NAMA was never the only game in town, says professor

NAMA is not and never was the only game in town, Trinity Economics Professor, Brian Lucey, told the Chartered Surveyors Association annual conference yesterday.

Prof Lucey who has been a vocal critic of the process said that it did “not have to involve the mass overpayment for property”.

“There were ways that we could have developed NAMA that would have put taxpayers at much less risk. We could have looked at the original Nama 2.0 approach espoused by Patrick Honohan whereby we pay a low price for assets and then compensate shareholders with a share in NAMA’s potential profits. This achieves risk sharing,” he said.

“Secondly, within the confines of NAMA, we could have taken up the NAMA Trust option espoused by UCD lecturer, Constantin Gurdgiev whereby there is a full writedown of impaired assets and debt-equity swaps along with full accountability. This too could have been done to protect the taxpayer.”

Prof Lucey said that the Government needs to learn humility and start accepting constructive criticism. He was one of the 46 economists who wrote to a newspaper this summer urging the Government to reconsider NAMA.