative given the amounts that were at stake. The point remains valid given the amounts that are still at stake. Owing to NAMA’s finite lifespan, we were in a position to offer staff only specified purpose contracts. Against that background, it is understandable that staff in mid-career, many with mortgages and young children, would tend to seek employment providing them with long-term job security and career prospects. The departure of experienced staff causes considerable disruption and loss of momentum in the management of our debtors and assets. Given its expected lifespan, NAMA may face a diminished prospect of recruiting experienced replacements at this stage and must therefore rely on some of its less experienced, albeit fully committed, existing resources.

For a number of reasons that I will outline, it is important at this point in its evolution that NAMA retain a sufficient complement of specialist and duly experienced staff to enable it to complete its work and generate a positive return for taxpayers. It is necessary to take full advantage of current strong market conditions to de-risk the remaining €17 billion debt in the NAMA portfolio expeditiously. Notwithstanding the very positive growth outlook for the Irish economy over the next two to three years, we are not sheltered from the impact of macroeconomic, financial, monetary or political developments in the United States, Europe or elsewhere.

There is an increased risk that investors will shift their attention elsewhere as the increased pace of deleveraging in other European markets creates more competition for investor funds. Cushman and Wakefield estimates that €584 billion of non-performing loans held by European institutions will have to be sold or worked out over the coming years, mainly due to the new single supervisory ECB mechanism which imposes tighter capital requirements on banks. From Ireland’s perspective, we are currently ahead of many of those competitor markets in terms of the progress we are making in deleveraging our risk, and we should aim to retain that advantage for as long as possible.

Increasingly, NAMA’s deleveraging activity will take the form of loan and asset portfolio sales rather than the sale of individual assets. The amount of work required to prepare a portfolio of loans or assets for sale is considerable. Typically, up to nine months’ preparatory work is required, and it can be longer for portfolios of smaller assets. Such lengthy preparatory phases are necessary to ensure that data disclosed to investors are of sufficient quality to enable them to lodge competitive bids. Otherwise, their bids will be priced very conservatively, or bidders will decline to bid and the net impact will be sub-optimal pricing on asset disposals.

The retention of specialist staff is necessary not only to complete NAMA’s asset disposal activity in a professional manner but also to enable it to bring coherence, direction and drive - and, as appropriate, funding - to the two major initiatives of the docklands and residential development.

As a follow-on from the Minister’s recent section 227 review and his comments about the need for NAMA to retain its operational capabilities, we are currently exploring mechanisms designed to ensure that we can retain sufficient corporate knowledge and expertise to enable us to complete our work successfully. In light of a cost-benefit analysis, the return to the taxpayer from NAMA being in a position to repay its remaining €15.1 billion of senior debt and €1.6 billion of subordinated debt, potentially generating a surplus, and to deliver on its docklands and residential initiatives would be a huge multiple of the costs involved.

I thank the members for the opportunity to address them. We are happy to respond further on these or any other issues they may now wish to discuss.

I thank Mr. McDonagh. Owing to the late start, I propose that there be ten-minute opening slots for our main spokespersons and five minutes for everyone after that, because there are many contributors. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have one question for Mr. McDonagh. The houses NAMA is planning are mainly for first-time buyers. Does Mr. McDonagh believe the guidelines as published for public consultation by the Central Bank will have any impact on NAMA managing to dispose of some of the lands in question?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

First, the property market has suffered a very severe downturn over recent years. Confidence is beginning to return to the market and certainly into the economy. We are committed to delivering 4,500 houses by the end of 2016. Many of those would be for what we would call the first-time-buyer market. It is very understandable that the Central Bank does not want a repeat of the previous crisis. It is probably very helpful that it publishes its proposals for consultation and welcomes submissions on them before it makes its final decision. The reality is that, in general, it is a big ask for someone to put a deposit of €50,000 on a house worth €250,000. Ultimately, the Central Bank is the regulator. It has an important job to do. We will await the outcome of the consultation process and see what impact it will have on us. However, we hope that whatever changes are made take account of the wider considerations and the needs of the economy.

I welcome Mr. Daly, Mr. McDonagh and the other guests. It is hard to know where to start as NAMA is such a big and powerful animal in the country at present. I will cover some main points, and I hope to come back in later if I can.

I will start with the global issue of NAMA’s performance and the expected outturn when it is eventually wound down. I am aware of the 80% target to repay senior debt by the end of 2016. Some €30.2 billion in senior bonds was initially taken out. There was some €1.6 billion in unguaranteed subordinated notes. Therefore, there is almost €32 billion. Mr. McDonagh said previously that he is confident that, at the end of the entire process, NAMA will at least have broken even. Since he said that, property prices have increased significantly. What is his current best estimate of where we are likely to be when NAMA has finally finished its work in 2018 or 2020?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We have said publicly that we are confident we will pay off the senior and subordinated debt if current market conditions prevail. We said when the Minister launched the section 227 review of NAMA that we hoped to generate a surplus.

We would not be prepared to quantify the surplus because market conditions have changed so quickly and we are subject to macro-economic risks. People thought at the start that we overpaid for the assets because of the way the EU scheme was designed. We overpaid the banks by €6 billion and we had to claw that back first. We had a big fall in the property market in the meantime and now we are seeing a reversal of that. If we took those two liabilities from the taxpayers' back, that would be a good outturn. Everything after that would be a bonus but it is probably too early to speculate on what that would be.

To be frank, we are expecting that bonus. It is not really a bonus because when NAMA was established massive losses were crystalised on the balance sheets of the banks, which were then filled by recapitalisation. Any surplus that NAMA can return will reduce the net liability to the State. We want it to achieve a surplus in terms of its return. As I am sure it has forecast this, I will put my question again. Based on reasonable assumptions, which will of course change in light of market developments, where does NAMA expect to be when it has concluded its work? Can we expect a surplus of €1 billion, €3 billion or €5 billion? I ask Mr. McDonagh to indicate the realm he expects based on certain assumptions. His estimates will be taken in good faith on that basis.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yesterday our 30 June accounts were published and we carried out an assessment at that stage. We have always taken a prudent view on this. If conditions continue as they have been we expect a surplus of somewhat less than €500 million.

That is based on certain assumptions.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

Does NAMA always sell to the highest bidder?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes, on the basis that he or she can provide the necessary funding and does not impose unreasonable conditions.

If, for example, a receiver appointed by NAMA is selling a house and one person offers cash while another offers a higher sum subject to loan approval which might take two weeks, how does NAMA weigh this up?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Usually when somebody seeks to purchase a house he or she will have a letter approving funding in the first place. On the residential side, the receiver is obliged to get the best price on the basis that the purchaser can actually deliver the money.

The primacy of selling to the highest bidder is subject to two conditions. The buyer must, first, have access to finance and, second, not insist on unreasonable conditions. We need to tease that out because Mr. McDonagh keeps reiterating the obligation on NAMA under section 10 to achieve the best financial return to the State. Have there been cases in which NAMA has not accepted the highest bidder because of a judgment that a buyer is imposing unreasonable conditions or would not be able to arrange the finance? We need more details in that regard.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

NAMA makes judgments on a daily basis on every transaction. They are based on the facts of the situation and the advice we would take from the debtor or receiver regarding whether the person on the other side can deliver. We do not want a situation in which somebody bids on an asset but cannot set out a date on which the finance will be ready. I do not believe there has been a situation in which somebody who had funding and was the highest bidder did not get the asset.

If somebody made a higher bid, would he or she be given a reasonable period with a strict deadline to come up with the funding?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It depends on the situation. If something is on the open market and everybody is familiar with the bidding process, they will submit their bids and show their proof of funds. As everybody is told that in advance, they are operating on the same level playing field.

What kinds of conditions might NAMA find unreasonable?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Usually it is a matter of debt finance not being fully lined up. The bidder might only have 50% of the debt finance and needs to go back to the bank to get the other 50%. A bidder may offer to pay more on condition that he or she does not close the transaction for six to 12 months. A judgment call is made on whether these conditions are worth considering.

It is where NAMA believes there is a risk that the higher bid might not materialise for one reason or another.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Absolutely.

That is a clear and measurable risk but in all other cases, the highest bidder wins.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

On the basis that he or she does not impose unreasonable conditions and can deliver within an acceptable timeframe.

NAMA has conducted €17.5 billion worth of asset sales. How much of that involves sales to foreign owned funds, for example, private equity funds? I apologise that I did not give notice of that question in advance.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In anticipation of this question, I asked my team to examine all of the big transactions entered into over the last 18 months. The outcome is quite interesting. Of all the major loan and asset sale portfolios that we put on the market in the last 18 months, 88.5% have been transacted with US buyers, 6.9% were transacted with domestic buyers, 3.5% were with German buyers and 1.2% were with UK buyers. The majority of the money coming into buy assets from NAMA is US based.

I assume these are private equity funds rather than private purchasers.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Certain big individuals are buying assets in their own names and they are obviously very rich. The majority are funds, however.

Up to 90% of what NAMA has sold went to US buyers, the vast majority of whom are in private equity funds. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

That is fair to say. These are the people who raised the capital in big pools and developed specialist funds to buy assets.

In his opening remarks, Mr. McDonagh made it very clear that NAMA's position is to get the best return for the State and any decision taken by the prospective purchaser subsequently is a commercial decision. Does NAMA take an opinion on the attitude of the prospective purchaser of a going concern who plans to shut down the business to asset strip it and sell it in parts, even if that causes damage to the economy in terms of employment? Is it NAMA's sole concern to get the best possible return for the State irrespective of what the buyer intends to do with the portfolio?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We have not encountered any buyer to date who told us he or she wanted to buy a business and engage in asset stripping. The assets are openly marketed.

Even if the purchaser said that, would it matter to NAMA? I am trying to get a straight answer on that.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The objective for NAMA under section 10 of the legislation is to get the best achievable return. Usually there is competitive tension in the final phase between two or three buyers who are anxious to bid for a portfolio. We have to take a commercial view that once we sell the assets, whatever the buyer does is his or her decision because he or she paid for them.

Any wider implications for economic development is none of NAMA's concern. I am giving Mr. McDonagh an opportunity to defend his position because I think it is clear. NAMA will sell to the highest bidder irrespective of the bidder's intentions for the assets and the consequences, which may be positive or negative, for the economy.

Is that NAMA's position?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Our commercial obligation is clear in the legislation. The reality is that people who are buying assets are doing so to make money and if they can make money and work and trade in businesses I am sure they will do that.

I must stop it there. Is Deputy O'Donnell taking the next slot?

I thank Mr. Daly, Mr. McDonagh and their colleagues. I looked back at the accounts for the first six months, and more particularly for the second quarter. NAMA made a profit of €102 million for the six-month period. However, a net loss was made on the disposal of loans of approximately €140 million. What type of write-down is NAMA taking on the disposal of loans? To follow on from Deputy McGrath's question, what criteria does NAMA use for the disposal of loans? Loans and property are involved. How did NAMA make €140 million of losses on disposals?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

This was discussed at the Committee of Public Accounts in May. The board made a strategic decision to sell its Northern Ireland portfolio and the loss was driven by that sale.

