Mr. John Corrigan:

I do not want to get into a debate over the rate of discount. The carrying value of these loans in the balance sheet at the end of 2013 was £1.49 billion. Selling them for £1.3 billion resulted in a realised loss that is booked into NAMA's accounts for 2014 of £160 million or €168 million.

What the Comptroller and Auditor General is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that if there were a different timing or process, then the loan loss realised, whether it was £168 million or £190 million, could have been avoided. That can be neither proven nor disproven. The NAMA board was extremely mindful and conscious of its obligations under the Act. The board took a decision in good faith. I believe it was reasonable and commercially sensible.

There was a loss. When we decided to set the minimum price of £1.3 billion, we were conscious that there was a probability that there could be a loss of up to £180 million, that is to say, the difference between the reserve price and the carrying value of those assets in the balance sheet. The Comptroller and Auditor General will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the argument is about the loss. It is about whether the loss could have been avoided by our taking a different route or timing.