# Ivan Yates: "We bailed out the banks..."



## Brendan Burgess (28 Jun 2018)

I get annoyed when I hear this meaningless expression.  We bailed out the depositors and the bondholders in the banks.  Anyone who had money in Anglo or Irish Nationwide at the time of the crisis would have lost most of it.  Anyone with money in AIB, EBS or BoI would have probably lost some of it. 

Anglo and Irish Nationwide were not bailed out in any sense of the word. They are both gone. 

But what really annoyed me last night was Ivan Yates saying "We bailed out the banks". This is ironic in the extreme. The reason that the taxpayer had to bail out the banks was because people like Ivan Yates were not able to repay the money which they had borrowed. 

Brendan


----------



## hubble (28 Jun 2018)

But what really annoyed me last night was Ivan Yates saying "We bailed out the banks". This is ironic in the extreme. The reason that the taxpayer had to bail out the banks was because people like Ivan Yates were not able to repay the money which they had borrowed.

There are multiple reasons:

1. Lack of supervision or prudential rules by the Central Bank (coupled with inappropriate interest rates)
2. Reckless lending

I would put failure to repay (given 1 & 2) as a distant 3.


----------



## Gerard123 (28 Jun 2018)

hubble said:


> There are multiple reasons:
> 
> 1. Lack of supervision or prudential rules by the Central Bank (coupled with inappropriate interest rates)
> 2. Reckless lending
> ...



Is this for real? A distant 3? 
While i agree that 1 and 2 contributed massively, the failure by borrowers to repay their loans was instrumental. Personal responsibility??


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2018)

hubble said:


> I would put failure to repay (given 1 & 2) as a distant 3


Unless the banks were giving loans to children the borrowers are responsible for not repaying their loans. 
Once you put on your big boy pants and become a grown-up you are responsible for your own actions.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Unless the banks were giving loans to children the borrowers are responsible for not repaying their loans.
> Once you put on your big boy pants and become a grown-up you are responsible for your own actions.



That applies to the banks too. For some of the loans they gave out they should probably instead just have gone to Ivan as a bookmaker and put it on the favourite in the 3 o'clock, such was the amount of due diligence that seems to have been done. 

It's not good enough for an insurance company to say well, sorry we don't have any money to pay out on claims as we thought all our drivers were honest safe drivers who were never ever have a crash or claim or anything. The banks were as greedy as anybody.


----------



## Sunny (28 Jun 2018)

Ivan Yates didn't take out a business loan from the Irish taxpayer. He took a commercial loan out from a bank. His business failed and he couldn't pay the money back. Hardly makes him a contributory factor to the failure of the Irish Banking System or makes him illegible to pass comment on banks. Banks very basic primary function is to allocate money from savers to borrowers and to manage the associated risk. The failure of the banks/regulator/central bank/government was that they didn't understand or manage the risk and leverage that was within the system. Blaming the people who borrowed the money is like blaming rape victims for being drunk. Of course there was reckless borrowing and those borrowers have in the most part been made bankrupt (like Ivan Yates) but it wasn't their job to make sure that banks were doing proper due diligence.

And I don't know how you can claim that Anglo Irish and Irish Nationwide were not bailed out in any sense of the word? Just because they are not here anymore doesn't mean they weren't bailed out by the taxpayer. A lot of people didn't lose money in Anglo because of the Irish Taxpayer. Not saying if that is right or wrong but Anglo and Irish Nationwide was bailed out. It was nationalised.


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I get annoyed when I hear this meaningless expression.  We bailed out the depositors and the bondholders in the banks.  Anyone who had money in Anglo or Irish Nationwide at the time of the crisis would have lost most of it.  Anyone with money in AIB, EBS or BoI would have probably lost some of it.
> 
> Anglo and Irish Nationwide were not bailed out in any sense of the word. They are both gone.
> 
> ...



Balderdash, the reason why the Irish banks were bailed out is due to circumstances that happened on a macro level. Worldwide, banks and finance houses had invested heavily in complex derivative products etc during the boom. These products ended up being a bad bet and most were worthless. Lehman, as a result of this, went bankrupt and the ripple effect (as financial institutions scrambled to cash in on almost worthless products) caused a worldwide recession. Here in the Emerald Isle, the investors and bondholders in Irish banks wanted to be paid, corporate depositors took their cash out (all at the same time) creating a perfect storm and credit crunch. The Government intervened and gave a State Guarantee. To say the banks failed in this Country due to individuals like Ivan Yates not paying on their loans shows a childlike understanding of what was really going on and how banks and financial institutions work.


----------



## Sunny (28 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Balderdash, the reason why the Irish banks were bailed out is due to circumstances that happened on a macro level. Worldwide, banks and finance houses had invested heavily in complex derivative products etc during the boom. These products ended up being a bad bet and most were worthless. Lehman, as a result of this, went bankrupt and the ripple effect (as financial institutions scrambled to cash in on almost worthless products) caused a worldwide recession. Here in the Emerald Isle, the investors and bondholders in Irish banks wanted to be paid, corporate depositors took their cash out (all at the same time) creating a perfect storm and credit crunch. The Government intervened and gave a State Guarantee. To say the banks failed in this Country due to individuals like Ivan Yates not paying on their loans shows a childlike understanding of what was really going on and how banks and financial institutions work.



You can't blame Lehman for everything that happened Irish Banks. Lehman/ Bear and whole structured finance crash caused a liquidity crisis. Irish banks had a liquidity and a solvency crisis. I have some sympathy for them on the liquidity side of things as every bank in the world faced the same problems but the solvency issue faced by Anglo and Irish Nationwide was all their own fault. Huge leverage, mis-priced loan books, dysfunctional credit committees, all powerful CEO's etc etc were all self inflicted.....


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Jun 2018)

Just to restate. 

Saying "we bailed out the banks" is meaningless. We bailed out the depositors and the bondholders.   This is even clearer in the case of Anglo and Irish Nationwide which no longer exist but whose depositors were left unscathed. 

If NAMA had bought out Anglo's loans at par value so that Anglo continued to exist and the share price remained very high, then you could certainly argue that the taxpayer bailed out the shareholders in Anglo. But that did not happen. 

Brendan


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

It was Lehman's collapse that triggered the global recession, in any recession, capital values decrease, such as property values. (Anglo and INBS business models were basket cases to begin with (Regulator always looked the other way)). Due to Irish property prices (both the residential and commercial, falling off the cliff and the subsequent writedowns on balance sheet) most banks had not got a hope of survival. Within the State's micro economy, commerce declined rapidly so persons or companies who had got loans could not meet their repayment obligations. (It is not that they did not want to.) Shops and business closed exasperating the banks plight. Long term inter bank money costs increased significantly in price so the banks could not give forbearance to businesses without committing seppuku and residential variable mortgage rates increased leading to further default. So who is to blame? Ivan Yates!


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> It was Lehman's collapse that triggered the global recession, in any recession, capital values decrease, such as property values. (Anglo and INBS business models were basket cases to begin with (Regulator always looked the other way)). Due to Irish property prices (both the residential and commercial, falling off the cliff and the subsequent writedowns on balance sheet) most banks had not got a hope of survival. Within the State's micro economy, commerce declined rapidly so persons or companies who had got loans could not meet their repayment obligations. (It is not that they did not want to.) Shops and business closed exasperating the banks plight. Long term inter bank money costs increased significantly in price so the banks could not give forbearance to businesses without committing seppuku and residential variable mortgage rates increased leading to further default. So who is to blame? Ivan Yates!


Is that you Bertie?


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2018)

We were over leveraged and exposed to one asset class as a Nation. 
Take a look at the money makeover section and individuals in that situation are advised strongly to change their exposure. We trotted on merrily for 10-15 years and blissfully ignored the Dutch, the Germans, the Economist magazine, the ECB and just about every other international body that cared to look at our economy. We kept electing governments who promised to make it worse because of short term gain. Then when we are exposed to an international shock, knowing that we are one of the most open economies in the world, it's a surprise and it's all about Lehman's. Yea, right.


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> We were over leveraged and exposed to one asset class as a Nation.
> Take a look at the money makeover section and individuals in that situation are advised strongly to change their exposure. We trotted on merrily for 10-15 years and blissfully ignored the Dutch, the Germans, the Economist magazine, the ECB and just about every other international body that cared to look at our economy. We kept electing governments who promised to make it worse because of short term gain. Then when we are exposed to an international shock, knowing that we are one of the most open economies in the world, it's a surprise and it's all about Lehman's. Yea, right.