Was it purely that portfolio?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

To give a flavour from that period, did NAMA make profits on the disposal of other loans? What are generally the criteria in terms of the disposal of loans?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The criteria are effectively based on a financial calculation where one works out the net present value of getting the money today versus getting it at a future date over a number of years. One has the attendant risks in terms of what can happen in that regard. That is what it comes down to in each individual case. In addition, the board could take a strategic decision on an asset in a certain market to which it no longer wants to be exposed. Generally, it is very much a commercial decision.

Mr. McDonagh referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. One of the recommendations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General at the time was that there should be criteria for return on investment, a benchmark for NAMA, which the agency disputed. The question was raised again in the list of questions. It has been lost in some of the commentary that when NAMA was originally established, one of its purposes was to enable the banks to function by taking development loans off the balance sheet, both performing and non-performing loans, and also to get the maximum, optimum return for the taxpayer. It was not just about NAMA itself making a profit; it was about ensuring that the 60% write-down on loans that went into NAMA – it was approximately 54% on average – was recovered as well. How can we be certain as a committee that NAMA is applying criteria to get the best possible return for the taxpayer, who had a serious investment in NAMA? While I welcome the fact that NAMA is making a profit but for our prudential role, we must ask why the agency fought the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an independent commentator, against putting in place some criteria in terms of a return on investment that we could then measure in a case where NAMA states it made a loss of €140 million on the disposal of loans in Northern Ireland. We have no criteria to measure that against. I know we are going over old ground but I regard it as important. Could Mr. McDonagh explain why he is so reticent to allow a benchmark rate to be applied?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The legislation is very clear in section 10. It states that the National Asset Management Agency must get the best achievable price to recover what it paid for the assets, to cover any additional funding we issue in the meantime and to recover any costs we incur in order to bring the State back to a break-even situation.

We must be mindful of the wider considerations. We also had a recent review by the Minister under section 227 of the Act. As part of the review, the interests of the wider system were examined, for example, the creditworthiness of the State, which had a debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 120%, and to get rid of the contingent liabilities of the State of which NAMA formed a significant contingent liability. The Minister asked us as part of the review to take full advantage of the market because there is much demand for Irish assets. Following the successful liquidation of IBRC we could bring forward the timelines for when we could sell the assets to pay off the debt. There are many considerations going on which are much broader than NAMA’s original objective.

The issue in terms of the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that we are not an investment fund. We had to overpay for the assets by €6 billion on day one. We had a declining property market that was down by 30% post acquisition. We originally worked to a timeline of 2020 but the Minister’s review suggested trying to conclude early. We said we would try to get 80% done by 2016 and 100% by 2018. The State wants rid of the contingent liability because it helps from the national debt perspective. With all the competing issues we felt at the time, and because the section 227 review was not issued at the time of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, that we did not think it was appropriate because we want a long-term investment fund. That said, the whole issue of return is certainly good practice. We totally agree with that. Now that we have the clarity of section 227, it is something we intend to look at and subject to board agreement we will probably put it in place from 2015 onwards.

I welcome that. I have one or two other quick questions. Question No. 17 related to NAMA staff.

I am going to intervene for a moment. People watching the proceedings might not have read the question.

I will read it then. The question was about the level of NAMA staff that had effectively left NAMA and gone to the private sector. It is worrying that of the 108 staff members who resigned from the agency since its inception nearly 50%, or 51 former staff, have taken up employment in property companies, finance companies, and consultancy and law firms. From a contractual and data protection standpoint NAMA is not in a position to provide individual staff members’ details. The question comes from a prudential perspective. How can NAMA ensure those staff are not using their access to data in terms of providing a comparative advantage for the people with whom they took up employment following working with NAMA, who are probably competing in the same market? How can NAMA ensure they are not involved in the purchase of assets from NAMA that gives them a comparative advantage? What control mechanisms has NAMA put in place? I accept it is working against the background of trying to retain staff but my concern relates to getting value for the taxpayer and protecting the public purse. Could Mr. McDonagh deal quickly with that point? It is worrying that nearly 50% of former NAMA staff have gone into areas that are clearly related to property.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In the first place, we recruited them from those very areas. When the downturn happened that is where we found the pool of talent from which we recruited. It is not surprising that as the economy improves that those people would see there are other opportunities to move back to the private sector given the finite life of NAMA.

I am not questioning that. My point is-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I absolutely agree with the Deputy. In that context, section 202 of the NAMA Act is very clear on the lifelong obligation on one not disclosing information obtained while employed in NAMA. It is a criminal offence to use the information elsewhere.

Under the contracts of employment, the NTMA employs the staff and they are bound by the Official Secrets Act. The issue of information is one we take very seriously. The best defence to anybody having information is to open-market the assets so that nobody gets an advantage just because he or she worked at one time for NAMA but is now in the market bidding for assets for someone else.

A question was put on NAMA's dealings with developers within NAMA. How many developers have exited NAMA at this stage? Have developers purchased assets, including either their own loans or unrelated loans, from NAMA? A sum of €10 million has been paid out by NAMA in salaries to developers, three of whom are on €200,000, 13 of whom are on between €150,000 and €200,000, 32 of whom are on between €100,000 and €149,000, 47 of whom are on between €50,000 to €100,000 and 27 of whom are on up to €50,000. What is the context around that as it is an issue for the public?

I ask Mr. McDonagh to be brief as time is up in the slot.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In terms of debtors who exit NAMA, unless they pay off their full par debt, we do not sell the debt to them.

There are no discounts.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Under section 172 of the Act, a provision introduced here and which, I might add, did not apply in the IBRC liquidation, we are legally prohibited from selling assets to a defaulting debtor unless he can pay off the full debt. I am not aware of any debtor who has not paid off his par debt going out to buy assets.

Is that the par value NAMA took over and which the developer had with the financial institution originally?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I will give the Deputy an example. If a debtor borrowed €100 million and the loan came into NAMA, it does not matter what price was paid for it. Unless he paid off the €100 million plus the interest which has accrued since it came into NAMA-----

How many developers have exited NAMA?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Through their loans being sold or otherwise, more than 100 debtors have left.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Close to 800 at the start.

I start with the big question people want answered. What is the result of NAMA going to be at the end of the day? NAMA has looked at different options in terms of disposal and had them independently assessed, which I will come to in a minute. I was taken aback by the suggestion that at the end of this process, the profit NAMA will make will be in the region of €500 million. Can the witnesses talk me through some of the assumptions underlying that? NAMA has relied heavily on the fact that property prices have decreased since the valuation date on which NAMA was asked to acquire the loans in November 2009 but the witnesses will doubtless testify that the property prices in Dublin where 90% of the loans are secured - Dublin, Limerick, Cork - are back at 2009 levels or just 4% below for apartments and 5% below for all other properties. NAMA is nearly at the prices at which it was asked to buy the properties. I assume the witnesses will mention the fact that NAMA had to pay the additional €6 billion. However, NAMA has so far received €4.5 billion in rent from those properties which will be disposed of at par or above value. What are the assumptions the witnesses are using that suggest the profit will only be €500 million given that property prices have nearly reached the level at which the properties were purchased at and are expected to rise? Are they assuming there will be no property price rises? If so, can they provide the committee with the models they have used for a 5% rise, for example, over the next few years and what that would mean for State coffers?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

What we had to look at was the 30 June position, which is when we do the mid-year assesssment of our impairment. We took a very conservative view whereby values stayed where they were at on 30 June 2014. Account was taken of provisions to date, which was still substantial at €3.6 billion down from €4.1 billion at the end of 2013, and we looked at the remaining assets to sell and the timeline in which they will be sold. We had to take account of the additional funding to be invested in certain assets to build out and recover the money and, as such, it was quite a straightforward calculation. When one adds up all the pluses and minuses, one ends up with close to a €500 million surplus. The board would not countenance a view that I or my executive team would engage in speculation that prices will increase by 5%, 10% or 15% from where they are. If that happens, the surplus line will increase on the remaining assets. However, what one looks at is a point in time and the result if one had to sell everything then and achieved the current prices. That is how the surplus is determined.

Basically, the €500 million figure is an assumption of no property increases over the period.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In effect, it is a calculation if one could achieve the prices where one thinks the market is at today on the remaining assets in the portfolio.

Hindsight is a great gift, but was it wrong for NAMA to dispose of €17.5 billion of assets at this point in time, given that property prices are increasing? It is an asset management not an asset disposal agency. While there may be political considerations around disposing early, NAMA has until 2020 to redeem these bonds. I understand that there are benefits in terms of debt risk etc., but this year alone in Dublin where the primary focus is in terms of properties against which the loans are secured there has been an increase of 23%. However, €17.5 billion of assets were sold at a time when the market was falling or increasing gradually. If one was to dispose of those assets today, one would receive a great deal more value for them.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The thesis the Deputy sets out is the one the board of NAMA adopted. Between 2010 and 2012, we held back intentionally on the disposal of assets in Ireland. While we obviously had transactions in the market to try to get it moving again, we sold less than €1 billion of assets in Ireland. From the start of 2013 to date, we sold an additional €3 billion of assets in Ireland because, as the Deputy says, the market was beginning to recover. In the meantime, we took the income to which the Deputy refers on the assets. We did not want to sell assets which were yielding 9%. We said NAMA would take the income and would wait for yields to come back in, which they have. Offices are down to 5% with some down to 4%. Other assets like retail have come back from 10% towards 6%. As such, that is exactly the strategy we followed and only €4 billion of the €17.5 billion related to assets in Ireland. The other assets we sold were primarily overseas and we took advantage of a very buoyant market in London. One must be mindful that Ireland was part of a troika programme as part of which we had to redeem €17.5 billion of our debt by the end of 2013. We achieved that. We are at €15 billion today. We have competing objectives in that we are not a long-term fund. If Ireland had the luxury-----

Obviously the Minister has sat down with NAMA and there is a focus on disposing of assets and winding up the agency sooner than originally anticipated. Mr. McDonagh has said in previous responses to the committee that the review on early disposal indicated it would not be good to dispose in the next six months. No one is genuinely suggesting that, but has NAMA considered the idea of a delayed disposal right up until 2020? Would that be the most beneficial scenario in terms of a hard-cash return for the State or is it to wind up 80% of NAMA by 2016?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Given the State's precarious financial position with very high debt levels, the overhanging contingent liabilities of NAMA and the IBRC represented a drag in terms of Ireland's credit rating.

I participated in all of the meetings with the NTMA and credit rating agencies.

My time will soon expire so I would like to move on. A review was carried out of the options available to NAMA in terms of asset disposals. In regard to the option chosen, is that the one that will bring in the most cash in terms of asset disposal or could another option, such as a delayed disposal, bring in more cash? Contingent issues aside, can Mr. McDonagh confirm if that is the case?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In terms of what the Minister asked us to do, we looked at disposals by NAMA in an optimal way and in the quickest timeframe. In terms of the outcome of the section 227 review, the Minister accepted the board's view that an 80% disposal by 2016 was the optimum strategy.

