Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

They were produced quite recently to justify its use of market value.

The next organisation, the International Valuation Standards Council, talks about the position after proper marketing, while the International Accounting Standards Board refers to the price that would be received to sell an asset or would be paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The argument KPMG has made might have been relevant from NAMA's perspective in justifying its use of market value had the conditions and the definition of market value applied to the process. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General has said he cannot accept that it was a well designed sales process. We will ask NAMA to comment on this later.

People become a little confused and somewhere along the line we will have to get a note, in the first instance, from NAMA on, as Deputy Catherine Connolly said, the par value and the discount rate when it took over the loan. We need a report on the level of impairment in each of the years before 2013. The Comptroller and Auditor General could probably do it, but NAMA is his client and it is up to that body to produce the information. It reassessed its loan book on an ongoing basis and there were significant impairments. That leads me to the impairment figure in its 2013 accounts on which it signed off on 9 May 2014 after the sale had been agreed but before it was finalised absolutely. The Comptroller and Auditor General signed off on the accounts on the same day and the report was presented to the Minister. The proceeds of the sale were £1.241 billion. What was the figure in NAMA's financial statements the day before the sale took place? Does the Comptroller and Auditor General have a figure?