Is that you Goebbals, attempting to rewrite history again


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

At least it’s not Ivan Yates fault


----------



## Delboy (28 Jun 2018)

Sunny said:


> Ivan Yates didn't take out a business loan from the Irish taxpayer. He took a commercial loan out from a bank. His business failed and he couldn't pay the money back. Hardly makes him a contributory factor to the failure of the Irish Banking System or makes him illegible to pass comment on banks.


The loan he took out was on the back of his family (*mother's) home. When the bank came a-calling, he went a-running...to a pub in Cardiff for 18 months.


----------



## Sunny (28 Jun 2018)

Delboy said:


> The loan he took out was on the back of his family (*mother's) home. When the bank came a-calling, he went a-running...to a pub in Cardiff for 18 months.



So? He used collateral for a loan? Wow. He went off to the UK to declare himself bankrupt. I don't blame him. I would have done the same considering the draconian bankruptcy laws at the time. I am not defending Yates but he himself admitted he got completely carried away with the business expansion. But again, the bank made a commercial decision to lend him the money and back him with his expansion plans. The bank saw the family home as valuable collateral because as AIB knew at the time, the price of property never falls. So again who gets the blame? Yates for wanting to expand his business (as unrealistic as that might have been) or the professional financial bankers who examined and approved his plans and lent money on the back of property collateral that they thought would never fall in value.


----------



## dub_nerd (28 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> We were over leveraged and exposed to one asset class as a Nation.



Is that you, the ghost of Brian Lendahand, still telling the denizens of the underworld that "we all partied"?

Who's "we"? I don't remember ever being overexposed to one asset class. In fact, I don't even remember ever buying anything I couldn't pay for in cash, so I've never used leverage in my life.

I do remember being exposed to the _costs_ of the bailout. So yeah, if corporate and government stupidity were an "asset class", I guess I was exposed to that.

Btw, if we're enumerating who benefitted from the bailout, let's not forget the pensioners and those on welfare. They kept getting paid when GDP shrank 20%. Paying for that accounts for more of our current debt than the banks. In Greece, those payments were cut by 70%. I'm not saying we should have done the same, just adding another perspective.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Is that you Goebbals, attempting to rewrite history again


What did I say that you think is incorrect Bertie?


----------



## Delboy (28 Jun 2018)

Sunny said:


> So? He used collateral for a loan? Wow. He went off to the UK to declare himself bankrupt. I don't blame him. I would have done the same considering the draconian bankruptcy laws at the time. I am not defending Yates but he himself admitted he got completely carried away with the business expansion. But again, the bank made a commercial decision to lend him the money and back him with his expansion plans. The bank saw the family home as valuable collateral because as AIB knew at the time, the price of property never falls. So again who gets the blame? Yates for wanting to expand his business (as unrealistic as that might have been) or the professional financial bankers who examined and approved his plans and lent money on the back of property collateral that they thought would never fall in value.


And what happened when the banks tried to enforce their collateral? Thats the point I'm making


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Is that you, the ghost of Brian Lendahand, still telling the denizens of the underworld that "we all partied"?
> 
> Who's "we"? I don't remember ever being overexposed to one asset class. In fact, I don't even remember ever buying anything I couldn't pay for in cash, so I've never used leverage in my life.
> 
> ...


I agree re pensioners and those on welfare. I borrowed for a home but never defaulted and never lived beyond my means. WHen I say I'm referring to us as a nation. We engaged in pro-cyclical economic policies for over a decade, increased spending on welfare and public sector wages and numbers massively and retained tax breaks for construction when the sector was completely overheated. We didn't control the massive leveraging in our banks or their concentration on the construction sector. We saw a massive erosion in our global competitiveness. We kept electing governments who pursued those policies and the only criticism from the opposition was that they weren't spending enough. 

Of course there are many of us who were not part of that but it seems that seeing our populist establishment bankrupting our country and then  selling out our children's future so that we don't have to pay for it is less important to us than paying your fair share for a public utility is to others. 
I don't know about you but I never went on any marches to protest against the boom time policies of our government and the social(ist) partnership politburo that ran the country during that time.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2018)

The core point of Brendan's post if that the banks were not bailed out, the bondholders and depositors were. 
Does anyone disagree with that?

Ivan Yeats and his personal affairs are a distraction from that point.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Jun 2018)

Just my tuppence worth.


I do think it is shallow to lay blame at Lehmans, Ivan Yates, or any other particular individual entity or person. Lehmans was nothing more than the first domino to fall in what I would consider the largest legally facilitated ponzi scheme ever.

The Yates family loan is a typical example. The loan was based on a valuation of a property which in itself was overvalued – typical ponzi effect.

The bank would/should have known this, but they still facilitated the loan anyway.

Perhaps the regulator should have stepped in? But for what reason? For all intents and purposes lending on the back of over-valued properties was perfectly legal and above board.

This was the system, and as far as I can understand, it still is.

As can been seen from the Drumm/Anglo trial, when it came to the auditing the paperwork everything was above board and legal. There was no crime scene. It took other evidential material, such as the Anglo Tapes, to assist the prosecutors to pursue a criminal case.

As for the expression “we bailed out the banks”, I would agree with Brendan, it is meaningless and somewhat inaccurate. A truer expression would be that we (the taxpayers via the State) bailed out the banking _system _– or even more accurate again, we (taxpayers) are now paying the price (or held liable to pay) of a laissez faire banking system that was facilitated by law-makers and regulators to proceed as they saw fit.

The international banking and financial system is corrupt to the core.  The litany of bank failures, banking frauds and criminality and bank rescues in the 18 years of the 21st century already outstrips the total amount for the entire 20th century, both in terms of frequency and in monetary scale.

The sticking plaster that is QE is apparently due to be stripped off over the coming year or two. My guess is that another one will need to replace it.


----------



## Sunny (28 Jun 2018)

Delboy said:


> And what happened when the banks tried to enforce their collateral? Thats the point I'm making



Didn't they get it? I was reading a few months ago that they got something off (family farm I think??) off the Bankruptcy Trustees in the UK . Think there are still court cases going on.


----------



## Steven Barrett (28 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Is that you Bertie?



I was reading his posts thinking the exact same thing


----------



## Delboy (28 Jun 2018)

Sunny said:


> Didn't they get it? I was reading a few months ago that they got something off (family farm I think??) off the Bankruptcy Trustees in the UK . Think there are still court cases going on.


https://extra.ie/2018/01/30/news/irish-news/ivan-yates-aib-high-court


> AIB has been ‘waiting for my mother to die’, Ivan Yates said yesterday as he sued the bank over his family home.
> The broadcaster made the extraordinary claim outside the High Court and said he would fight the bank ‘tooth and nail’.
> But AIB is fighting Mr Yates’ case over his home at Blackstoops in Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford.


Hard for a bank to function as a bank in this country!

* not that I have any sympathy whatsoever for Banks and their carry-on during the madness


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> The core point of Brendan's post if that the banks were not bailed out, the bondholders and depositors were.
> Does anyone disagree with that?
> 
> Ivan Yeats and his personal affairs are a distraction from that point.



Q Who were the bondholders ?

A Mostly other Financial Institutions.

We bailed out the banks, make no bones about it. I agree with The Big Short that it would be more accurate to say the banking system, but I am keeping it simple for you to understand Purple.


----------



## Andy836 (28 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Q Who were the bondholders ?
> 
> A Mostly other Financial Institutions.
> 
> We bailed out the banks, make no bones about it. I agree with The Big Short that it would be more accurate to say the banking system, but I am keeping it simple for you to understand Purple.



But the thing is, the vast vast majority of Bank liabilities were not bonds, they were deposit accounts & current accounts. The bondholders only got bailed out because the needed to bail out the regular joes and irish businesses with cash in the banks.


----------



## Conan (28 Jun 2018)

“Keeping it simple” is the excuse used by the likes of Ivan Yates, Sinn Fein, People who never made any Profit etc for saying that Banks (and Bankers) were “bailed out”. In reality if the main Banks were let go to the wall, it is depositors who would have been the big losers. The protest against paying a tiny water charge would have been dwarfed had all citizens had their bank accounts frozen (or left to wait on the Government guarantee to kick in). Remember the week on the Joe Duffy show where he effectively encouraged a run on the Banks. 
Yates still displays his anger at the Banks for daring to seek him to repay his borrowing. Whilst many Banks did over- lend, nobody forced Yates (and others) to borrow the money to finance his business expansion. Why do I have to pay for Yates’ profligacy?