I will ask the question again. The independent review which examined a number of options regarding disposal of assets held by NAMA on behalf of the Irish State looked at a number of scenarios. Is the option chosen by the board the one that will bring in the most cash for the State or were there other options open to it that would have brought in more hard cash?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The option was not available to us.

Did the independent review examine those options?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It examined the option proposed in the board strategy of disposal up to 2020, the revised option of 80% disposal by 2016 and a third option, which is called the challenge option, of the likely outcome if everything was put up for sale now. We believed that the optimum strategy was to take advantage of the current strong demand for Irish assets.

I take it from Mr. McDonagh's reply that there is another option, other than the one chosen, that would bring in more money for NAMA but the board has taken the option chosen in conjunction with the section 227 review and the political and other considerations in terms of the national debt and so on.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

One has to take account of the risks, Deputy.

Yes, but is that true?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No.

Mr. Frank Daly

It is not possible to do this without taking account of the risk, the current market position or the fact that, under the Act, NAMA is required to deal expeditiously with the assets.

That is fair enough.

Mr. Frank Daly

One cannot get into the scenario about which the Deputy speaks without taking account of the risk involved. The scenarios we examined included an 80% disposal by 2016, accelerating even more if possible. The question that arises is if that gets us a good return and, in particular, if it gets us to the key objective - which is always in our mind - of repaying all of our senior debt and getting beyond that. The answer is that it does. One could suggest that this be done up to 2020 or 2030.

That is fair enough and a justification for an answer not given. I asked a simple question. It is important that not only Members of the Oireachtas, but the public have an idea of the options open to NAMA. I have not had sight of the independent review. However, it is clear from the answers given that the independent review looked at a number of scenarios, one of which is that NAMA would make more hard cash if it delayed the sale of assets. That is very clear from the answers given today. The board made a decision, which the witnesses have justified, but it is not the preferable option when one takes other issues into the round.

Mr. Frank Daly

Sorry, I do not think it was stated that we would necessarily get more cash if we waited longer. I do not know from where the Deputy got that.

Was consideration given to other options suggested in the independent review that would have brought in more cash than the option chosen by the board?

Mr. Frank Daly

The options provided in the independent review indicated the best cash result given where we are and taking account of the current position in the market and the risk of it not remaining in that position.

On the point made earlier by Mr. McDonagh in regard to who is buying the assets, 88.5% are being bought by US funds. The questions that arise are will they stay here or go elsewhere and if they are not interested, what does that do to the market and who else comes in. These are the risks we had to take into account.

In regard to my other questions-----

I am sorry, Deputy, but your time has expired.

I beg the Chairman's indulgence.

If some Deputies run over time, others will not get to ask questions.

If the Chairman would direct the witnesses to answer the questions asked, Deputies would not have to use up their time asking the same question three times.

I call Deputy Conway.

On question No. 3 regarding the imposition of conditionality in relation to asset sales, at the height of the boom construction accounted for approximately 20% of economic activity. Currently, dependent on what data one is looking at, the percentage in that regard is 5% or 6%. I think everybody will agree that the optimum level is around 10% or 12%. Reference was made earlier to maximising the return on acquired assets and to this not being possible by the imposition of conditionality because that would somehow reduce the value. As stated earlier by Deputy McGrath, the sale and stripping of assets will restrict builders being able to get back into business. I am speaking not about developers but builders-construction work. In terms of the need for a 10%-12% level of construction activity in the economy, the concern is that we do not have the ability to achieve this because of a lack of available finance for builders and so on. Again, I am speaking about builders rather than developers. If we are to obtain the optimal return for the public, it is important and in our best interests that we know what the purchaser of an asset proposes to do with it. If an asset is put out of the reach of construction, we will be losing out in terms of a return of activity in the economy. Currently the construction sector is running at 5%. What can NAMA do to help increase that to 10% or 12%, which has implications for everybody throughout the country?

On local authority housing units and the breakdown provided in terms of the number of units delivered regionally by NAMA, it was stated earlier that NAMA is confident it can deliver 1,000 social housing homes by end 2014. How far along is that process and how many units remain outstanding? What are the issues, if any, holding up that process? It was stated that NAMA will deliver the remaining houses as soon as the local authority approved housing bodies contract to buy or lease them. What is happening and why is that not progressing? Where are the blockages in that regard? Also, 1,000 houses is modest in the context of where we are in relation to social housing. It has been stated by NAMA previously that some of the houses at its disposal are deemed not suitable for social housing. Perhaps the witnesses would elaborate on whether the problem in that regard is one of geography or the manner in which the properties are constructed. Also, could money be made available to make the housing concerned good quality housing for allocation to people on the housing waiting list?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The Deputy is correct that normally functioning economies generally have 10% to 12% of GDP in the construction sector. NAMA would be very supportive of that. In terms of Construction 2020, we have committed to taking action to try to restore activity to that level. NAMA has two objectives. First, as requested by Government and the Minister, we are to sell assets and use that money to pay off the debt to rid the State of contingent liabilities. We are doing that. Second, NAMA has been asked to set aside money from its internally generated resources to deliver more residential units - 4,500 by 2016 - and to obtain planning for an additional 20,000 units through the Docklands SDZ. To date, NAMA has put more than €1 billion into the construction sector in Ireland. It has also committed to putting an additional €3 billion into the sector between now and its end of life.

A figure of €4 billion is a substantial amount in the context of the Irish economy where GDP is €160 billion. We are playing our part in trying to help the construction sector.

The reality is that there are different buyers for different types of assets. As I said, almost 90% of the buyers of assets are US funds. Some funds are only interested in trading assets, such as hotels or offices, and generating income from them. Others are interested in investing additional money in assets to build houses because they see an opportunity emerging in Dublin where there is demand for residential housing. We are aware of a number of funds which have purchased assets from NAMA and other banks and are investing in construction activity because they see that as generating the best commercial return for them.

Some 926 units of social housing have been delivered to date. We are very confident that we will deliver over 1,000 units by the end of 2014. We have a dedicated team working on this every day. We are making sure they are delivered as quickly as possible.

What is the current number?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It is 926 as of last Friday. If we can sign contracts, we will achieve well over 1,000 by the end of the year. We cannot control the full picture. We have to rely on local authorities, housing agencies and approved housing bodies to sign the contracts. We have very good engagement with them. We have a standardised lease which everybody now understands. We are not wasting money trying to negotiate a separate lease for every housing body, and therefore everybody knows with what they are dealing. Things can happen very quickly.

We offered almost 5,500 units, but only 2,100 have been accepted. Over 1,000 will be delivered by the end of this year and currently 500 are under consideration. Some units were rejected because things were slow to get going as the approved housing bodies were typically used to getting capital funding to buy units. However, given that the Government is in constrained circumstances, money cannot be given to buy capital but rather for long-term leases. That changed everybody's circumstances and people had to adjust.

About 1,200 units were sold or rented in the private sector while local authorities and approved housing bodies were making up their minds about whether they wanted them. We cannot hold things up because there is demand for housing in the market. About 1,700 units were rejected because they were the wrong type of product or in the wrong location, or local authorities and approved housing bodies felt they had an over-exposure in a particular area. I have been told that the rule of thumb is to have a maximum of 20% of social housing in a particular area.

Mr. Frank Daly

I will put the points on the construction industry and social housing together. On the 926 units we are discussing, NAMA does not hand them over to the local authorities or housing bodies unless they are in excellent condition. We remediate any defects or health and safety issues and finish them to a very high standard. We spent approximately €20 million on those houses alone and will spend a commensurate amount on all of the other ones we deliver.

I was in Cork recently. We handed over 24 houses to NABCO. I saw the houses before and after the work, and the quality and standard not just of the houses, but the manner in which we finished what was effectively a ghost estate, was very good. It was good to see a young couple with a young baby getting the keys to their house. It puts a human aspect on what was done with the €20 million or the 926 units.

For clarification, it was mentioned that the market is moving very fast, in particular in areas of high demand such as Dublin. Did local authorities miss out on houses because the market caught up with them? Did they not act quickly enough and therefore lost good social housing to the private market?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In the early days people were slow off the mark to put their hands up or took too long to make a decision. A debtor or receiver may have held houses and said he or she was obliged to get as much money as possible to pay off his or her debts. He or she may have been able to rent a unit or had a very good offer to sell, and we had to let that activity happen if it made commercial sense. We are constantly recycling and offering product to the housing agencies. As new product becomes available or stock which was rented is freed up, we ask State bodies whether they are interested.

Is it not the policy that first refusal should be offered to State bodies regarding buildings of significant interest? Is there a social clause to the effect that NAMA should offer housing to them? We know Dublin is a pressure point in terms of social housing. Should local authorities not have been offered that stock? Were they too slow to react? Mr. McDonagh said they have been. Is he saying they refused the stock or NAMA sold it to the private sector?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

At the start of the process some bodies were slow to make a decision and in some instances the market moved on. Initially, we offered 2,000 units. We are now offering 5,500 units. State bodies have had two and half times the amount of stock made available to them------

I thank Mr. McDonagh.

I welcome the delegation and thank it for its time and responses to committee questions. They were very useful. I welcome the focus NAMA has brought over the past 12 months or so to the private and social residential markets. Setting up a dedicated team is very welcome and the number of private and social residential housing units NAMA wants to put on the market is not insignificant. I am somewhat disappointed by the take up of some local authorities. We do not have time, unfortunately, to discuss that. I congratulate NAMA on some of the work it has done in this area over the past year. I ask Mr. McDonagh to remind the committee of the total book value and purchase price at the inception of NAMA

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The banks had lent €74 billion into the property sector. When we bought the loans under the EU Commission approved mechanism, we paid the banks €32 billion.

Of the €74 billion and €32 billion, what value has been sold to date?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

To date, we have sold about €17.5 billion of the €32 billion.

How does the figure of €17.5 billion match up to what NAMA paid for the assets? What was the book value of the €17.5 billion?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We take the residual portfolio into account and as of 30 June, €14.6 billion worth of loans remained, after taking a cumulative provision on 30 June of €3.6 billion.

I ask Mr. McDonagh to repeat that.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

If we had no provision we would have €18.1 billion worth of loans remaining as of 30 June. When one takes a €3.6 billion provision, the net book value is €14.6 billion.

That is against the net book value. The total revenue raised through sales to date is €17.5 billion. Is that correct?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

How much did NAMA pay for that set of assets? What was their book value?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I do not have that figure with me but I commit to coming back to the committee.

Mr. McDonagh does not know the purchase price or the book value of the assets the agency has sold?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

What we look at is the value of the remaining book after it is sold. We bought for €32 billion and we have sold €17.5 billion worth of assets. We have also collected almost €5 billion in income from those assets in the meantime and we have net carrying value of €14.6 billion left on our balance sheet related to those assets-----

That was not the answer I was expecting. I was just seeking the high level figures. As Deputy O'Donnell said, our job is to try to hold NAMA to account, hopefully for the good work it does. With the greatest respect, the most important figures Mr. McDonagh, as chief executive officer, should have today are for every asset the agency has sold, how much it bought them for and their book value. Does he agree they are fundamental figures for NAMA to have?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I am sorry. I had to prepare a lot of information to come to the meeting and the Deputy has asked a question. I do not want to make up an answer on the spot so I commit to coming back to him. I did not expect that question.

