Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This question was put to Mr. Forde last week and again put to Mr. Sheehy this morning. It was put to them in the context of the - and Deputy Doherty has referred to this earlier - witness statement given by Mr. Daly and his opening comment when he says that:

While internal bank lending documentation may indicate that loan-to-value ratios were typically less than 100%, when the loan was drawn, the reality in many cases was that a developer's equity contribution was in form a rolling up of unrealised paper profit from other developments. This was presented as an equity position, rarely if ever was it in the form of cash.

And Mr. Daly then goes on to say

In effect, therefore, the banks were providing all of the real cash funding for both acquisitions and development. It is safe to say that quite often the borrower's paper equity position never paid for an acre of land or concrete or scaffolding or a worker's wage at the end of the week. The safety zone of a borrower's equity usually existed only on paper. The result is that the borrower was typically not the first to lose in the event of a crash. The bank stood to take 100% of the losses and that's what's happened.

Are those two documents more or less saying the same thing, or not?