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

Conan said:


> “Keeping it simple” is the excuse used by the likes of Ivan Yates, Sinn Fein, People who never made any Profit etc for saying that Banks (and Bankers) were “bailed out”. In reality if the main Banks were let go to the wall, it is depositors who would have been the big losers. The protest against paying a tiny water charge would have been dwarfed had all citizens had their bank accounts frozen (or left to wait on the Government guarantee to kick in). Remember the week on the Joe Duffy show where he effectively encouraged a run on the Banks.
> Yates still displays his anger at the Banks for daring to seek him to repay his borrowing. Whilst many Banks did over- lend, nobody forced Yates (and others) to borrow the money to finance his business expansion. Why do I have to pay for Yates’ profligacy?



Conan you have to pay because you as an individual simply do not matter. The Government was heavily lobbied by the Banks for the State Guarantee at this time. The Government could easily have grown a pair and let Anglo go to the wall, after all, they were far from been a systemically important bank (3 or 4 branches at max). If I owned a factory making something and became hopelessly indebted, the bank would call in the receiver, sell any assets and move on. When the banks became hopelessly indebted they went to the Government (which was democratically elected by the people) and got a guarantee. Do not blame Ivan Yates for attempting to better himself, blame the banks for recklessly lending to him or indeed the Government for guaranteeing the banks behaviour in this regard.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Jun 2018)

Ides

You don't seem to understand what happened. 

The government guaranteed the depositors and the bondholders. 

The reason they had to do this is because the banks had recklessly lent and borrowers had recklessly borrowed. 

But the banks were not bailed out, it was the depositors and bondholders.  Or as Shortie says, the banking system was bailed out. 

I don't blame Ivan Yates for going bankrupt - I would have done the same myself. But I do blame him for his excessive borrowings. 

And he should not be saying "We bailed out the banks". He should be saying " The taxpayers bailed out the depositors and bondholders because guys like me were unable to repay our loans" 

Brendan


----------



## IdesofMarch (28 Jun 2018)

Brendan,

If no one borrowed, banks would go bust. Credit is the lifeblood that fuels finance, without it, the system grinds to a halt. I understand what happened at this time better than most. All entrepreneurs are risk takers, without same, everything would stay static. Credit comes in cycles just like recessions, if Ivan Yates had borrowed at the start of the cycle and paid off his loans and before the crash, we would not be having this conversation.

I will use the analogy of Jack Kennedy in the USA. A shoeshine boy told Mr Kennedy which stocks to invest in. Within a week of this, he had liquidated his entire holdings. A week later, the Great Depression came and Jack Kennedy rebought stock at rock bottom prices and became one of the richest and most powerful men in America at the time. He got his son elected as President of America.

Timing is everything.

I reiterate, no one should blame people like Ivan Yates for attempting to improve their lot by borrowing monies to expand their business, the banks had risk weight analysis departments, credit risk departments, forecasting economists etc. (all of whom were on large salaries).  They should have known better!

The Government of the time, who gave them the comfort of the State Guarantee should have known better. Your kids, kids and in turn their kids, will be paying for this comfort blanket.


----------



## noproblem (28 Jun 2018)

Going bankrupt is ok then? We all know the law allows it but it's morally wrong and leaves an awful lot of good people up the swanny and their families too. Yates owed people money and if it was owed some of the people that think bankruptcy's ok, they might have a different view of things.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Jun 2018)

Of course it is ok to go bankrupt. Most entrepreneurs fall flat on their faces before they reach success. 
Not that success is guaranteed by the way, so every time I pass a beggar on the street I do wonder - someone too lazy to do a proper days work? Or someone who did their best but ended up on the wrong side of a financial circumstance? Or someone who hardly ever had a chance to begin with? 

The laissez faire banking system that prevails is anointed as the epitome of free market capitalism. And in many respects the cheerleaders of this system can point to great successes across the globe  - the lifting of billions out of absolute poverty, the innovation of technologies, the advancements of science and medicine. 

But the truth is, all of these progressions are severely thwarted from their actual potential when the money men and women get a sniff of profit. 

I don't blame them. Who wouldn't? 
Keep pumping the millions, billions and now trillions...eventually the dice will roll in your favour, I like a bet myself.
However in the case of the global banking cartel,  the suckers working the hours will pay. And even better, they will fight amongst themselves.

But surely that is where society, through goverance of people, by the people, for the people intervenes? 
Surely as a society we can all generally agree that a starving child or homeless family is wrong? 
That a sick elderly person needs healthcare and dignity in their final years and days? 
The healthcare workers deserve a decent living and the opportunity of a prosperous future? 
That ordinary people standing at assembly lines, or as is more likely these days sitting at workstations, deserve an opportunity to start a family, afford a home...a car, a holiday? 
If not, what is the point of all this economic growth? 
Otherwise, is a democratic society based on true socialist values of fraternity, liberty and equality just a fantasy?

Vive la Républic!


----------



## noproblem (28 Jun 2018)

Some like to think we have a democratic society, probably suits them to do so.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Jun 2018)

noproblem said:


> Some like to think we have a democratic society, probably suits them to do so.



Could be a case of crossed wires here?

In the normal course of affairs, to quote Beckett - Ever tried, Ever failed, no matter, try again, fail better.
I take that to mean to endeavor, pursuit, innovate...if it all falls apart, get up, try again etc...

In the 2000's after 9/11, there was so much money pumped into the financial system that Becketts phrase could have been altered to...Ever Tried, Cant fail, If you do, Try again....See! Gravy Train!...Its a New Paradigm!!

Focusing on individual opportunism and being critical of the outcome is futile, probably to the same extent that buying a Lotto ticket is considered just a bit of 'fun'.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> I will use the analogy of Jack Kennedy in the USA. A shoeshine boy told Mr Kennedy which stocks to invest in. Within a week of this, he had liquidated his entire holdings. A week later, the Great Depression came and Jack Kennedy rebought stock at rock bottom prices and became one of the richest and most powerful men in America at the time. He got his son elected as President of America.


 Yea, that sounds very like Jack Kennedy's version of what happened. I think most people know it's BS.



IdesofMarch said:


> I reiterate, no one should blame people like Ivan Yates for attempting to improve their lot by borrowing monies to expand their business, the banks had risk weight analysis departments, credit risk departments, forecasting economists etc. (all of whom were on large salaries). They should have known better!


 Nobody should be criticised for taking decisions based on a sound and well researched reasoning which contain an element of risk. People taking massive risks, literally betting the Farm, when there's no need to should be criticised. I see no difference between what he did and the people who kept borrowing to buy property against the capital in the last property they borrowed. I know a Tiler who, during the boom, had 6 rental properties and borrowings of over €2 million. Should he not be blamed for attempting to improve his lot? 

(Please remember to keep your answer simple for me as it seems you know much more about this than the rest of us and I was too stupid to see that by reading your previous posts. In fact I thought the opposite; silly me!)




IdesofMarch said:


> The Government of the time, who gave them the comfort of the State Guarantee should have known better. Your kids, kids and in turn their kids, will be paying for this comfort blanket.


 Absolutely; what we did and are still doing is forcing our children to pay for our mistakes. It's disgraceful.


----------



## Leo (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> A Mostly other Financial Institutions.



Like pension funds...


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> I will use the analogy of Jack Kennedy in the USA. A shoeshine boy told Mr Kennedy which stocks to invest in. Within a week of this, he had liquidated his entire holdings. A week later, the Great Depression came and Jack Kennedy rebought stock at rock bottom prices and became one of the richest and most powerful men in America at the time. He got his son elected as President of America.



I've heard similar story about buying stocks of whisk(e)y before Prohibition.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I've heard similar story about buying stocks of whisk(e)y before Prohibition.


I don't think he ever brought up the bootlegging and the porno movies either. Strange that.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

Leo said:


> Like pension funds...


Shush! We bailed out the banks, just the banks, do you hear! La la la la la, can't hear you!!!!


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

noproblem said:


> Going bankrupt is ok then? We all know the law allows it but it's morally wrong and leaves an awful lot of good people up the swanny and their families too. Yates owed people money and if it was owed some of the people that think bankruptcy's ok, they might have a different view of things.



The banks went tits up also but where bailed out by you and me care of the State Guarantee. (Oh sorry, the depositors and bondholders only). The result of which, an awful lot of good people are paying extortionate variable mortgage rates and getting no interest on their deposits.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Yea, that sounds very like Jack Kennedy's version of what happened. I think most people know it's BS.
> 
> Nobody should be criticised for taking decisions based on a sound and well researched reasoning which contain an element of risk. People taking massive risks, literally betting the Farm, when there's no need to should be criticised. I see no difference between what he did and the people who kept borrowing to buy property against the capital in the last property they borrowed. I know a Tiler who, during the boom, had 6 rental properties and borrowings of over €2 million. Should he not be blamed for attempting to improve his lot?
> 
> ...