I thought Mr. McDonagh would know this off the top of his head. The most important figure for us is how much the agency paid for the assets it sold. The gap between the purchase price and the sale price is what matters. The other factor that matters, which brings me to Deputy O'Donnell's second point, is the total realised sale price versus a nominal optimal sale price, which is something we rely on the Comptroller and Auditor General to look into because we do not know. I have the greatest respect for what Mr. McDonagh is doing but I am surprised he does not know that figure. It is the most important one for us. I did not mean to try to catch him out.

What interest rate is the agency paying on its senior debt?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The average cost of our debt because we have hedged is approximately 1.4% for 2014.

Does the senior debt comprise multi-year bonds?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

They are 12 month bonds.

Is the agency rolling them over every 12 months?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes. The banks have to agree to roll them over every 12 months.

Has the interest rate reduced in line with the reduction in sovereign borrowing costs over the past few years?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The bonds are issued at a six month EURIBOR coupon and we have hedged them in the markets in case interest rates increase in the future. The cost has come down over the years as variable rate funding has dropped.

I thank Mr. McDonagh. I would like to ask a question raised by a constituent who is seeking to build houses, which he has tried to do on a number of occasions. He has sent me specific examples of sites he has approached NAMA to buy but the agency has said they are not for sale now, which is its prerogative. I do not suggest there is anything wrong with NAMA's position. However, in a scenario where we have a supply side mismatch in the housing market, when a developer or builder approaches the agency about development land that has not been put up for sale, is there a process whereby such an expression of interest can kick off a review? How sensitive is the agency to potential buyers who would like to buy land in Dublin, north Wicklow or wherever and build 40, 50 or 100 houses on it even when the agency says it does not believe now is the best time to sell it? What kind of back and forth goes on within the agency to review this?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We are contacted by people nearly every day asking us if certain assets or land is for sale. The reality is if we receive an offer from somebody and if we think it makes an interesting commercial proposition, we will review that case to see if it makes sense to put that asset on the market or not. We work on each individual debtor's portfolio to agree a strategy to work it out over time and the view may well be to hold the asset and seek new or revised planning permission to improve the value of the asset. Then we might decide to give funding to that owner to build out. That could be a scenario.

We had a scenario last year where we had lined up a joint venture partner to buy land in south County Dublin from a receiver to form a joint venture to build residential units. The receiver received an solicited offer higher than the amount our joint venture was prepared to pay and we told the receiver he had an obligation, which he knew himself, to maximise the return. He put it on the open market and he got double what we were prepared to pay. Any time there is a commercial opportunity that will maximise the return, it is looked at.

Is there a formal process whereby someone who is interested in land and is willing to pay a decent amount for it can ask that a formal review of its sale be conducted by NAMA?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes. We have an internal communications team. People can write to them and part of their job is to follow up on inquiries, contact the relevant case manager and get the facts. The case is reviewed if it makes commercial sense.

With regard to social housing, NAMA sometimes completes and offers properties either to a local authority or a housing agency for sale. Are the properties offered to them at the market rate or at a recognised discount?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

If it is a long-term lease, we agree a discount with the housing agency below market value.

What discounts are offered typically?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Typically, somewhere around 10%.

I refer to the sale at Sir John Rogerson's Quay. NAMA sold a property for €7.5 million and it was sold a year later in August 2014 for almost €18 million. Inevitably, when the agency is disposing of so many assets, people will be able to buy them and flip them at a profit. It would be unreasonable to expect that NAMA would never be caught out like that. However, was that an isolated incident? Did it kick off a review? How satisfied is NAMA that the prices it is obtaining are reasonable market prices, particularly given Mr. McDonagh said 89% of the purchases from the agency are being made by US funds? Some are here for the long haul but others have 12 to 36 month horizons and they buy assets with a view to a short-term capital gain. How concerned is Mr. McDonagh that there is a lot of this going on?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

There is no way I could sit here and tell the Deputy that NAMA could get the timing of every asset sale right. Buyers buy assets on the basis that they expect to make a commercial return and some, as he said, take a longer term view and others take a short-term view.

With regard to the asset to which the Deputy referred, that was a receivership sale. The receiver openly marketed the asset and it was agreed to sell it at the best price at the time in late 2012. That was before the property market recovered. The fact that it was sold subsequently to a special purchaser happens. Some people may have the view that nobody else would have paid the price that was paid for it in mid-2014. Having looked at and spoken with the receiver in terms of his legal obligations to maximise the return to pay off the debtor's debt and having looked at the fact that it was openly marketed, it is the safest mechanism to ensure one gets the best price one can for an asset at a particular point in time. If it is not openly marketed, one always run the risk that there would be somebody who would say he or she would have paid more if he or she knew the asset was available.

We will now go to five-minute slots for other members who wish to speak. I ask people to stop talking to each other before I open these slots. There were running conversations all over the place for the past half hour. I ask that people step outside or pass notes to each other instead of having conversations.

I will call out the names as people indicate to me they wish to speak: Senator Paul Coghlan, Deputy Michelle Mulherin, Senator Lorraine Higgins and Deputy Michael Creed. Is there anyone else?

We said it ages ago, from the beginning.

I indicated to the clerk at the very beginning when we came in. I have been here for two hours.

I am used to this. I am used to this treatment.

I will not need five minutes at all. I will say my bit in two minutes or so. I congratulate NAMA and salute the witnesses on their success. It appears they are losing many senior staff at this stage. I have question further to what Deputy Donnelly was asking. Taken on par value basis, how much ahead is NAMA and what percentage is left? What is the best estimate for how long it will continue to be in business? I congratulate Mr. Daly on his second five-year term as chairman. How many hotels are left in NAMA's portfolio in the Dublin region and in the rest of the country?

In Killarney in particular.

I will discuss that privately. On the social housing I congratulate the witnesses on the 4,500 units by 2016. They might say a short word about what they have planned or intend in the docklands area.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In terms of NAMA, we expect that we will have concluded our work some time in late 2017 or mid-2018. That is our latest view, and that is in terms of paying off the debt. There may be some residual work that will go on in terms of residential department and the strategic development zone, SDZ, but that is a much smaller operation.

It terms of the hotels to date, we acquired 136 hotels and we have 107 hotels remaining. Of those, 28 are in Dublin, 32 in Munster, 22 in Connacht and Ulster, 19 in the greater Dublin area, which I call the commuter belt, and six are in the rest of Leinster. They include hotels across all the categories - three, four and five star. Some are hostels.

Senator Coghlan mentioned that NAMA's mandate is very important. It is crucially important. I did make reference at the start to the fact that we are losing staff. That is a fact of life, but we are trying to deal with it as best we can.

Maybe it is a sign of NAMA's success, in fairness. What about the docklands area?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The docklands area is crucially important for Dublin. In its central business district there are currently only about two buildings with a 100,000 square ft. floor-plate available, which is what people are looking for. Rents are therefore rising quite quickly. They were about €55 per square foot at the peak. They went down to €27 per square foot and now they are back up towards €45 per square foot. Commercially a new building could be built at an average of about €35 per square foot. It is therefore profitable to build it out. We are certainly very anxious to get on and we welcome the SDZ. It improves the prospects of getting through planning system quicker, and we would certainly prioritise the 13 sites. We have four of them in joint ventures with various parties, and we have prioritised the other nine to get the planning applications through to Dublin City Council in the next six to 12 months. We would hope to start real construction activities on some of those sites in early 2016.

I would like to focus on my concern about the way in which NAMA has been dealing with developers. Particular cases have been brought to my attention. It would seem from both media commentary and information I have received myself that in many cases developers, some of whom have performing loans and were only brought under NAMA's remit through legislation, are being brought to their knees. These are the very people who have expertise and experience. They are the people to whom we look to grow our construction industry again.

I note in particular the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Brian Cregan in the High Court in the Mr. John Flynn v. NAMA case. I believe that case was a damning indictment of how NAMA deals with developers. He ruled that NAMA had acted unfairly and unlawfully in calling in loans of €22 million from Mr. Flynn and his family. The large amount of information I have received about how NAMA deals with developers tallies with Mr. Flynn's own comment that dealing with NAMA was akin to the goings-on in North Korea and that developers could not speak. I know the media do not have too much sympathy for developers but many of them have performing loans.

One of the biggest loan sales was of the loans of developer Michael O'Flynn. His loan sales comprised much sought-after property and he believes that his loans were not sold to the highest bidder but to Blackstone. Is that the case or not?

In the case of the sale of Elverys Sports, I am delighted that the management buy-out proceeded and that jobs were saved. I would like to say fair play and give full credit to the management company there. However, I take issue with the dealings of NAMA in this case. On the Friday, everything was cleared, in place and financed to proceed with the management buyout. Come Monday, everything was off the table. The company was in freefall and by Wednesday it was in examinership. This had implications. The deal on Friday would have meant Revenue was paid in full as well as all creditors. There was €1.4 million due to small creditors, many of whom supply services and goods in my own county. In the subsequent deal after examinership, those small creditors, who were to get 100% of their payments, received 5%. Once the company went into examinership that had its own costs.

I am glad that the management buy-out proceeded successfully. When I raised this in the Dáil and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton came in to deal with my concerns, however, I believe that misinformation was given to him. He was told that finance was not in place when it was in place. I would like some explanations. There are people in County Mayo, small creditors and businesses. The money that they have lost is making a big difference in their businesses. They are employing local people and paying for local services, paying local rates and all the rest. I think it is a disgrace and I would like an explanation.

I do not know if Mr. McDonagh will be able to give the long answer to that but perhaps he can manage as much as he can.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In terms of the loans that came into NAMA, that was designed by the legislation, as the Deputy knows. The loans, landed rapid loans, those associate loans that came into NAMA, we took the pool based on what the legislation was and what the European Commission decided and approved. In relation to the Michael O'Flynn loan sale, NAMA accepted the best offer that it got. It was not the highest offer, but the highest offer that was made was conditional and did not have funding. The best offer was an all-cash offer. That was the best decision that NAMA could make at that point.

Mr. McDonagh is saying that NAMA refused the highest offer on the basis of the conditions being attached to it by the offerer.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes, based on advice that we took from an independent sales agent.

What was the nature of Mr. McDonagh's objection to the conditions? What was undesirable about the particular-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Because they did not have the funding in place to complete the deal. Everybody was told in advance that when the loans are put on the market, they have to have funding in place when they make their offer. They made the offer without having the funding in place. The alternative offer had all the funding in place and they could complete the deal. Our loan sales agent - an international bank - made a recommendation to us to accept the offer, and the board of NAMA had to make a decision to accept the offer. I cannot say any more than that because there is litigation ongoing but I assure the Deputy that NAMA did the right thing.

Mr. Frank Daly

That decision went to the board, and the decision was made by the board.

Is NAMA being sued by the aggrieved party that wanted to purchase the loan?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No.

Regarding the Irish situation, NAMA did everything possible to facilitate that sale and it is an indisputable fact that the funding was not in place on the Friday night. We tried to get that deal done on the Friday night. We had people there until 2 o'clock in the morning, but the funding was not made available by the management's bank.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I have it in writing.

