Ms Éilish Finan:

No, it was the norm because, in accordance with IAS 39, the agency had to strike the effective interest rate at a given point. In early 2010, which was when the rate was struck, two considerations arose, as is correct. First, the prevailing rate of increase of Government bonds at the time, which was approximately 1.5%. Second, the perceived risk premium - this involves judgment - which the NAMA board deemed to be 4% in 2010. We came to the 5.5% figure, which was then applied, from an accounting theoretical standpoint, to strike the carrying value. Subsequently, every quarter, but especially year-end, there was an assessment of that carrying value. What we were allowed to modify, as per the accounting standards, was the EIR rate, because that is locked once a company decides in accordance with IAS 39 on the take-on value of those loans. Periodically, indeed every calendar year, we looked at the fair value of the underlying loans, not the underlying collateral assets. In 2012, for example, the fair value of the loans, as disclosed in the NAMA financial statements, was actually discounted at 10%. This was because the market had moved. I have no bias towards the ultimate decision because I was not party to it. However, to say that the carrying value at a discount rate of 5.5%, as decided in 2010, should somehow dictate the commercial transaction which, in the end, is defined by a market involving a willing buyer and a willing seller, is simply not a logical commercial transition.