Purple,

Jack Kennedy story is a story and it basically tells that credit risk is all about timing. Most fools know this, even you.

All entrepreneurs take massive risks, that is how they make it. You probably sit in an office, 9 to 5, never employed anyone in your life and never had to take real risks. The people who employ you take the risk and a pretty big risk at that. Is that plain and simple enough for you.

Regarding your tiler story, the banks lent him the money, they have probably received his properties and have a judgment mortgage on his house. However, you (through the State Guarantee) assured the bank's survival for this reckless lending. I am sure the CEO's of each respective bank are sitting on their comfortable chairs thanking You and the great unwashed for their extra weekly contribution in taxes to pay their wages. (Trying to keep it simple for you)


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Jack Kennedy story is a story and it basically tells that credit risk is all about timing. Most fools know this, even you.


 Most fools know that the Jack Kennedy story is BS, maybe even you too now.



IdesofMarch said:


> All entrepreneurs take massive risks, that is how they make it. You probably sit in an office, 9 to 5, never employed anyone in your life and never had to take real risks. The people who employ you take the risk and a pretty big risk at that. Is that plain and simple enough for you.


 I employ me. I'm a shareholder in my business. We take risks all the time but we measure the risk first and make sure it's worth taking. We also don't take risks which are big enough to wipe us out and we consider that there are about a hundred people here who rely on this business to pay their mortgages and rent and feed themselves and their families. We remember that as an employer you derive your income from the work your employees do as well as the work you do so you owe them a little bit every week or month and you certainly owe them as much job security as you can give them. I have nothing but contempt for business owners who recklessly risk the job security of their employees based on greed and ego. 



IdesofMarch said:


> However, you (through the State Guarantee) assured the bank's survival for this reckless lending.


 A Bank is a vessel through which money flows. They are buildings and structures, not private businesses owned by single people. The owners of the banks are the Shareholders and the people with skin in the game are the bondholders, depositors and shareholders. It was the depositors and the bondholders who were bailed out. If you can't understand that then you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid. 



IdesofMarch said:


> I am sure the CEO's of each respective bank are sitting on their comfortable chairs thanking You and the great unwashed for their extra weekly contribution in taxes to pay their wages. (Trying to keep it simple for you)


 The CEO's of all the Irish banks have changes since the Crash, as have the Boards. What point are you trying to make here?


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> The banks went tits up also but where bailed out by you and me care of the State Guarantee. (Oh sorry, the depositors and bondholders only). The result of which, an awful lot of good people are paying extortionate variable mortgage rates and getting no interest on their deposits.



So you think the massive amount of credit pumped into the banks internationally through quantitative easing has nothing to do with low interest rates? You do know that we are in the Euro and the ECB sets the interest rates don't you?  

You see no link between the high rates on mortgage default, coupled with the very low rates of repossession and the high SVR's that people are paying on their mortgages?


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Most fools know that the Jack Kennedy story is BS, maybe even you too now.
> 
> I employ me. I'm a shareholder in my business. We take risks all the time but we measure the risk first and make sure it's worth taking. We also don't take risks which are big enough to wipe us out and we consider that there are about a hundred people here who rely on this business to pay their mortgages and rent and feed themselves and their families. We remember that as an employer you derive your income from the work your employees do as well as the work you do so you owe them a little bit every week or month and you certainly owe them as much job security as you can give them. I have nothing but contempt for business owners who recklessly risk the job security of their employees based on greed and ego.
> 
> ...



Purple,

I don't believe you for a minute, a business man who employs 100 people would not be taking time out to comment on this open forum in the speed, frequency and manner that you do. such a man would be too busy to post a single comment never mind over 8,000 of them. Purple the businessman la la la la can't hear you!


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> So you think the massive amount of credit pumped into the banks internationally through quantitative easing has nothing to do with low interest rates? You do know that we are in the Euro and the ECB sets the interest rates don't you?
> 
> You see no link between the high rates on mortgage default, coupled with the very low rates of repossession and the high SVR's that people are paying on their mortgages?



This argument has been trundled out many times by people who have not go a clue what they are talking about (usually bankers). The difference between the variable rate mortgages in this Country and those of our European compatriots far exceeds the costs associated with the low repossession rate in this country. It is simple math.


----------



## LDFerguson (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Purple,
> 
> I don't believe you for a minute, a business man who employs 100 people would not be taking time out to comment on this open forum in the speed, frequency and manner that you do. such a man would be to busy to post a single comment never mind over 8,000 of them. Purple the businessman la la la la can't hear you!



This sounds like childish jealousy to me.  I know nothing of Purple's business matters, nor do I want to.  But I do know that there are two types of people in business.  (1) You build a business and as it grows it demands more and more of your time and you give in to those demands until eventually you have little or no free time for yourself or for anything outside of the business.  I'm reading Matt Cooper's book on Tony O'Reilly at the moment and in it, during the height of his success Tony said in an interview about his young children "the children are almost a memory for me", due to his simultaneously running businesses in both the US and Ireland.  Despite the billions, I found this an incredibly sad statement and I would believe that the man is to be pitied rather than envied for the level to which he allowed his addictions (workaholism / not knowing when to say "enough" etc.) to consume his life.  The other type of person in business (2) is smarter than that and employs people as the business expands, to cope with the expansion.  A very good businessperson can eventually make themselves redundant (but well-paid) if the team they build are able to run the business.  Perhaps Purple has enough time to contibute to Askaboutmoney because the 100 employees are doing their jobs well.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> This argument has been trundled out many times by people who have not go a clue what they are talking about (usually bankers). The difference between the variable rate mortgages in this Country and those of our European compatriots far exceeds the costs associated with the low repossession rate in this country. It is simple math.



Simple maths? Give it to me then. Whats the probability of default of an Irish mortgage compared to a German mortgage. What is the loss given default of the same mortgage? Whats the cost of AIB's non-performing loan book compared to the leading French banks?


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

LDFerguson said:


> This sounds like childish jealousy to me.  I know nothing of Purple's business matters, nor do I want to.  But I do know that there are two types of people in business.  (1) You build a business and as it grows it demands more and more of your time and you give in to those demands until eventually you have little or no free time for yourself or for anything outside of the business.  I'm reading Matt Cooper's book on Tony O'Reilly at the moment and in it, during the height of his success Tony said in an interview about his young children "the children are almost a memory for me", due to his simultaneously running businesses in both the US and Ireland.  Despite the billions, I found this an incredibly sad statement and I would believe that the man is to be pitied rather than envied for the level to which he allowed his addictions (workaholism / not knowing when to say "enough" etc.) to consume his life.  The other type of person in business (2) is smarter than that and employs people as the business expands, to cope with the expansion.  A very good businessperson can eventually make themselves redundant (but well-paid) if the team they build are able to run the business.  Perhaps Purple has enough time to contibute to Askaboutmoney because the 100 employees are doing their jobs well.



LDFerguson,

Maybe so, maybe not, who is to know, but any businessman (maybe Purple) who says that the extortionate variable mortgage rate charged by banks in this Country is down to the low repossession rate has not got a clue what they are talking about. Do the math!


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Sunny said:


> Simple maths? Give it to me then. Whats the probability of default of an Irish mortgage compared to a German mortgage. What is the loss given default of the same mortgage? Whats the cost of AIB's non-performing loan book compared to the leading French banks?



Probablity of default would be costed now, but it was not costed for prior to the financial crisis as mortgages that were taken out at that time had no real history of default, so that angle is a red herring.


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Jun 2018)

Leo said:


> Like pension funds...


Didn’t AIB double down on this to divert 2 billion in State funds to finance mass redundancies & pensions from their Pension scheme.
You couldn’t be up to them


----------



## Leo (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Purple,
> 
> I don't believe you for a minute, a business man who employs 100 people would not be taking time out to comment on this open forum in the speed, frequency and manner that you do. such a man would be too busy to post a single comment never mind over 8,000 of them. Purple the businessman la la la la can't hear you!



A number of people on this forum who have met Purple over the years can attest to his claims being true.


----------



## RedOnion (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Probablity of default would be costed now, but it was not costed for prior to the financial crisis as mortgages that were taken out at that time had no real history of default, so that angle is a red herring.


Sorry, are you trying to say that because there was no history of default at the time the mortgage was issued,  that there's no cost to the bank?


