Lenihan’s bluff no longer conceals scale of our economic nightmare

THE second NAMA business plan explodes many myths expounded when it was originally advocated.

Then we were told of the long-term economic value of the properties it would take over, 30% haircut on bank loans and NAMA’s overall profitability.

Respected economists and academics highlighted the fundamental flaws of many underlying assumptions. They were dismissed on the grounds that “there was no alternative”. Banking experts such as Constantin Gurdgiev, Brian Lucey and Peter Matthews maintained NAMA would lose €10 billion. They stand over their predictions. Their credibility is rising. Brian ‘Bluffer’ Lenihan sounds less convincing as the facts emerge.