I have seen correspondence where-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I have correspondence too.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We did everything to facilitate that transaction. We were as surprised as everybody else by the actions on that Saturday morning but we worked assiduously with the management team. It has been acknowledged by the management team that we got them through the examinership process in that we provided funding and supported them in getting them through the examinership process. We would have much preferred to have it done on the Friday night but the funding was not in place from their funding bank. That is a fact.

And then a third party was bidding on the Saturday morning.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes, and once the third party came in the pre-pack receivership could not happen. The receiver would not go through with the transaction. That was a fact.

I thank Mr. McDonagh.

The other fact is that there are small creditors who have lost 95% of what was due to them because of an examinership-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

-----and because the company went into freefall.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The company did not go into freefall. The company would have gone into freefall if NAMA had not given them more funding to support the company through examinership.

I thank Mr. McDonagh. I have to move on.

It was reported in the national media in recent days that a property sold by NAMA one year ago managed to achieve a 136% increase in price when sold on earlier this year, which is astounding and not reflective of the Irish commercial property price increases that have been recorded in the past year. It raises the question of whether it was sold under value in the first instance and, if so, the reason for that. Why are we allowing corporate raiders, essentially Gordon Gekkos, to come to this country, asset-strip and sell on property, making a huge profit at the expense of Irish taxpayers?

I will give Mr. McDonagh the background to my suspicion regarding this issue. It has arisen as a result of what has happened with CHQ building, to which I referred earlier. I read in the Financial Times recently that a pension fund in the United States alleges that Blackstone, a company with which NAMA does a lot of business, entered into an agreement with another private equity company for the purpose of ensuring that they would not compete with one another for the purchase of property, thereby keeping the prices of properties down. They had set up special purpose vehicles for that purpose. What measures does NAMA have in place for dealing with those types of risk as they arise so that the Irish taxpayer can be assured of maximum bang for its buck when it comes to selling off property?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Regarding the Sir John Rogerson's Quay sale raised by Deputy Donnelly, I explained that that was a sale by a receiver who was obliged to get the maximum return. It was openly marketed. The sale price was agreed in late 2012 and the company involved was interested in doing student accommodation. It went for planning permission. It got planning permission from Dublin City Council. The planning permission was subsequently overturned by An Bord Pleanála. It decided then that it was only interested in accommodation and it sold on the site.

Would Mr. McDonagh not agree that 136% is an astounding amount for the Irish taxpayer to lose out on?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

At the time, the receiver openly marketed it.

It does not make sense.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

At that point in time we could have decided not to sell any asset and try to hold onto them until the optimal time, but we did not have that luxury. The best defence in securing the price is that it is openly marketed. At that time everybody who wanted to bid for it could bid for it. That was the highest bid at that time. A special purchaser who was prepared to pay what some might have thought was way over its value was something that did not exist two years ago.

I am not from a corporate background but I believe it would make eminent sense when all the forecasts suggest that the Irish property market would improve. Mr. McDonagh said earlier that there were a limited number of these types of property for sale in the Dublin docklands region. Many international investors are considering investing in Ireland. If we take a figure of €7.5 million, as opposed to the 136% that was recorded a year later-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Two years later.

I understand it was a year later. It was reported in 2013.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It was two years later. The receiver reported incorrectly.

What month in 2012?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I think it was around November 2012.

So it was a year and a half later.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

A year and a half later, but-----

And an increase of 136%. It is astounding.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I absolutely agree with the Senator.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It is not a huge-----

Does Mr. McDonagh not think it is a huge loss to the Irish taxpayer?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It is a big return, but at that time the receiver, who was obliged to get the maximum amount of value to pay off a debtor's debt, openly marketed the assets. At the time there were around 30 expressions of interest in buying that asset.

Were there bidders offering more than what was given?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No, not at that time. The highest bid was accepted at that time. The bidder wanted to do student accommodation but could not get planning permission to do student accommodation and sold it on. I accept that he or she made a very good profit, but the reality-----

And a loss to the Irish taxpayer, ultimately, which is my concern.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The Senator can say that, but at the time nobody knew the market would recover in such a spectacular way.

The forecasts-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

There was nobody bidding €17.5 million for this asset in November 2012. That is the reality.

Would Mr. McDonagh not agree, based on the limitations regarding commercial properties in Dublin city centre, that it would have made more sense to hold on to that property until such time as the market rose somewhat? We are now Europe's fastest growing economy and we are attracting international investment at an alarming rate, which is fantastic, yet NAMA decided to sell a property at a reduced price, which resulted in the company that came in achieving a price that was 136% higher when it sold it on. That is alarming. NAMA needs to refocus when it comes to selling commercial properties in Dublin city centre, particularly where there is demand.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

At that time, in 2012, Ireland was not that attractive to international buyers. We had only sold less than €1 billion worth of assets in the Irish market up to the end of 2012 because prices were plummeting at that time. It was openly marketed. The price was the best price that could be achieved at the time. The receiver had a legal obligation to get the best price. He got that after it had been openly marketed. The fact that 18 months later the market has changed, the economy has experienced a dramatic turnaround, and there is strategic development zone, SDZ, planning in place, which did not exist in 2012, were contributing factors, and there was a special purchaser.

I have to decide-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I cannot explain it any more than that. As I said to Deputy Donnelly, I would love the option of holding onto everything so that we could get the optimum price on every single asset, but nobody can do that, and I could never profess to being able to do it.

Will Mr. McDonagh ensure there is a facility in place to provide that this will not happen again and that the Irish taxpayer will not lose out in such terms, given the increase-----

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Every single decision taken in NAMA from board level down to myself and the senior team in terms of approving a sale ensures that it goes through a systematic process whereby it is openly marketed and the best price possible is got at the time. We cannot control what happens in the future.

I want to raise a number of points in sequence with the NAMA representatives, and I thank them for attending and for their contributions. The point raised by Deputy Donnelly goes to the core of the issue of evaluating performance in the interests of the taxpayer: is NAMA achieving a profit from the asset disposals? It may be wrong to say the representatives did not have this information at hand, and part of it may be in the answers submitted, but I refer to the bottom of page 5 of the document submitted prior to the meeting, which states that to the end of June 2014 NAMA had sold debtor loans with a nominal par value in excess of €12.5 billion, and with regard to that, there was a loss of €227 million.

When NAMA uses the term "par debt value", does it refer to the purchase price into NAMA or the original amount lent by the banks?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I gave the example to a Deputy that if we paid €50 million for a €100 million loan, there is reference to the original amount lent plus accrued interest.

So it is €12.5 billion of bank loans.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

There was a discount of approximately 60% to NAMA. On the sale of that there was a €227 million loss.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

The witnesses do not have the profit and loss figures on the approximately €5 billion of other asset sales.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No; those are two different points. The €17.5 billion is by reference to the €32 billion paid. It is not referenced to the €12.5 billion of the regional loan. They are two different issues.

Will the witnesses come back with both the asset and the loan book sales, with the profit or loss in each of them?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

One of the previous speakers was very anxious to draw the distinction between developers and builders and putting funds in place for the construction industry to meet national policy objectives. In a way, the debate must move on from this demonisation of developers. With all due respect to NAMA, receivers, liquidators, accountants, solicitors or barristers, none of them has built houses at the end of the day. We need the skill set that developers have in building houses, and we need to accelerate the process. From my engagement with developers, I know that very few are in a financial position to build houses without assistance from NAMA. They are finding it very difficult to raise finance in the current banking environment. In the Cork area there are less than a handful of developers in a position to continue building houses. The witnesses circulated figures about funding being made available, which indicated that there was approximately €3 billion or €4 billion for developers for offices and housing. What is the cost of the financing being made available to developers?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Generally, our average cost of funds is approximately a 2.5% margin over the six-month EURIBOR cost of funding.

Is that considered competitive in the context of funding that would be available in the market?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes; it is very competitive.

Why are we not seeing much more housing construction activity from developers in a position to access NAMA funding or funding from the market?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

There are two issues. If a debtor comes to NAMA with a proposal indicating a commercial return, and if we have a good working relationship with that debtor, we will provide funding if the business case stacks up. We are anxiously seeking debtors to make proposals to do that and we will continue that process. With regard to debtors not in NAMA, some of my colleagues attended a conference this morning which had speakers from the two main banks. They are outlining a number of factors. They are not really interested in lending money to people to buy development land but if they are to lend to people in order to build houses, they would typically provide 65% or 70% and the developer would have to provide 30% equity. That can be difficult.

The witness referenced the sale of a loan book on foot of Deputy Mulherin's questioning, and the advice on the sale of the loan book was that NAMA should not accept the conditionality of the highest bid. Was the conditionality really a question of additional time to complete the process or was it conditionality of a different sort?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The conditionality was mainly that the party did not have the funding in place to complete.

Was that at a particular time? Would it have had it in a month, six weeks or two months?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

When we run a competition, we set out its rules and play by those rules; the bidder should have to do the same. The rules indicated that a bid would have to be submitted with evidence of funding. In this case, evidence of funding was not submitted.

Surely, in the interests of the taxpayer, there should be flexibility. If somebody is offering a premium on top of the price NAMA would eventually take, even if it takes six weeks or two months to close the deal, would such conditionality be worth abiding by in the interests of the taxpayer?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No, as we must run a fair competition. In this case, everybody knew the rules of the competition. The difference in price was insignificant.

I have another brief question.

If you can get it within a minute I will allow it. Otherwise, I can allow the Deputy in later.

I must express concern about the proposed funding being put in place. As somebody from outside the Pale, I worry that there is an excessive concentration of scarce resources in the greater Dublin area, notwithstanding that NAMA has a broad base of assets around the country, where there are similar problems in the housing market. There are also issues for inward and industrial investment with regard to appropriate office space in the regions, including Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. We seem to be putting all our eggs in one basket - that is, the greater Dublin area - which is a questionable approach.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We fund projects anywhere it makes commercial sense to do so. If a proposal is put to us that makes commercial sense, as we are obliged to act commercially under the NAMA legislation-----

Surely NAMA must be proactive in managing a portfolio. It has a portfolio of lands on which it could build office blocks and housing in Cork.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

Why not put some of its funding into that?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We are working with debtors and receivers with assets outside of Dublin. If they have proposals that make sense, we are proactively asking them to make proposals.

I must stop the Deputy, as other members wish to contribute. He may come back to this again if he so wishes.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, for the past 15 months I have been excluded, along with my colleague Deputy Mathews, from the membership of any Oireachtas committee. This means we must wait until the very end, after all the other questions have been asked, to speak. We are in a very unsatisfactory position. I apologise for having to mention this in front of our guests, but I will make the point every time I speak at a committee from now on. It is egregious. I wish Deputy Paul Murphy the very best of luck as he will probably become an official member of the committee tomorrow, although he only became a Member of the Oireachtas last week. The inconsistency and unfairness of this process is highlighted by that fact.

