David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is an important line of questioning. The report goes on to state:

Following a special meeting of the NAMA board of 11 March 2014, a call was convened with PIMCO. During a call later that evening (11 March 2014) PIMCO expressed its disappointment that disclosures of interest had not been made to NAMA. PIMCO stated that it did not want to remain in a process that could be associated with impropriety for either PIMCO or NAMA and that it was willing to withdraw completely from the process. The Head of Asset Recovery, Mr. Hanna, inquired about 'other options'.

He was not forcing anybody out of the game or asking them to leave. When PIMCO asked what he meant by this the head of asset recovery asked if the deal could be "shaped differently for the arrangement fee to come out". He advised PIMCO that NAMA's concern was about the proposed success fee payable to Mr. Frank Cushnahan. PIMCO's willingness to withdraw was again reiterated and in regard to a further conference call, the report states:

Around 5 p.m. on the following day, 12 March, PIMCO advised NAMA that it had no option but to withdraw from the process. The fee arrangement was a serious issue for it and NAMA. PIMCO was unwilling to proceed in the absence of disclosures of interest it expected would have been made to NAMA, particularly given the quantum of the fee (£15m to £16m). PIMCO further stated it could not see how any 'change' would allow the organisation to continue with the transaction.

So it left. NAMA's head of legal expressed an appreciation of PIMCO's position and of the fact that alternatives had been considered. She expressed disappointment but accepted the decision.

The synopsis of the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination of the conference calls and the communications seems to suggest something different from what Mr. Daly said in his earlier testimony from what he has said today.