Mr. John Moran:

It is really comparing apples and oranges because one of them, NAMA, has a mission that will take a number of years, which in some respects is more similar to the mission that was given to the IBRC management in 2011. The liquidator's job, on the other hand, had two components, one of which was an exercise of stabilisation of a situation with a lot of uncertainty around it in terms of the level of co-operation that might be achieved. To the credit of the team in the bank, its members have co-operated very significantly with the liquidator, which has in itself helped to reduce the external costs. In many ways, that reflects the good result we have achieved in terms of where we have ended up.

The NAMA situation is different. There is a review that is constantly taking place that is apart from the statutory reviews. One sees that the business objectives of NAMA have evolved over time with the new market we are in. As Irish assets have become more attractive and, by definition, more expensive for buyers and better for the taxpayer, NAMA has engaged in an acceleration of the wind-down over and above what was expected at the beginning. It also has mapped some of what it has been doing in terms of the disposal strategies - something it was not doing two or three years ago - to reflect the fact that we now have real estate investment trusts which are additional acquirers of assets. By increasing the number of acquirers, the value of the assets has gone up.