# Bank property - Sale and Leaseback agreements



## circle (16 Oct 2009)

The main group of sellers that I can think of that sold at the peak are the banks themselves who completed sale and lease back deals, many of them with the developers who are now in trouble. 

http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/layden-group-acquire-euro94m-boi-properties-705478.html

This is what bothers me about Nama - the banks sold their assets at what they assessed to be the peak of the market (and they were right) so by definition they knew these were unsustainable prices and very risky loans for the developers, but at the same time they gave similar loans to other developers to undertake similar deals with other banks.

So each bank doing this got a massive cash injection and then we split the loss with them on the ridiculous loan that facilitated another bank's similar cash out.

I realise that other huge deals happened at around the same time, the Jury's Doyle sale for example, and so this wasn't just happening with loans that profited the banks directly, but to me, it seems suspicous that included in the last tranch of huge loans were the ones that profited the banks themselves. Would these loans have been approved if they were not for bank property? Was there extra invigilation in place to ensure that these loan decisions were all conducted ethically?

I'd love to see a complete summary of which bank lent what to which developer and which of these loans were included in NAMA. I'd also love to know what % of the NAMA commerical loans are made of this type of loans.


----------