I thank the witnesses for their very lengthy testimony and answering all the questions so far as honestly and frankly as possible. Most of the questions I wanted to ask have been covered but I will deal with some issues. I am very concerned about the reduction in staff, with 50% of people leaving. I understand the cooling-off period is only six months. Ireland is a very small place and there has been an unfortunate overlap between public service, politics and the construction sector. Lines have been blurred, which has caused this country to come to the biggest economic crisis in the history of the State and one of the biggest in all of history. The issue must be reconsidered. It is completely unacceptable that such a high proportion of individuals are leaving NAMA and entering employment for organisations that stand to gain greatly from any information, contacts or inside information that those individuals bring with them. It is an issue for the Government and NAMA, so I would like to hear the thoughts of the delegation about it.

I understand that freedom of information legislation kicks in this month for NAMA. Is that correct?

There have been many concerns about transparency, so-called secret deals and information that was misappropriated or misused by individuals in NAMA. I do not want to drag all of those matters up again, but what preparations has NAMA made to comply with the freedom of information legislation and is it equipped for same? I hope the legislation will help build confidence in the organisation, but it will also cause a drain on NAMA's resources at a time when it is difficult to retain staff.

I will conclude on the matter of upward-only rent reviews, as my questions on social housing and so on have been covered. When the Government entered into office in 2011, it was the stated policy of both Government parties that upward-only rent reviews would be tackled. The position of NAMA, the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, the banks and others was that the issue should not be dealt with by the Government and the intensive lobbying to ensure that the proposals to abolish upward-only reviews were cast aside was successful. The logic was that such legislation would hamper investment, particularly in the retail sector, and affect the price that NAMA could achieve in the disposal of its assets. The revenues being raised from rent could also be hampered. Given the fact that the price of commercial and residential properties in Ireland and the UK has risen dramatically in recent years, though, is NAMA's concern in this regard now gone? Would it still object to the Government dealing with upward-only rent reviews, as they remain a significant issue for business people and a major cause of small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, going out of business? The Government should address the matter. Will NAMA also confirm whether it advertises the fact that this proposal was dropped by the Government in the former's investment materials? It is a point of curiosity.

Mr. Frank Daly

I will address the first two points and Mr. McDonagh will address the question on rent abatement. We cannot stop people from leaving NAMA to seek other employment, as they have rights, although we would like to stop them because we are losing many skill sets. All we can do is put in place a robust regime, to which Mr. McDonagh referred, that involves the Official Secrets Act and the stipulations on the use of information. All of that stays with the person for life. The cooling off or garden leave period is generally six months. The matter has arisen at this and other committees. Six months is probably the maximum that we can do because, if we were paying people to sit at home for one, two or more years, we would be answering other questions from the committee. Mr. McDonagh referred to the greatest safeguard against people getting an advantage because of their time in NAMA, namely, everything is openly marketed. As such, there is no inherent advantage to them.

Regarding the freedom of information legislation, I take it that, when the Deputy refers to secret deals and misused information, she has in mind material that has been put out there but over which NAMA does not stand. We have never come across evidence of secret deals, etc. We have made advance preparations for the legislation and have a team in place under Mr. Ó Faoláin. When the provisions are commenced, we will be ready to engage with them. There is the constant notion that NAMA is not transparent and does not report. To repeat what we have told the committee previously, we are an extremely transparent organisation in terms of our annual and quarterly reports, annual statements, appearances before committees and engagement on a one-to-one basis with Members of the Oireachtas and members of the media. We have only ever had a difficulty with what we regard as confidential commercial information.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The issue of upwardly-only rent reviews is a policy decision for the Government. We published a document that was announced by the Minister for Finance in budget 2012. It set out a procedure for people who had unsuccessfully sought rent reviews previously to go about getting them. To date, we have received 386 applications and approved 335 of them, with 19 currently under assessment. We have only refused 12 applications. In general, they related to companies where, although individual retail units might have been in difficulty, the overall groups were profitable. As such, there was good reason for our refusals. Rent reductions are not free - they cost us approximately €22 million per annum in lost rental income on the assets. I am glad to report that a number of the businesses whose applications were the first to be approved and that went through difficult periods when the economy was suffering and retail activity decreased significantly have, according to their turnover figures, been able to trade through their difficulties. We do our best to help them if they follow our guidance. They must give us information supporting their position that they are entitled to reviews.

Regarding Deputy Creighton's comment about advertising, I am unaware of anyone in NAMA advertising the point - nor would I stand over it - that we opposed the proposals on upward-only rent reviews. We made a submission to the Minister. The Department released it to the media following a freedom of information request. We knew when we wrote it that it was likely to become public. Our views are business views. That said, though, we have done a good deal to try to help businesses and to show them a way of achieving rent reductions if they meet the criteria.

The witnesses are welcome to-----

If the Deputy will permit me, I would like to ask a question on Deputy Creighton's point. I will not delay Deputy Mathews for even 30 seconds.

I thank the Deputy. Do the same considerations in respect of the upward-only rents decision apply now as applied at the nadir of our fortunes in the winter of 2010 and 2011? In other words, is the fear that existed at the time about the implications that intervention in upward-only rent reviews might have had still present, leaving aside any constitutional matter?

Circumstances change. Fears and joys change with them.

Mr. Frank Daly

There are probably two points to that. First, we are still getting requests for abatements, albeit not in the same volume as previously. Perhaps that reflects certain changes in the commercial reality. Second, I understand that, besides commercial considerations, the Government's decision was influenced by the constitutionality of dealing with the issue. I presume that situation still obtains.

Yes, but it is more nuanced than that. I am concerned. Leaving aside any constitutional issue that might arise, is it feared that the Government intervening in upward-only rent reviews, which in the minds of most citizens would be a fairer way of dealing with the issue, would likely have detrimental market implications for NAMA today?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

If we are just talking about the retail sector as at 30 June, we had about €1.5 billion worth of assets remaining in Ireland. If something was done and it affected asset values by 20%, then, instead of expecting to get €1.5 billion back for those assets, we would only get €1.2 billion for them. It is a straight-line calculation. Whatever the calibration is set at will have a direct effect on the amount we are going to recover on the assets if we have not sold them before the change. That would be the same for everybody else.

An awful lot has been said. Let us start again.

I know. It shows my generosity.

Will the Chair extend the same generosity to Deputy Mathews?

I am sure he will, to counterbalance his previous form.

Let us go back to fundamentals. NAMA, at the beginning, was to be the way of harbouring the solvency dangers to six Irish-owned banks in order that liquidity could begin to flow by other methods. That means loans with a par value of €76 billion were parked in NAMA under this model, although Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner said it would not and could not work - that all the pragmatics would make it unworkable in the United States. One does not buy toxic assets, for the very reasons we have discussed - the difficulties of valuation, the difficulties of what happens in subsequent years, the retrospective look to see what was fair or unfair, and so on. Deputy O'Donnell asked why we do not have a benchmark investment return model against which to judge NAMA's performance.

Let us go back to the beginning. The Irish-owned banks, which had loan books of €400 billion, parked €76 billion of those loans, at a price of €32 billion, with NAMA. So it is a financial problem. But now we are discussing it with the political and social wrappings that are very distant from the core need to address solvency in the banking system. If one adds in Danske Bank, ACC, or Rabobank, Bank of Scotland Ireland, KBC and Ulster Bank - all the other domestic banking system banks - one did not just have losses of €76 billion less €32 billion, which is €40 billion, but €85 billion of losses, which is half the GDP of Ireland in 2008. The equivalent level of banking system losses in America, which has a GDP of $10 trillion, would have been $5 trillion. What America did with its Troubled Asset Relief Program, which involved an investment of $700 billion, was to inject capital, to bring in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to give tailor-made guarantees for deposits and other types of obligation as a banking system. It certainly did not involve bonds which were two- and three-year funding by professional investors. They would have to take their bath and their medicine. That unravelled like an inferno. It was the financial equivalent of the Australian forest fires.

The same Tim Geithner that did all that was pragmatic and correct for the American system - and the world systems - decided that Ireland could be sacrificed to the extent of €32-ish billion in Anglo Irish Bank losses. That is what happened. The witnesses from NAMA are the best people to understand all of this financial engineering for Ireland, the fallout from it and the pragmatic issues in addressing the detritus. It has 800 client cases. A hundred of these have been redeemed, or solved, and are out of NAMA. There are 700 left, but NAMA is down to 50% of its initial peak staff count. There must be an awful lot of tension and high blood pressure in trying to cope with 700 cases, which equals 87.5% of its original client count, with only 50% of its original expert staff. The question arises, then: who is running the ledgers of all these loan accounts? It is back at the banks, maybe. Is that right? I am talking about the accounting ledgers and systems.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No, we have moved the operations of IBRC, once it is liquidated, over to Capita Asset Services. We are in the process of moving Bank of Ireland over to Capita at present.

Yes, but does Mr. McDonagh see what I mean?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

There were engine rooms thumping it out and grunting out all the works.

Mr. Frank Daly

We are not down 50% of our peak staff. In fact, we have more staff.

I thought Mr. McDonagh said NAMA had 200 staff originally but 100 have gone.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No. We said 108 people had left and about half of those have gone back into the financial, banking and property system.

Mr. Frank Daly

That is the 50%.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

That is the 50%.

Mr. Frank Daly

But we still have more than 300 staff.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Three hundred and sixty seven.

Sorry. I thought it started off with two hundred and something.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No; we have 367.

Anyway, the principles of what I am saying still apply.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Frank Daly

I was anxious to correct the idea that we have nobody minding the ship.

That is grand. I like the big-picture stuff because that is the engineering in terms of the work at hand.

Ninety percent of the €17 billion in sales - which were not at par value but at discounted prices - have gone to American funds and investors. Think about this. Are they the only guys with money, because of the quantitative easing that occurred in America, with cash sloshing around? They see headlines saying that Ireland is surviving the austerity era and that there is growth. Senator Lorraine Higgins said there had been a dramatic turnaround. There is no dramatic turnaround. Seán O'Driscoll of Glen Dimplex, who has a realistic head on his shoulders, said this morning on the radio, I am told, that we should put caution with a capital "C" in front of all of this stuff about turnarounds. If there was a turnaround, everybody would be quite happy to pay the water charges. They are not, because they ain't got the cash. They also have to pay property tax. I got my local property tax form yesterday; if one is paying by cheque or debit, the deadline is 31 December or 1 January. If one allows the Revenue Commissioners to dip into one's bank account to collect the full lump sum then the deadline is 25 March 2015. Those are two biggies coming down the track for households.

Let me return to discussing the Americans. Ninety percent of €17 billion is €17.2 billion. These American guys, probably six or seven of them, had to sell dollars to buy euro - they had tonnes of dollars because it was sloshing around - to invest in a euro asset which they saw as upside because everybody was saying in the headlines that Ireland had made it. The people of Ireland still have that secret ticking time bomb in Professor Patrick Honohan's desk - the €25 billion of promissory bonds. If he starts selling them, he will spoil the opportunity to cancel them, if the Government had the mettle, courage, balls - I might as well say it - to tear them up and tell Mr. Draghi he has got a little problem to mutualise and spread across Europe, and rightly so, because Tim Geithner caused that scar. We were the firebreak in that eurozone forest fire that stopped the contagion when Italy was panicking and Italian banks were holding Italian bonds, the use of which had gone through the roof.

