Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Question No. 32 states, "What would be the effect of a wholesale unwinding of the NAMA portfolio over the next six months?" I know that is anticipated over a longer period of time. There is a reference to the UBS study. NAMA has a mandate to put the returns into the Exchequer. If we were to allow all the asset prices to fall, would that not be a boost to the economy if house prices were to go down? Would it not be a boost to industrial competitiveness? Is there a case to just walk away after a certain number of years and let the purchasers of land, buildings and houses benefit from the so-called glutted market? Many economists are fairly sanguine about bankruptcy; they regard it as a transfer of assets from people who have obviously failed to another generation who might fail but one keeps going in the hope that somebody else will not fail, the hope being that the assets will eventually go to people who will be efficient in their use. Bankruptcy is one of the punishments for creating property bubbles or being generally inefficient. Did the UBS report say that to run away quickly would cost NAMA €2.9 billion and to run away slowly would cost €1.4 billion? It might be for the good of the rest of the economy if that did happen.