# Nama to seek tenants for 8,000 apartments



## Knuttell (10 Sep 2011)

> THE NATIONAL Asset Management Agency plans to seek tenants for some of its 8,000 apartments with a view to selling them as blocks to investors to help shift properties stuck on its books.
> 
> Brendan McDonagh, chief executive of Nama, said that most of the apartments were in Dublin. The apartment rental scheme is aimed at investment companies that manage rented apartment blocks, particularly in the UK.
> 
> [broken link removed]



At its worst there were just under 9000 properties to rent in Dublin,this glut caused rents to drop by 30% plus.
This dumping of these 8000 apts will have the same effect as a daisycutter bomb on the rental market in Dublin and will almost certainly mean financial ruin for a hell of a lot of private landlords...


----------



## JoeB (10 Sep 2011)

Selling the apartments cheaply also causes those problems for the existing landlords.

Leaving the apartments empty does not get the taxpayer a good return.

NAMA may seek rents equal to or higher than rents currently being demanded.

Do you think NAMA will slash the prices?


----------



## Knuttell (10 Sep 2011)

JoeBallantin said:


> NAMA may seek rents equal to or higher than rents currently being demanded.



The market dictates price Joe,we saw that when at its peak there were under 9,000 properties to rent at the one time that rents tumbled down.If these apts are dumped into the rental market there will be an almost immediate default by large amts of Landlords who were previously just hanging on by their finger tips...

Vicious circle.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Luternau (10 Sep 2011)

I would agree with Knuttel-its supply and demand. Increase supply-price falls. That is what happened previously and there is no reason to suggest the cycle will not be repeated.

What strikes me as odd is that when it was first mooted that NAMA may sell properties-it was stated that this would be on a planned, phased basis in order not to disrupt the market.(I am aware that this was not agreed by everyone as the best way to do this-let the market find the floor etc) If this was necessary for sales, why not for rental?


----------



## onq (10 Sep 2011)

I think someone needs to give the debt-collectors running NAMA a severe rap on the knuckles.
Phased release and investor targeting is what is required, not mass dumping.

There are hundreds of glad handers tied to NAMA properties now.
Many of these seem to be in professions who made the boom worse.
Estate agents who colluded with profligate mortgage providers, for example.

ONQ.


----------



## Knuttell (10 Sep 2011)

onq said:


> I think someone needs to give the debt-collectors running NAMA a severe rap on the knuckles.
> *Phased release and investor targeting is what is required, not mass dumping.
> *
> There are hundreds of glad handers tied to NAMA properties now.
> ...



Sums it up perfectly.


----------



## Bronte (12 Sep 2011)

Why is everything so cloak and dagger with Nama? 

Who values the properties that are being sold at 20% below market value. That would be the big estate agents who massively profited during the tiger. Would like to know what salaries they are being paid by NAMA for the valuations. But can't have that info as we are merely taxpayers who are paying for NAMA and paying their salaries. 

Would there be a fee also to an estate agent if the property is sold? Do the banks charge a fee for giving mortgages to the large investors? Why are UK investors mentioned, are not Irish investors or Irish individuals allowed to buy into the scheme?

I know I'm not the brightest when it comes to figures but I've read that article and cannnot figure out what it all means. And you know when those bright boys come up with an incomphrensible scheme you just know you're (the taxpayer) being shafted again. (someone think of a word for me there that is not rude as currently cannnot think of a better word - thanks Luternau)

Thank goodness I don't have property in Dublin. But it's a commin for the rest of the country. As Scarlett said, I won't think about that now I'll think about that tomorrrow. It doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Luternau (12 Sep 2011)

Bronte said:


> And you know when those bright boys come up with an incomphrensible scheme you just know you're (the taxpayer) being s           d again.  (someone think of a word for me there that is not rude as currently cannnot think of a better word)



Heres two suggestions:

And you know when those bright boys come up with an incomphrensible scheme you just know you're (the taxpayer) being s*ol*d again.

Or​
And you know when those bright boys come up with an incomphrensible scheme you just know you're (the taxpayer) being s*hafte*d again.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Sep 2011)

Knuttell said:


> At its worst there were just under 9000 properties to rent in Dublin,this glut caused rents to drop by 30% plus.
> This dumping of these 8000 apts will have the same effect as a daisycutter bomb on the rental market in Dublin and will almost certainly mean financial ruin for a hell of a lot of private landlords...



Would a phased release prevent that in the long run?


----------



## JoeB (20 Sep 2011)

But the owners of the properties have to do something with them.

If our government wants to prevent these properties hitting the market, in order to artifically keep prices high they should compensate the owners, NAMA, to the appropriate degree. 

It can hardly be expected that NAMA will decline to make money, and decline to seek a return, and will instead allow its properties to sit idle.


It seems only three things can be done.

Sell the properties at market rates. This will mean new investors will have cheaper property than those already in, and so they will be able to offer lower rents. 

Rent the properties. This could be done in a competative market, and yes, the market will decline, but see point 1,.. the market will decline due to market forces, not unfair intervention. 

Leave properties idle. This should only be done if NAMA is compensated by someone... that someone obviously being an arm of our government. That would reflect the commercial nature of NAMA... no private property management company would be expected to leave its properties idle.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Sep 2011)

What sense does it make for the govt to pay itself any form.


----------



## JoeB (20 Sep 2011)

Simply for accounting reasons if you like.

The cost of leaving properties idle is real, and it should be accounted for. It is effectively a break for private landlords, and so the money for it should come out of whatever budget is available to be spent on private landlords.

I suppose it would also help private homeowners, in that apartment prices may be higher than if 8,000 extra were on sale, or for rent. So again, .. an appropriate amount should be transferred from Social Welfare, or Revenue, to NAMA, to compensate NAMA for not seeking a return.

8,000 apartments @ 600 Euro per month would give 4.8 million a month, or 57 million per year. This doesn't seem horrendously high, so perhaps NAMA could be compensated in the budget to the tune of 60 million, as a special item. But lots of other people also want special items.



To be honest I can't really see a happy ending in any event. The properties do exist, in the end they will cause problems.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Sep 2011)

Seems like, throwing good money after bad.


----------



## JoeB (20 Sep 2011)

I agree, and don't think it should be done.

I think there should probably be a firesale, or an Irish default.


----------

