Results 161-180 of 321 for nama speaker:David Cullinane

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Yes, and it said some other things. I am trying to avoid NAMA trying to divide and conquer the Department and the Comptroller and Auditor General to justify its analysis of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which was either a misunderstanding or a distortion of what the report stated. I will get to it, given that it follows logically from the next question. Ms Nolan said:There...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: I have to interrupt. I find it incredible. When NAMA was here, we were subject to much discussion about the lack of expertise in the Comptroller and Auditor General's office about how things work and market sales. This is not about whether or not it would have materialised. At a point in time, one arrives at a value, which is based on the value of the assets, income generated from the...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Ms Nolan has missed my point entirely. I do not know whether it was deliberate or because she genuinely did not understand what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said. NAMA worked out the value of €1.49 billion that was based on a sales strategy to work out the assets over time by 2020. Not that one would sell them in 2020 but work them out over time. Then there was a...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: NAMA also talked about difficulties with debtors and pressures that justified its change in sales strategy. I do not know whether a briefing note is on the system here but I referred to it this morning. The briefing note is dated 6 November 2013 and the reference No. is 2292015. It was sent by Mr. Martin Whelan of NAMA to Mr. Declan Reid and the NAMA communications team. The note was...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Ms Nolan talked about a different set of pressures, NAMA talked about a different set of pressures but everybody is talking about pressures that NAMA was under to sell. The claim does not stack up, as no evidence has been presented to the board.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: No. It cannot be a theoretical loss because there was a loss. The Comptroller and Auditor General talked us through it this morning. In 2013, NAMA identified a loss of €113 million and I think it booked a loss in 2014, if my memory is correct. Are the tables available on screen?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (10 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: ...loss. When the Comptroller and Auditor General is looking at the probable loss, it is in the context of a change in sales strategy. It is in the context of documents that were presented to him by NAMA that did all of the calculations, at the time, in respect of the previous sales strategy. NAMA would have looked at the values of the assets, what one would have got working them out over...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: ...last week. The CEO and the chairperson could equally have got red cards for their opening statements. Mr. Collison's statement was more measured. I do not know if that represents a change in NAMA's strategy but it is certainly welcome. There are two issues I want to deal with, the discount rate and conflicts of interest and discussions between NAMA and PIMCO. There was reference to...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: I will get to that. He has not referred to, and does not dispute, the market rate being applied if it was a loan sale or a fire sale. That is not his contention. His contention is that if NAMA holds and works out the assets in the manner in which it was originally intended then the 5.5% discount rate would apply. Is that fair enough?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: I accept that. In the letter we got from NAMA this week, setting out the issues relating to the discount rate there is reference to the end of 2012 accounts-----

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: No, it is the correspondence from a Martin Whelan, head of public affairs in NAMA.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: Yes R-115 B, page 3, 1h. It refers to NAMA's end of 2012 accounts which were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and published in May 2013 the approach adopted by NAMA was to discount all future cash flows at a discount rate of 10%, which was deemed an appropriate discount rate at the time. It does not go on to refer to something that is in today's opening statement, the fair...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: What NAMA wanted us to believe, and this is the crux of the matter, when it is pressed about the 10% discount rate that was applied it talked about the 2012 accounts, the 2013 accounts and the fair value methodology and all of that. That is the excuse that is given. On page 9 of the opening statement, however, we read, "The fair value methodology adopted in the 2013 accounts involved the...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: When Mr. Collison says "informed" and "advised", I am being quite specific. Was it documentary evidence, did it come from experts, was it internal, from people within NAMA, was it presented orally? How was the information given to the board presented?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: ...in our possession. I am not interested in what might be around or not around. If they exist, we need them. We have sought them. We have asked over and over again and we have not received them. NAMA needs to give us that documentary evidence. I am talking about documents that refer specifically to Project Eagle and some of the issues that Mr. Collison alluded to about the difficulty...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: ...rate of 10% for cash flows arising during the period from 2017 to 2020". We discussed this earlier. He put a lot of stock in this in criticising the Comptroller and Auditor General. The head of NAMA was also quite critical of the lack of what he called "market experience" within the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General as well. Essentially, Mr. Collison is falling back on the...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: ...his response. We are looking for the rationale and the justification for applying a 10% discount rate and not a 5.5% rate based on evidence and expert opinion, and not internal verbal advice from NAMA. I asked earlier about documents. I was told documents are floating around. We have not got them but we need them. Mr. Rooney cannot fall back on 2013 because, by his own admission, it...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: ...lets me make the point, he is confusing the issue because the Project Eagle sale was in 2014. By his own admission, the 2013 accounts detail a 5.5% discount rate for cashflow discounts for 2014. NAMA applied a 10% discount rate, so he cannot use that justification.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: .... The Comptroller and Auditor General never criticised the market rate or the fair value rate that Mr. Rooney is talking about in terms of a loan sale. That is not coming across when anybody from NAMA deals with it. We received some clarification today but the witnesses really need to reflect on that because NAMA representatives cannot appear before the committee and twist what the...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (25 Oct 2016)

David Cullinane: A solicitor. The justification that Mr. Stewart gave for NAMA not passing this on to NTMA compliance was that there was no real need because PIMCO had eventually withdrawn from the process. It is a very weak argument.