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Probablity of default would be costed now, but it was not costed for prior to the financial crisis as mortgage that were taken out at that time had no real history of default, so that angle is a red herring.



Eh???? Probability of default and loss given defaults were always part of any banks risk and pricing models. Before the crisis, during the crisis and after the crisis. Maybe now, they are just more realistic. So again, show me the maths that you claim is so easy to prove your point. Show me where you calculated what the correct mortgage rate should be in your eyes considering Irish banks cost of funds including cost of capital, impact of Non performing loan book, impact of tracker mortgages, high operating costs etc etc....


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

RedOnion said:


> Sorry, are you trying to say that because there was no history of default at the time the mortgage was issued,  that there's no cost to the bank?


No, I am saying that such a costing for the setting of the variable rate at the time the mortgage was underwritten and granted by the originator (prior to financial crash) would have been relatively insignificant. Now such costing would obviously put upwards pressure on variable rates, but  variable rates are falling due to Government realising that there was price gouging going on at a systemic level in Irish mortgage lending. I don't understand why Irish bank don't follow their European neighbours and have fixed rate mortgages for the lifetime of the mortgage. The risk to the bank is greatly reduced.


----------



## Leo (29 Jun 2018)

Deiseblue said:


> Didn’t AIB double down on this to divert 2 billion in State funds to finance mass redundancies & pensions from their Pension scheme.



Not aware of this one, were they state funds or funds from the pension scheme?


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> who says that the extortionate variable mortgage rate charged by banks in this Country is down to the low repossession rate has not got a clue what they are talking about.


Where did I say it was down to that? I asked you if that was a factor. The world isn't black and white and more than one factor can influence things. I'm sure a member if the elite intelligencia such as yourself would know such things.


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Jun 2018)

1.1 billion of State funds to recapitalize the Bank diverted to the pension scheme - the temptation to round the figure to 2 billion was too much for me !


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

Deiseblue said:


> 1.1 billion of State funds to recapitalize the Bank diverted to the pension scheme - the temptation to round the figure to 2 billion was too much for me !


----------



## RedOnion (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> I don't understand why Irish bank don't follow their European neighbours and have fixed rate mortgages for the lifetime of the mortgage. The risk to the bank is greatly reduced.


Sorry, my head is caught up with something else, and I seem to have misunderstood the point you were trying to make with your earlier post, but I completely agree re lifetime fixed mortgages. They're much easier to fund on top of reduced credit risk. 
The problem is there's a limited to zero appetite from borrowers in Ireland for such a product. Just look at the posts on AAM from people uncertain about fixing even for 5 years. 
I spoke with a friend recently who said they'd never fix again as they were stuck on a 12% rate back in the 90's! They couldn't see this wasn't going to be a problem when they could fix at 3% (unless they're expecting negative borrowing rates being available). There's a perception that if the bank is offering a low fixed rate, they must know something the customer doesn't. You'd think at this stage customers would realise the banks know sweet F all about what's going to happen!


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Now such costing would obviously put upwards pressure on variable rates, but variable rates are falling due to Government realising that there was price gouging going on at a systemic level in Irish mortgage lending


No, the primary reason that mortgage rates are falling is due to competition for market share between lenders.

The Government, thankfully, resisted calls from some quarters to introduce price-fixing into our mortgage market.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Sarenco arrives, I was wondering when. The competition was sparked by a primarily state owned bank (AIB) been forced to reduce variable rates by Government . There is no real competition in Irish banking even Tesco bank is getting out.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> The competition was sparked by a primarily state owned bank (AIB) been forced to reduce variable rates by Government .


How did they force them to do that?
My recollection is that AIB more or less told the Government and the Finance Committee to F-Off when they were taken to task about interest rates.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> The competition was sparked by a primarily state owned bank (AIB) been forced to reduce variable rates by Government


Nope.

The pricing of any product or service is primarily driven by input costs and market participants trying to gain or retain market share.  Politicians and pressure groups may wish to take credit for the recent falls in mortgage rates but fundamentally this is the result of market forces at play.

Which is exactly as it should be.

The idea that there is no competition in the Irish mortgage market is not supported by the facts.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> How did they force them to do that?
> My recollection is that AIB more or less told the Government and the Finance Committee to F-Off when they were taken to task about interest rates.


Optics, they did exactly what their single shareholder at the time told them to do.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Sarenco said:


> Nope.
> 
> The pricing of any product or service is primarily driven by input costs and market participants trying to gain or retain market share.  Politicians and pressure groups may wish to take credit for the recent falls in mortgage rates but fundamentally this is the result of market forces at play.
> 
> ...



Sorry, Sarenco not in this case, maybe BB will enlighten you to how politics works in the Country. With regards to competition currently there are state owned banks currently competing with other state owned banks, some competition.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Optics, they did exactly what their single shareholder at the time told them to do.


You can believe that if you want.  I don't.

The fact remains that new mortgage rates have consistently fallen over the past 12 months in the absence of any of the direct intervention in the mortgage market that many commentators and politicians were promoting.

Why?

Competition.  Plain and simple.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Was there not competition in the market place 5 years ago or did it only start in the past 12 months?


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Was there not competition in the market place 5 years ago or did it only start in the past 12 months?


There is always competition in the market place.  What a bizarre comment.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

From late 2015


As the banking sector has contracted, the dominance of the two pillar banks, Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks, is again apparent. This lack of competition is leading to high costs for customers in terms of interest rates and fees and charges. It is also inhibiting product innovation.

According to the most recent report ‘_Costs of Doing Business in Ireland’ _from the National *Competitiveness * Council, compared to the European average, “New business interest rates are 60% higher for loans up to €1 million and are 81% higher for loans above €1 million. In 2014, loans of over €1 million are 81% more expensive in Ireland.” There is also clear evidence that this is replicated in the personal finance market with high standard variable mortgage rates and excessive fees and charges.


The case rests mlord


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Jun 2018)

Sarenco said:


> You can believe that if you want.  I don't.
> The fact remains that new mortgage rates have consistently fallen over the past 12 months in the absence of any of the direct intervention in the mortgage market that many commentators and politicians were promoting.
> Why?
> Competition.  Plain and simple.



Direct intervention maybe but it wouldn't be the first thing something was done indirectly with the banks a chat over a round of golf, a meeting with no minutes...


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

Thank God I am not alone, someone else who understands just how things really happen in the Emerald Isle.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> The case rests mlord


What case?  That there were less participants in the mortgage market in 2015 than was the case in 2005?  Nobody is disputing that.

I think it is quite extraordinary that effective new business mortgage rates are now very close to average Eurozone rates when you consider our extraordinarily high level of non-performing loans.

Banks aren't charities - they are quite obviously competing for market share with a profit motive and that's what is driving down mortgage rates.  As consumers we should be delighted that the price-fixers lost the argument.

Nothing to do what with chats on the golf course.  It's simply market forces at work.


----------



## IdesofMarch (29 Jun 2018)

I say there was plenty of chats around the golf course in the good auld days relating to the setting of variable mortgage rates and just how much the banks could gouge out of the unfortunate borrower. If all the variable mortgage rates set by the various banks were effectively the same; there is no competition.

Do you not remember the queues to have a round with Seany, come on.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2018)

Do I have sunstroke or is it starting to feel like 2008 again.........

Off topic but does anyone know what a 100% mortgage is???


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jun 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Do you not remember the queues to have a round with Seany, come on.


Eh, Anglo never offered residential mortgages so I don't know why Seanie would have been colluding in the fixing of mortgage rates as per your fantasy.

In any event, lenders' variable rates varied quite significantly - both before and after the crash.


----------



## IdesofMarch (30 Jun 2018)

Ehhh, wrong again Sarenco. Here is a headline that refutes your false news.


*Anglo Irish now doing residential mortgages to get value*


Before 2011 they packaged residential mortgages as term loans as we all know.


----------



## fistophobia (30 Jun 2018)

Does this guy still have substantial assets? House and farm in Wexford.


----------



## RedOnion (30 Jun 2018)

fistophobia said:


> Does this guy still have substantial assets? House and farm in Wexford.


And a state pension.
Relatively well heeled for someone who's been bankrupt.


----------



## fistophobia (30 Jun 2018)

He walked past me yday in GCD, said hello to me. I blanked him.


----------



## dub_nerd (30 Jun 2018)

We don't put bankrupts in the pillory or the poorhouse these days. It's called civilisation.


----------



## RedOnion (30 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> We don't put bankrupts in the pillory or the poorhouse these days. It's called civilisation.