This big-picture story needs to be told again because it is the best argument, the best objective evidence, to support the case. When I hear the term "retrospective bank capitalisation", I think "What a mouthful of syllables that mean nothing." It is tearing up a false liability, which was the metamorphosis of bank losses from one bank alone into a burden on the Irish people to act as a firebreak in the financial system. Come on, guys. I said to the Minister for Finance only last week: "Come on. Do it, please. Please do it."

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy, I am the Chairman of this committee, whether you like it or not-----

I know you are.

-----and I am not here to listen to-----

I am relying on your forbearance for another two minutes.

The Deputy has got my forbearance.

He had better make use of it.

The question is this: when we are having these updates, can we please have a reminder of the big-picture engineering. Why is NAMA treating this as the dissolution and resolution of a financial problem of solvency for the banking system? That is why NAMA is on course to sell the assets. NAMA Wine Lake is brilliant stuff. I do not know how the author does it.

Mr. Frank Daly

I thought he was gone for years.

No; he has even got better.

Mr. Frank Daly

That publication is for subscribers only.

It is well worth it. It is only €25 for four issues.

Mr. Frank Daly

NAMA does not fund it.

If Mr. Daly gives me his e-mail address, I will forward it to him.

Mr. Frank Daly

I am not sure I want Deputy Mathews to have my e-mail address.

Deputy Mulherin mentioned the John Flynn case, which is interesting because of the judgment of Brian Cregan. That is a final judgment. I do not know whether NAMA is thinking of appealing it.

The Deputy has ten seconds remaining.

I read it and it is a great judgment that is watertight.

Lloyds sells 4,000 Irish non-performing mortgages. The Chairman will be interested in this.

Deputy, I am not a bit interested. I will stop you there. Deputy Paul Murphy is the next speaker, with five minutes.

Can I have two seconds? Will Deputy Murphy give me some time?

I will give Deputy Mathews one minute.

This is the collegiality of the Independents.

I saw that in the Dáil this afternoon. The Dáil is now in recess for the afternoon thanks to the collegiality of Independents.

Lloyds sells 4,000 Irish non-performing loans. Lone Star controls mortgages representing 5% of all outstanding mortgages in Ireland. It got its first bite for €1.1 billion. These guys are unregulated and we want to know what is happening. Mr. Daly mentioned having sold 28 out of 137 hotels. Ten of them were in the Moran hotel group and Canyon Capital is flipping ten of them after only 24 months in a big deal organised with Dalata, Starwood Capital and Marathon.

Mr. Frank Daly

They are not NAMA assets and they never were.

They are loans to Ulster Bank and AIB.

Mr. Frank Daly

Not now.

What I am saying is that these investors are awash with dollars with which they buy euro because they are speculating that the dollar will fall. The dogs in the street in the financial markets know that the dollar is due for a fall. That is why there is an active market in the financial assets that NAMA is selling. If there were no American funds with dollars buying euro, there would not be the high expectations of some of my colleagues on the committee. There would be no market. I think Mr. Daly is right in selling these things, but he should tell the story and why. Does Mr. Daly take the point?

I thank the NAMA representatives for the presentation. Question No. 15 concerns the number of developers retained since the establishment of NAMA and the salaries paid to them. There are 122 developers, and with around 95 paid over €50,000 and 50 paid over €100,000. Can Mr. Daly provide the justification for why working with debtors - who are basically failed developers - is a less costly option than enforcement and the employment of external asset managers? Is that it in terms of remuneration, or are there other benefits that are not included in the salary package? Are there car benefits, golf club memberships or other things that are not included in the salary package? Are developers allowed to hold onto second houses, such as in the K Club? Is there a range of things that people hold onto on top of the salary of €200,000?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The figure of payments to developers has decreased from €15.5 million to €10 million. The rationale is that it makes business sense for us to use them and that it is cheaper than appointing receivers. These people are returning value on the portfolio. It is only a salary cost; we do not fund any part of their lifestyle. If they get paid, they pay their taxes, and what they do with income after that is their own business. Regarding other assets, our view is that if they are substantially indebted to NAMA, people must put their assets on the table and agree a disposal programme for selling the assets. To date, we have collected €800 million of additional security on assets that people had at the time NAMA took over the loans. They pledged that security to us. Typically, if there is a holiday home, part of the agreement is that they dispose of the holiday home and pay the proceeds against the debt. We pursue every penny that we can legally get at to push the debtor to hand over whatever he has, if he does not have the ability to pay off the full debt.

Are there no developers who have been allowed to hang on to K Club homes?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

There might be a few who had them, but if they can be legally pledged the security might be pledged to us and they will be slated for disposal at the appropriate time. It might sometimes appear that the developer has a second home but, after looking at the legal matter, the home might be owned by an unconnected third party rather than the developer. The developer cannot give us security on the property. If the debtor has additional assets, we expect the assets to be on the table.

If there are K Club homes, the security is presumably with NAMA in preparation for sale.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It if it can be legally pledged to us, we push the debtor to hand it over to us. If it turns out the debtor will not co-operate or resists, they become subject to litigation, where we seek a judgment and attach the judgment to unencumbered assets. These are some of the high-profile cases reported in the media. If we think there are assets, we expect the debtor to hand over the assets.

Another point relates to a question asked by Deputy Michael McGrath. When selling assets, physical assets or loans, NAMA says it has no social requirement and does not care who gets the assets or what they do. I refer to the 90% of assets that go to US funds, a good portion of which may be vulture funds such as Blackstone or Lone Star, which may aggressively pursue debtors. Do the witnesses consider it the job of NAMA to think about what happens afterwards? Is NAMA's job to maximise the return for the taxpayer and leave it at that?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Our job is to get the best commercial return, and most of the people we sold assets to are expected to make a return on the assets over time and dispose of them. There are different types of investor in the market - short-term and long-term investors. Most of the people we deal with are generally long-term investors.

Mr. Frank Daly

Out of the earlier discussion, one point is important from the point of view of the NAMA board. The phrase used was that we would sell regardless of the economic impact or other damage to the State. That would not be the case if we were aware that a sale was going to be economically or socially damaging to the State. If we were aware of a serious issue, I could not see the board agreeing to sell in those circumstances. Other than that, we must put it on the market and go for the best price and the best commercial outcome. It is a hackneyed phrase but, in terms of the social dividend of NAMA, the best one is to repay the senior debt and subordinated debt and generate a surplus. That is done by selling assets and loans.

I welcome the fact that NAMA is taking on board the Comptroller and Auditor General’s recommendation on rate of return. What type of rate does it envisage taking on board from 2015?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

That is being worked up at chief financial officer level. It has not gone to our credit committee or the board yet so it would be premature for me to say anything.

Will normal commercial criteria apply?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes. The Deputy said at the Committee of Public Accounts, PAC, that we would have to take account of the special circumstances in the way NAMA acquired and paid for the loan book.

Mr. McDonagh said that at the end of the second quarter NAMA sold debtor’s loans with a normal part debt value in excess of €12.5 billion and it recognised a loss of €227 million on the disposal of the loans. Is that €227 million on the value NAMA paid for the loans?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

It is not off the original book value. Would it be fair to say that NAMA’s model is that profits come from interest on loans which in essence cover losses it makes on the disposal of loans and assets? Is that a reasonable summary?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We are getting income on the assets and we collect interest. We had what I believe to be a once-off strategic disposal on the Northern Ireland portfolio which generated losses for us-----

Losses of €140 million.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I do not see that as being a feature of the remaining part of the portfolio.

To date, globally, has NAMA made a profit or loss on disposal of loans and does it have a break down of profit and loss on disposal of assets?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The cumulative figure from inception is €227 million.

Is that on disposal of loans?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes, disposal of loans.

What about disposal of assets?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I will have to come back to the Deputy with that figure.

If NAMA was going to make a loss of €140 million on disposal of a portfolio of assets in the North in the second quarter, why, when the market is rising, would it not have held off on selling those loans?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

It was a small element of our overall portfolio and took up a great deal of management time. The market is very small and dependent on support from the UK Government. There were signs of that support declining. We had to take a view of the Northern Ireland economy as a microcosm. It is not like the Republic of Ireland, which is coming out of recession. The board had to take a strategic view when a reverse offer was made. We marketed the portfolio with open bidding. Eventually, out of nine original bidders two people made a bid and we took the bid from service. The board took the view that when we considered our projected outlook for that portfolio in terms of our impairment exercise it was strategically sensible to get the money now and get out of the portfolio in one go.

Mr. Frank Daly

One of the most important considerations was, as Mr. McDonagh has implied, the different view we took of the Northern Ireland market at that time. It was not recovering at anything like the same pace as the market down here. It is recovering now but at a slower pace.

How much did NAMA purchase that loan for and what did it sell for to arrive at the loss of €140 million?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I think we gave those figures to the PAC. We paid approximately €1.9 billion and took some income in the meantime. Overall, it sold for approximately €1.5 billion. Since its inception we accumulated €200 million of a loss.

In respect of staff on garden leave who have to refrain from taking up a post in that area for six months, in the current market can NAMA retain staff and is six months too short a period? The public perception is that it is too short.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

This has been discussed at many forums. The NTMA is the employer which seconds people to NAMA. For the most senior people the time is six months, for less senior it is three months. If people go on garden leave we have to pay them for that time. As the chairman said here recently, the view was taken that we would be criticised for paying someone to sit out for a year. The NTMA reviewed what was happening internationally and took the view that six months for the senior people was reasonable and three months was appropriate for the less senior people.

With due respect, working for NAMA is not like working for any other property business. It is probably still one of the biggest in the world. The access it gets to databases and information is unique. Mr. McDonagh spoke about a relatively unique set of circumstances for investment return and I take that on board but think we should have a benchmark. Equally, when staff work for NAMA they are being brought into a world with unique access to information. Do the normal rules apply?

Does Mr. McDonagh remember the question I asked about doing the ledger work for NAMA? Many of the banks were doing it, now Capita Asset Services is doing it, and so on? Were the banks paid for doing that work?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Yes.

They should not have been because they are not carrying out proper commercial policy themselves in writing down their own loan masses to collectable receivable amounts.

NAMA has disposed of approximately €17 billion worth, at cost, of assets out of the €32 billion, leaving approximately €14.5 billion or €15 billion at cost. Is the income off those remaining financial assets proportionately as large as those it disposed of? I suspect that those it has disposed of had a proportionately larger income. They were the low-hanging fruit.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The Deputy is right but we have been very careful in NAMA from the start to effectively hold on to a sufficient amount of income-producing assets.

It does not want to run out of fuel.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We do not want to start disposing of assets to pay current expenses. We expect that even for 2015 we will generate approximately €700 million.

It does not want to make the non-sales cash flow too thin.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The Deputy would recognise that it is very important to maintain it.

After four hours my head is hardly able to recognise anything.

After those four hours I thank our visitors for all their advice and so on.

