Put another way, the market clearly desires certainty and was not going to welcome repeated revisions in projected loan losses.
But the only way of ensuring a one-bite capital increase in the face of gradually emerging information would have been to overcapitalise the banks by an amount sufficient to cover any potential eventuality.5 Given the degree of uncertainty that then existed – albeit some of which would crystallise quite soon, as successive tranches of NAMA valuations were determined – that would have required a much larger capital injection than was decided upon in March 2010.