I completely agree, we shouldn't. And I'm delighted the bankruptcy laws changed here.

However, my view of bankruptcy is that it should be like wiping the slate clean and starting over. No debts, and no material assets (other than a modest family home).

I'd take a lot more risks financially if I knew I'd get all the upside to myself, but if it failed I could walk away from my debts and keep a substantial country mansion, and a guaranteed pension if things went south.

And I'd write personal guarantees every day of the week if I knew they couldn't be fully enforced because my wife didn't get legal advice before signing.

I've oversimplified this, but I find it interesting the number of cases where spouses, who were involved in the running of multi million euro businesses for years, suddenly claim they didn't know what they were doing when they signed personal guarantees. Or people with large ancestral homes and lands that can't be touched where their spouse has an interest because they spent a few quid of their own on its upkeep.


----------



## IdesofMarch (30 Jun 2018)

RedOnion said:


> I completely agree, we shouldn't. And I'm delighted the bankruptcy laws changed here.
> 
> However, my view of bankruptcy is that it should be like wiping the slate clean and starting over. No debts, and no material assets (other than a modest family home).
> 
> ...



Red Onion,

Its terrible that old law stuff, if only it wasn't there!


----------



## Sarenco (1 Jul 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Ehhh, wrong again Sarenco. Here is a headline that refutes your false news.


The body of the article to which that headline relates makes it absolutely clear that Anglo never in fact wrote residential mortgages.

They may well have considered offering stapled finance when trying to offload repo’d properties on their books but it never actually happened.

Anglo never issued any RMBS securities, as suggested, for the simple reason that they never originated any resi mortgages.

I know you’re not particularly interested in getting your facts straight but your obvious lies really do look foolish at this stage.


----------



## IdesofMarch (1 Jul 2018)

Ehh wrong again Sarenco, the hint is in the title "*Anglo Irish now doing residential mortgages to get value"*

The body of the article states that from 2011 Anglo did write residential loans, prior to this, they provided residential mortgages in the guise of term loans. These were grant to most staff members and friends, cousin, sons and daughters etc of important customers. RMBS has nothing to do with it. A bank can issue residential mortgages without issuing residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS).

Here is the opening para of the article in question:

*"Anglo Irish Bank, which is gradually winding down its loan book, is now providing residential mortgages to help encourage buyers to purchase apartments and houses at some of the projects it funded in the boom".


*


----------



## joe sod (1 Jul 2018)

fistophobia said:


> He walked past me yday in GCD, said hello to me. I blanked him.



Why, what an ignorant thing to do, he said hello, why be such a fool. Maybe it's the typical Irish begrudgery or "reverse snobbery" which is so common in Ireland.


----------



## Sarenco (1 Jul 2018)

@IdesofMarch

Here’s a link to the article, which states quite explicitly that Anglo was never in the mortgage market.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.ind...idential-mortgages-to-get-value-26617296.html

By 2011, when the article was written, Anglo was being wound down.  I’m sure it was trying to offload properties by offering stapled finance (as I’ve already stated).  But Anglo never originating any resi mortgages.

In any event, Seanie Fitz was obviously well gone by 2011 so your original suggestion  that he colluded with anybody on the golf course to fix mortgage rates makes zero sense.

We already know you struggle to understand law and economics.  Apparently, we can also add history to the list of topics that you cannot grasp.


----------



## fistophobia (1 Jul 2018)

Joe Sod,

I dont have time for people of low moral character.


----------



## IdesofMarch (1 Jul 2018)

Sarenco,

if you bothered to do any in depth analysis of Anglo Irish Bank and look through the list of Anglo Irish Bank's subsidiaries you will find several that offered residential loans. Sure Allied Dunbar alone specialised in endowment mortgages. Your personal attack on me shows a level of pomposity that beggars belief. Please grow up or crawl back under a stone.




AALP England Limited
AALP Galashiels Limited
AALP Guernsey Limited
AALP Sunbury Limited
AIT (Nominees) Limited
Alexan Limited
Alpha Ceres GP LLC
Alpha Ceres REIT, Inc.
Beta Ceres GP, Inc.
Delta Ceres (STAP), Inc.


Anglo Irish Bank Limited
Anglo Irish Assurance Company Limited
Anglo Irish Corporate Bank Limited
Anglo Irish International Finance
Anglo Irish Asset Management Limited
Buyway Group Limited
Pagnol Limited Anglo Irish Nominees Limited
Anglo Irish Bank (Nominees) Limited
Geranth Limited Pegasus Nominees Limited
Anglo Irish Bank ESOP Limited
Anglo Irish Capital Partners Limited
Anglo Irish Administration Limited
Anglo Irish Financial Services Limited
CF Limited
Modify 5 Limited
Anglo Irish International Financial Services Limited
Ansbacher Bankers Limited
IBOC Limited
Irish Buyway Limited
Knightsdale Limited
Sparta Financial Services
Fitzwilliam Leasing Limited
Anglo Irish Mortgage Bank
Anglo Irish Funding 1 Limited
Anglo Irish Funding 2 Limited
Anglo Irish Funding 3 Limited
Anglo Irish Funding 4 Limited
Anglo Irish Funding 5 Limited
Anglo Irish Funding 6 Limited
Gertonabbey Limited
Aragone Limited
Tincorra Investments Limited
Filipa Limited
Castle Farm Telford Nominees Limited
Colmore Square No. 1 Limited
Colmore Square No. 2 Limited
D MacDonald Estates (Limerick) Limited
Georges Square Property No. 1 Limited
Georges Square Property No. 2 Limited
Manchan Limited
Tuscanan Limited
Wentbridge Properties Limited
Exhort Limited
Moschus Limited
Phaenom Limited
Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited
Anglo Irish Capital Funding Limited
AIT (Nominees) Limited
Anglo Irish Holdings IOM Limited
Steenwal B.V.
Anglo Irish Bank Corporation (International) PLC
Anglo Irish Nominees (IOM) Limited
Anglo Irish Trust (IOM) Limited
Alexan Limited
Beaugrand Sarl
Belalan Bischoffshein Freehold SPRL
Belalan Bischoffshein Leashold SPRL
Belalan Holdings SPRL
Belalan Louise Freehold SPRL
Belalan Louise Leashold SPRL
Belalan Meir Freehold SPRL
Belalan Meir Leashold SPRL
Berala Sarl
Castle Farm Campus (Telford) Limited
Erste DIG Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH
Chancery Place Limited Sarl
Fellstar Limited
Fenlay Limited
Finsbury Dials Sarl
Harpen Ostenhellweg GmbH
Heywood Park Limited
Kernesk Limited
Ladyland Limited
Moreton Limited
Newbury (GP) Limited
Petersen Limited
Portwall One Limited
QBC Czech SRO
QDH Czech SRO
Racol Sarl
Sajola Sarl
Salado Enterprises Limited
Sheps (PHFL) Limited
Starcrest Limited
Talca Enterprises Limited
Tarnold Holdings Sarl
West Port Sarl
Westow Limited
Woolgate SA
Zeus Investments 1 SPRL
Zeus Investments 2 SPRL
555 NMA Investors LLC
Alpha Ceres GP LLC
Alpha Ceres REIT, Inc.
Beta Ceres GP, Inc.
Delta Ceres (STAP), Inc.
Gamma Ceres GP, Inc.
Zeta Ceres Capital, Inc.
Zeta Ceres GP, Inc.
Zeta Ceres New York LLC
Zeta Ceres REIT, Inc.
Zeta Ceres, Inc.
Anglo Irish Boston Corporation
Anglo Irish New York Corporation
Anglo Irish Chicago Corporation
10 South State Street Holdings LLC
10 South State Street Property LLC
Mainland Investments GP Inc
Mainland Ventures Corp
Project B Investor Limited Partnership
Project B Investor II Limited Partnership
MBB Investment Partners Limited Partnership
CWB Holdings Limited Partnership
CWB Hotel Limited Partnership
CWB Retail Limited Partnership
CWB Apartments Limited Partnership
Beta Ceres Limited Partnership
Gamma Ceres Limited Partnership
Zeta Ceres Limited Partnership
SEAPORT CPA Limited Partnership
10 South State Street Property Investor, Limited Partnership
Mainland Investments 625 NMA, Limited Partnership
TA Newbury Street Fund Investor, Limited Partnership
10 South State Street Property GP, LLC
Anglo Irish Equity Limited
Anglo Irish Private Capital Limited
Anglo Irish Leasing Limited
Berfors Nominees Limited
Finance 2000 plc
Clickinput Limited
CDB (UK) Limited
Anglo Irish Property Lending Limited
Anglo Irish Property Investors Limited
Anglo Irish Finance Limited
Anglo Irish Credit plc
Anglo Irish Commercial Properties (No.1) Limited
Anglo Irish Commercial Properties Limited
Anglo Irish Carry Partner Limited
Anglo Irish Capital GP Limited
Anglo Irish Asset Limited
Anglo Irish Asset Finance plc
Amblepath Properties Limited
Argyle Investment Finance Limited
Anglo Irish Treasury Financing Limited
Anglo Irish GP Holdings Limited
Anglo Irish Property Investors GP Limited
Sutherland Finance And Leasing
Anglo Irish Covered Bonds Limited Liability Partnership
AALP Guernsey Limited
AALP Galashiels Limited
AALP England Limited
AALP Sunbury Limited
IFT Nominees Limited
CDB Investments Limited
Industrial Funding Trust Limited
Anglo Irish German Retail Limited
Soundbow Limited Liability Partnership
Anglo Irish Covered Bonds Finance Limited
Moorevale Investments Limited
Moorevale Investments (Brigade House) Limited
Carisbrooke Anglo Ventures Limited
Carisbrooke Property Investments Limited
Carisbrooke Properties Limited
Carisbrooke Properties (Barry) Limited
Carisbrooke Central Investments Limited
Carisbrooke Properties (Basingstoke) Limited
Carisbrooke Central Limited
GPF Investments Limited
Carisbrooke Lime Street Limited
Countryroad Investments Limited
Taurus Euro Retail Holding Sarl
Taurus Euro Retail Finance Sarl
Taurus Euro Retail Investment Sarl
etc,
etc,