In the Seanad we discussed the rejection rate by local authorities with the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, who was responsible for that portfolio. It seemed incredible that, when there is a huge problem of homelessness and NAMA offered people property, the initial rejection rate was approximately 70%. It may have improved. It is bizarre that a country with a problem of homelessness would reject property that NAMA can offer.

Does Mr. McDonagh want to answer my questions in a bundle or take that one now?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

In December 2012 we offered 2,000 units. Initially the rejection rate was very high and they were slow in making a decision. Much of this was caused by the structural change whereby the Government wanted to give money for leasing instead of for capital. That took a time to be resolved by the approved housing bodies and local authorities. We have now offered 5,500 units and 2,200 have been identified as being suitable for acceptance and they are currently considering a further 500 units. There are 2,500 out of 5,500. NAMA is more than happy to make these available. We do not make the decision about whether they accept them. The main issue rests with the local authorities. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government informs us that there is an issue about concentration in an effort to keep social housing at approximately 20% for the purposes of social cohesion. Some units might be in some locations where there is not a huge demand. Certain approved housing bodies have a demand for one-bedroom units. However, we do not have a significant number of one-bedroom units in the portfolio - typically we have two and three-bedroom units. There is a range of issues. Our job is to make them available and it is for others to decide whether to take up the offers.

NAMA has my support in that regard. I refer to question No. 24 on page 15. The sales of properties in individual lots would have required the displacement of existing tenants. The Seanad debated this matter with the former Minister, Deputy Shatter. I am not sure that tenants have no rights in those situations. NAMA would certainly be more popular if it were selling in individual terms. We had correspondence with the then Minister, Deputy Shatter, about the case of a buy-to-let person who goes broke and that the right is against that person. If the tenant can show that he or she has been paying rent the whole time the idea that the sale of a property automatically has the displacement of the existing tenants - even if they are compliant - seems to me to be strange. However, that is how the sentence reads on page 15.

For the record I will read that question No. 24. "What is the position of NAMA on resident tenants of properties owned by loan-holders it intends to take foreclosure action against?"

This matter has been of serious concern to Members of the Seanad, namely, that the person who is defaulting is the owner of the buy-to-let property and why should the tenant be at risk at all if the tenant is compliant with the rental agreement? What is bought is a stream of rents - one does not buy the right to vacant possession.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

NAMA does not support the displacement of anybody. When the unit is sold by debtors and receivers, if a sitting tenant has a lease registered with the PRTB then the tenant maintains his or her abode. I am aware that when some financial institutions want portfolios sold they will insist that existing tenants are put out in order to sell the property with vacant possession. NAMA does not promote that policy. We have sold portfolios recently and the existing tenants have remained in place because it was just a change in ownership, as the Senator said.

I have a final question which arises from Mr. McDonagh's answer to question No. 21.

I ask Senator Barrett to read the text of question No. 21, for the record.

Question No. 21 states:

If the rental yield from NAMA properties is approximately 5% and as high as 6.9%? Why in your opinion is there a continuing lack of supply in the rental sector? What constraints in the development of new units exist? If they are bank-related, explain why or else a high yield is not sufficient to cover the cost of capital for the Irish banking sector which is borrowing at very low rates at present. Is there a regulatory limitation, i.e., planning, that is causing the persistent supply-demand disequilibrium?

I refer to the reply which I spoke about under "Matters Arising". I refer to the last sentence of the first paragraph which reads, "Given that construction costs have been relatively stable over the last decade commercial viability is largely determined by projected sales prices." Is that not the problem that everybody else in this State, including NAMA, has adjusted costs downward and the construction industry has not done so and it is waiting to be bailed out again? Agriculture, industry, retail, everyone else, used this recession to restructure their operations and public service pay was reduced and that is the point made by NAMA. I do not know whether it is in the planning laws or the fact that construction expects to be bailed out and it enjoyed its millionaire status up to 2007. How do we get an efficient construction industry which is able to negate the NAMA statement that given that construction costs remain relatively stable for a decade when everyone else has taken quite substantial declines? How do we get an efficient construction industry?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

The Senator has raised a very good point. Some of the costs cannot be controlled within the State because there may be material costs which are affected by international pricing, like steel, for example. In general, house building is driven by bricks and mortar much of which is produced domestically. In my personal view the construction sector is no different to any other sector in that it should respond to the market. As the Senator says, the issue of competitiveness is very important. What we are seeing is that the cost of construction is one thing but the sales prices had gone below the cost of construction so therefore no private sector would fund the building of new housing units in that scenario. The sales prices have now gone slightly ahead in certain parts of the market. There are probably competitive issues to be considered. We have had a very vibrant construction industry but many of the skills have left the industry because of the downturn. We are trying to build back that capacity but the danger is that the scarcity of skills would drive up costs and that would not be helpful for the funding of new supply to the market. That is an aspect which the construction industry should examine.

Question No. 32 states, "What would be the effect of a wholesale unwinding of the NAMA portfolio over the next six months?" I know that is anticipated over a longer period of time. There is a reference to the UBS study. NAMA has a mandate to put the returns into the Exchequer. If we were to allow all the asset prices to fall, would that not be a boost to the economy if house prices were to go down? Would it not be a boost to industrial competitiveness? Is there a case to just walk away after a certain number of years and let the purchasers of land, buildings and houses benefit from the so-called glutted market? Many economists are fairly sanguine about bankruptcy; they regard it as a transfer of assets from people who have obviously failed to another generation who might fail but one keeps going in the hope that somebody else will not fail, the hope being that the assets will eventually go to people who will be efficient in their use. Bankruptcy is one of the punishments for creating property bubbles or being generally inefficient. Did the UBS report say that to run away quickly would cost NAMA €2.9 billion and to run away slowly would cost €1.4 billion? It might be for the good of the rest of the economy if that did happen.

Mr. Frank Daly

The key outcome of that might well be that NAMA would not repay its senior debt and the collateral damage from that consequence would be quite considerable.

(Interruptions).

No interruptions, please.

I thank our guests for staying so long. The replies, as always, have been most interesting.

I am conscious of the time and the length of time our guests have been here but I have a few brief questions.

I submitted question No. 12 on page 9 regarding the cost of receivers. The information in the reply is that NAMA has spent almost €77 million on insolvency practitioners, which I assume refers to receivers and liquidators which have been appointed at NAMA's behest, and that 53 firms in Ireland were put on a panel. How many of those firms got work in terms of being appointed as a receiver or liquidator? It appears that the same names are mentioned whenever liquidators or receivers are appointed. If Mr. McDonagh does not have that information to hand, he could forward it to me.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

I can send it to the Deputy.

I am conscious it is a detailed question.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

On the general point, every one of those firms gets an opportunity on a rotational basis to bid on many tenders. Some firms would bid more competitively than others and that is the reason they would get more work than others. We try to get it down to the cheapest price possible.

My second question relates to when NAMA is selling a portfolio of residential properties, as it did recently in the case of apartment blocks. NAMA says that, strictly speaking, an individual purchaser or a normal Joe Soap could buy an apartment, but in reality apartments are sold en bloc, typically to a fund. Would NAMA be willing to consider selling properties on an individual basis or is it just too much hassle?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

We have been selling properties on an individual basis throughout the existence of NAMA. In the instance the Deputy mentioned, we sold a group of private apartment blocks with 761 units. However, when we originally inherited that, there were approximately 1,600 units, so almost 900 units were sold to individual buyers before we sold the rest en bloc. If an offer is made to us and it makes commercial sense, we will certainly consider it.

There was some publicity recently about another committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, which was discussing inviting NAMA debtors who had exited the NAMA process to appear before the committee and to talk about their experience of being in that process. Does that raise any issues for NAMA and would NAMA have any objections to that?

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

Any committee has the right to invite who it thinks is appropriate to appear before it. From my perspective, and I believe I speak for the chairman and the board, if that is what people wish to do, that is fine.

There are no confidentiality issues or the like.

Mr. Brendan McDonagh

No.

Once they are out of NAMA, can they talk freely?

Mr. Frank Daly

To a large extent the confidentiality issues would be a matter for the individual appearing before the committee. We would not have objected to that. It was implied in some media comment that we did, but we certainly did not and we would not.

It is good to have that on the record.

Mr. Frank Daly

Deputy Mulherin said earlier that there was a type of ban on anybody in NAMA talking about NAMA. We have never imposed a ban on anybody in NAMA talking about NAMA. Again, it is something that is said from time to time, but it is not correct.

I have two final brief questions. Is there a wind-up or exit strategy prepared by the board to deal with the end game for NAMA? The staffing issue has been discussed at length, but is there a plan for the wind-up of NAMA?

Mr. Frank Daly

The plan is outlined in the section 227 review which was published in July. It is also outlined in our statement for 2015, which was published yesterday or the day before by the Department of Finance. It is quite straightforward. It is 50% redemption of senior debt by the end of this year, which is already achieved as of today, 80% redemption by the end of 2016 and accelerating that disposal where we can to take advantage of the current strong investor interest in Irish assets. Side by side with that, we move beyond the senior debt to the subordinate debt and to the possibility of a return on top of that, which we spoke about earlier.

Along with that, we have two other key mandates at present. One relates to facilitating the provision of housing in areas of most need and the other is facilitating the development of the docklands strategic development zone area, where we have 13 sites.

That is the overall strategy. As with any strategy, we keep it under review all of the time. However, the view of the board is that if the property and economic recovery remains quite good and if we can retain the staff we need to do our job, which is a key risk, NAMA will have finished its work, in terms of its senior and subordinated debt repayment, by the end of 2017 or early 2018. If we continue in the provision of housing or in respect of the docklands, obviously those are two specific objectives which could take a little longer.

My final question is on an issue that was discussed earlier. I was watching some of the proceedings on the monitor. Up to 90% of the assets have been bought by US funds. On the one hand, NAMA says that what the purchaser does with the assets subsequent to buying them is a commercial matter for themselves, but on the other hand it says that if it knew they were going to make decisions that would be damaging to the Irish economy, the NAMA board would not sign off on that disposal. It appears to be a contradiction. Does NAMA ask a prospective purchaser what they intend to do with an asset they are buying?

Mr. Frank Daly

No, we do not specifically ask what they intend to do and we do not try to lay down any conditions on what they will do, as that would have an immediate impact on the price and the competitiveness because some people would not engage and just walk away. However, we do not live in a bubble. We know the type of entities with which we are dealing. The point I made earlier was probably left a little up in the air, sort of a suggestion that if NAMA was aware that a purchaser was going to do damage that we would just wash our hands of that. We certainly would not.

However, it does not ask. It is not a consideration.

Mr. Frank Daly

Does one ask somebody if they are going to do damage to the Irish economy?

Would NAMA ask it what its plans are for the assets?

Mr. Frank Daly

One becomes aware of who one is selling to.

It is time to conclude as it is now almost 6 p.m. On behalf of the committee, I thank all of the witnesses from NAMA for participating in this meeting and for the material they supplied to the committee. I wish them well in their ongoing work. I presume they have not objection to the answers they supplied to the questions being put on our website.

Mr. Frank Daly

No.

Thank you.

The joint committee adjourned at 6 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 November 2014.
Top
Share