Well, this case highlights that the 'haircut' taken by the banks on the transferred loan book is unreliable, if one assumes that the same discount was applied to all loans..
What I mean is that this guys fully performing loans should have been transferred at full value, i.e 0% haircut. So if a discount of 40% say was applied overall, this means that some loans were sold at a discount of greater than 40%, as some loans were transferred at full value, i.e 100%.
In summary, some loans were transferred at 100% value, and others were transferred at 50% discount say.. giving an average dicsount of 40% say, which is the figure reported in the media. But this 40% figure hides the fact that some loans were transferred at a higher discount,.. due to including fully performing loans in the transfer.
I'd suggest that many people were unaware that fully performing loans were being transferred to NAMA. Did the banks get paid or compensated for the loss of business that they'd suffer from having fully performing loans taken away from them?