By the way Sarenco, can you tell me what a tracker mortgage is?


----------



## Sarenco (2 Jul 2018)

@IdesofMarch

When you’re in a hole, you should really stop digging.

No subsidiary of Anglo was ever in the mortgage business.

Anglo did acquire a sterling loan book from Allied Dunbar at one stage but no Anglo group company ever originated any meaningful home loan book.  They may have advanced a very occasional loan to a commercial client that was secured on a residential property but they were never in the residential mortgage business.

Acoordingly, the idea that Seanie Fitz colluded with anybody regarding variable mortgage rates is delusional.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2018)

Sarenco said:


> @IdesofMarch
> 
> When you’re in a hole, you should really stop digging.
> 
> ...


IofM is much smarter than the rest of us, I know because he keeps telling me, so maybe that's why he doesn't understand the point that you are making. I'm thick so I understand... understand?

It must be a burden to be so much smarter than everyone else but we all have out crosses to bear.


----------



## Sunny (2 Jul 2018)

IdesofMarch said:


> Sarenco,
> 
> if you bothered to do any in depth analysis of Anglo Irish Bank and look through the list of Anglo Irish Bank's subsidiaries you will find several that offered residential loans. Sure Allied Dunbar alone specialised in endowment mortgages. Your personal attack on me shows a level of pomposity that beggars belief. Please grow up or crawl back under a stone..




Anglo Irish Bank never operated in the residential mortgage market. Can you show me one advert where Anglo offered a residential mortgage or published their mortgage rates?? Anglo offered very specific large mortgages and buy to let mortgages to their commercial clients but no-one was ever able to rock up to Anglo Irish Bank and ask for a home loan.

Which ones of those subsidiaries provided Irish Residential mortgages that Sean Fitzpatrick decided that residential variable rate home loan rates were really a big ticket item for the bank. Anglo did many things but collusion on rates was not one of them. It was the opposite in fact. Anglo undercut the other Irish banks on the vast majority of deals to the extent that the other banks couldn't work out how Anglo was doing it. It was a pure volume game with Anglo. They took losses on certain deals to win profitable repeat business. It was all about the 'relationship' with the developer with them. They had no interest in colluding with Irish banks when it came to lending. The culture in Anglo was to crush the other banks, not work with them. Of course that led to other banks chasing and chasing deals and in the end it became a race to the bottom.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Webster (2 Jul 2018)

My friend worked for IBRC and he showed me an Anglo Irish Bank mortgage that he has on his house when he worked for Anglo. I will ask him will he let me post it to the forum.


----------



## LDFerguson (2 Jul 2018)

Webster said:


> My friend worked for IBRC and he showed me an Anglo Irish Bank mortgage that he has on his house when he worked for Anglo. I will ask him will he let me post it to the forum.



I don't think this really changes any of the arguments.  Anglo Irish Bank did not sell residential mortgages to the general public and so they were not influential in the pricing of residential mortgages as a competitor bank.  They may well have lent money to their own staff.


----------



## Webster (2 Jul 2018)

LDFerguson said:


> I don't think this really changes any of the arguments.  Anglo Irish Bank did not sell residential mortgages to the general public and so they were not influential in the pricing of residential mortgages as a competitor bank.  They may well have lent money to their own staff.



Ok, sorry about that. I think Ansbacher Bankers Ltd had a residential loan portfolio also, if that makes a difference.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Jul 2018)

I think the point the _Boss_ is making is that it is populist to talk about bailing out the banks but Ivan would soon be dropped from his show if he complained about bailing out old ladies who sought a wee bit extra by depositing with Anglo.

But I want to consider the macro picture.  The boom and bust led to a massive transfer of wealth within Irish society.  The 60bn bail out ensured that the Irish taxpayer was on the debit side of this transfer.  But it wasn’t the depositors who were on the credit side.  They simply got their money back or maybe a trickle of extra interest.  Likewise the bond holders.  The credit side were those lucky people who got ludicrous prices for their land and property and to a lesser extent the taxpayer who benefitted from unsustainable property taxes.


----------



## mtp (20 Jan 2019)

And who were the big loan defaulters?

The developers who were simply unable to manage their own financial affairs

Developer who were paid in full for uncompleted contract and letter of undertaking to furnish folio showing man co as owner of land agreed to be sold To man co in compliance with a condition of the pp that will never be furnished AND left works outstanding costs of which being bourne by Joe Soap as owner and member of man co payings charge for works responsibility of a developer who will never do them.

One cost of that bailout CONTINUING is the rubber stamping of national budget by the EU COMMISSION. e..g. If it does not approve say restoration of teacher pay; extension of pyrite scheme, tenancy legislation then may not happen One thing for sure spends out of public funds require discussion between govt and commission. 

Another is banks as a charge on public funds and the role of ECB on the bank side.  

That was deal between M Noonan an EU but NO DAIL APPROVAL.    

M Martin is now calling on Taoiseach to lay before the dail the deal between govt and commission on the manning of the border in the wake of a no deal Brexit as 'the dail is entitled to know'

If the Taoiseach share the opinion of Kenny and Noonan that the govt has authority to make such a deal without dail approval he may have his work cut out for him. The deal in the opinion of ex-director of world trade organization will require Ireland to obtain 'emergency AID '. ?   


The Credit Institutions Financial Support Act 08 passed by FF give the min fr finance power to pledge public fund for banks WITHOUT DAIL APPROVAL but is silent on power to share control of public fund with eu commission for the money to pay for bank and public bills without laying deal before dail under art 29 5 2 of constitution. But that is what M Noonan did when he signed Memo of Understanding with IMF and EU. No TD objected .

Ms May has put the deal her govt made with eu before parliament who has spoken. Lest see if our govt put the deal it make with commission on cost of brexit to dail.


----------



## Leper (20 Jan 2019)

Back reading a post or two on this thread you could be led to believe that the banks were heroes and were victims. Make no mistake about it, they were more than greedy, were the custodians of "Money Ireland" and screwed up. None of them faced prison. Their branch managers, assistant bank managers "wuz only carrying out orders from ze superiors" nearly all of which have taken lucrative early retirement deals. We rewarded them instead of putting them in jail.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jan 2019)

Leper said:


> None of them faced prison.



Hi Leper 

Why are people sent to prison?  Only for committing a criminal offence. 

Stupidity, greed and not being a very nice person are not criminal offences in Ireland - fortunately. 

Of course, if you have evidence of criminal behaviour, then just provide it to the Gardai.  There is no statute of limitations on criminal behaviour. 

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (20 Jan 2019)

Being bad at your job is not a crime.


----------



## PMU (20 Jan 2019)

mtp said:


> One cost of that bailout CONTINUING is the rubber stamping of national budget by the EU COMMISSION. e..g. If it does not approve say restoration of teacher pay; extension of pyrite scheme, tenancy legislation then may not happen One thing for sure spends out of public funds require discussion between govt and commission.


A slight misunderstanding here.  Ongoing EC supervision of national fiscal policies arises from the Stability and Growth Pact.  It's based on the EU treaty on the functioning on the European Union and has nothing to do with Ireland's bailout.


----------



## mtp (20 Jan 2019)

mtp said:


> And who were the big loan defaulters?
> 
> The developers who were simply unable to manage their own financial affairs
> 
> ...



The lesson to be learend is public funds.

The deal made was for bondholders but also shareholder of named banks.
Mrs. Merkel was not going to use German taxpayer money to help Irish taxpayer cos Irish banks went too far on the lending side.

To apply B Burgess formula the borrower pay the costs but the borrowers public rep had no say in the loan deal. She used Bundestag.

who gave T.D.s any mandate to pass legislation giving ONE PERSON power to pledge public funds for banks, or for ANY OBJECT  with NO DAIL APPROVAL and authority to extend that power every two years by ministerial orders. This can only be repealed by legislation.

 A Taoiseach can stop a private members bill from being enacted by not sending a message from taoiseachs office endorsing object of the bill . it is how Clare Days bill to extend pyrite scheme got a short shift and the bills for housing seem to be sitting around. A bill from M Martin to repeal the section of the 08 and 10 act can get same treatment if an taoiseach is of same opinion as Kenny/Noonan that the deal between govt and eu commission do not require dail approval. And have we not paid for deal IBRC liquidations ?

M Martin, indeed any TD can go to high court to inquire authority of M Noonan to invite EU Commission to rubberstamp spending from national fund for TWO CHEQUE on for bank and one for public bills without laying the deal in Memo of Understanding between Min for Finance and Commission before dail under art 29 5 2 of constitution for its approval.  In short is Ireland bound by the deal without dail approval for money is owed to EU and Irland leaving the EU not easy at all. WHO WILL GIVE MONEY FOR PUBLIC BILLS .


IRELAND BORROWED FORM THE EU AND terms of that deal banks are on public bill.








mtp said:


> And who were the big loan defaulters?
> 
> The developers who were simply unable to manage their own financial affairs
> 
> ...





PMU said:


> A slight misunderstanding here.  Ongoing EC supervision of national fiscal policies arises from the Stability and Growth Pact.  It's based on the EU treaty on the functioning on the European Union and has nothing to do with Ireland's bailout.





PMU said:


> A slight misunderstanding here.  Ongoing EC supervision of national fiscal policies arises from the Stability and Growth Pact.  It's based on the EU treaty on the functioning on the European Union and has nothing to do with Ireland's bailout.



People talk about the 'bank bailout' but remember it was IRELAND who got the two cheque one for banks and one for public bills. Bnak got no cheque from EU/IMF.

Lenihan and Cowen described it as assistance.
The big difference between role of EU in maintaining fiscal control in other eu state and Ireland is that IRELAND BORROWED.  

But Noonan did not present the memorandum of understanding to the dail for its approval under art 29 5 2 or the 08 and 10..

As far as govt is concerned what commission says about public funds is between govt and commission ONLY.   M Martin now asserting dail role in the cost of manning border. 

.  

PS if u read Memo of Understanding to see the role of commission overseeing implementation a rigourous time table of measure affecting public funds.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jan 2019)

Hi MTP

I find your posts very confusing. It would be better if you wrote them in plain English and not some sort of txt spk combined with VERY ANNOYING SHOUTING. 



mtp said:


> The deal made was for bondholders but also shareholder of named banks.



What shareholders?  I was  a shareholder in AIB and I lost most of the value of my investment. I certainly don't feel bailed out?

I would have had shares in Irish Nationwide had it floated, and that became worthless as well.

The bondholders and the depositors were bailed out.  But the depositors were by far the largest part of the bill.  These are the ordinary citizens of Ireland and the credit unions and anyone else with deposits in the banks.

Brendan


----------



## Conan (20 Jan 2019)

This is what annoys me about the likes of Ivan Yates and others. The biggest beneficiaries of the so called “bailout” were depositors, ordinary Irish citizens. Yet Yates ran off to Wales to seek bankruptcy in the UK. 
But we still have certain political types referring to banks being bailed out. I wonder would they be happier if the Banks had been let go to the wall and all deposits wiped out. The same political types were quick to take to the streets over water charges, circa €200. What street protests would we have seen if deposit accounts had been wiped out?


----------



## noproblem (20 Jan 2019)

Hmm, it would have been interesting. Did it happen to a certain extent in Cyprus?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Jan 2019)

noproblem said:


> Hmm, it would have been interesting. Did it happen to a certain extent in Cyprus?


In Cyprus they hit depositors (to a certain extent) as in many cases they were foreign residents chasing high yields and these are politically easier to burn.

The deposit base of the Irish banking sector almost entirely votes in Ireland


----------



## RedOnion (21 Jan 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The deposit base of the Irish banking sector almost entirely votes in Ireland


In 2008 the Irish Banks had considerable deposit books outside Ireland, particularly in the UK.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2019)

RedOnion said:


> In 2008 the Irish Banks had considerable deposit books outside Ireland, particularly in the UK.


What were that as a proportion of overall deposits?


----------



## RedOnion (21 Jan 2019)

Purple said:


> What were that as a proportion of overall deposits?


Since we're talking about voters; In terms of 'retail' deposits, Anglo for example probably had a bigger book in UK than Ireland.
For all the banks their commercial / money market deposits came from all over the world.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2019)

RedOnion said:


> Since we're talking about voters; In terms of 'retail' deposits, Anglo for example probably had a bigger book in UK than Ireland.
> For all the banks their commercial / money market deposits came from all over the world.


Sure, but if we had burned depositors in the same way we burned shareholders what proportion of those depositors would have been Irish and what proportion would have been from the UK?


----------



## RedOnion (21 Jan 2019)

Purple said:


> Sure, but if we had burned depositors in the same way we burned shareholders what proportion of those depositors would have been Irish and what proportion would have been from the UK?


If we talk about Anglo, which would have been first, just over 50% would have been UK.

It's completely different with the others as every current account would have been caught up if there was no threshold.

If a rule had been run over the books, and anything over say 50k per person burned, then the impact would have been moved more to UK.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Jan 2019)

RedOnion said:


> If we talk about Anglo, which would have been first, just over 50% would have been UK.
> 
> It's completely different with the others as every current account would have been caught up if there was no threshold.
> 
> If a rule had been run over the books, and anything over say 50k per person burned, then the impact would have been moved more to UK.



It's a fair point about the UK exposure.

However burning UK depositors could also have prompted tit-for-tat behaviour by the UK government. Ulster Bank (Ireland) was bailed out by RBS which was bailed out by the UK taxpayer.

The UK and Netherlands had a long stand-off with Iceland over the IceSave liquidation which saw about €4bn of UK and Dutch taxpayers' funds being used to rescue depositors.

That kind beggar-my-neighbour policy was avoided in Ireland.


----------



## Jimmy Dee (21 Jan 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> However burning UK depositors could also have prompted tit-for-tat behaviour by the UK government. Ulster Bank (Ireland) was bailed out by RBS which was bailed out by the UK taxpayer.


Don't forget Bank of Scotland Ireland where the Scottish bankers lent vast sums of money to a lot of Irish people. This was an UK government problem too.


----------



## PMU (21 Jan 2019)

RedOnion said:


> If we talk about Anglo, which would have been first, just over 50% would have been UK.  If a rule had been run over the books, and anything over say 50k per person burned, then the impact would have been moved more to UK.


The same UK that gave us a 3.2 billion GBP bilateral loan at the same time as the EU bail-out package?


----------



## RedOnion (21 Jan 2019)

PMU said:


> The same UK that gave us a 3.2 billion GBP bilateral loan at the same time as the EU bail-out package?


Yes, the same one.
I'm not saying it should have been done. I was answering a question that originated from a suggestion that almost all deposits in Irish Banks were from Irish customers.

If we extend your point though, was the loan more than the amount of UK deposits that were bailed out?

By the way, I don't believe it would have been possible to do. How could Anglo have burned their UK deposit holders, but expect their UK borrowers to continue to repay loans? And the political / EU stuff.


----------



## PMU (21 Jan 2019)

RedOnion said:


> If we extend your point though, was the loan more than the amount of UK deposits that were bailed out.


No idea.  It's my understanding that the main interest here was in providing support to Irish banks to ensure they did not default on debts owed to Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group.  On deposits, we must not forget that the UK guaranteed 100% of all deposits including Irish deposits with the Northern Rock in 2007.


----------

