# Another motor insurance company goes bust - 14,000 Irish policyholders



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2016)

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...es-affecting-14-000-irish-motorists-1.2731470

Motor insurer Enterprise Insurance Company has closed, affecting 14,000 Irish motorists.

...

Most of its Irish business was done through the Wrightway Underwriting Ltd, a chain of insurance brokers.

The future cover for the 14,000 Irish motorists and the company’s ability to meet any outstanding claims are now uncertain.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2016)

But sure isn't that what the taxpayer is for? 

To pay the claims of people whose cheap insurance policies have become worthless.


----------



## Jon Stark (22 Jul 2016)

How many policyholders did Setanta have? 

14k doesn't seem like a huge number, less than 1% of the market... So the cost will (hopefully) be a lot less than Setanta?


----------



## Jon Stark (22 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But sure isn't that what the taxpayer is for?
> 
> To pay the claims of people whose cheap insurance policies have become worthless.



You're hardly blaming the policyholders are you?! Sure they may not even know who their policy was underwritten by.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (22 Jul 2016)

I was burned by the Setanta crash and by sheer luck I escaped being burned again this time as I've taken out insurance via Wrightway previously.

That this can happen twice is shameful ... there's no protection for the customer. And we'll all be hit with a second/increased levy to cover this.

With all the regulations (both Irish & European) what good are they when the customer ends up out of pocket and unisured.

I can't believe it has happened for a second time. Is there anyone in authority keeping an eye on the ball?


----------



## mathepac (23 Jul 2016)

2nd time? PMPA, ICI ...


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Jul 2016)

I was insured by Wrightway years ago before switching to No Nonsense. Hopefully too many customers weren't crucified by this.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (23 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> 2nd time? PMPA, ICI ...



Ouch .... I forgot them.


----------



## horusd (23 Jul 2016)

... and there was the issue with RSA, one of the countries biggest insurers, which needed a  massive lifeline from the UK side after the Irish arm underestimated reserves, leaving a massive hole in the balance sheet. That cost the group a whopping €423 million between 2013 -15.  See http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...t-to-irish-insurance-unit-tops-500m-1.2636839  Imagine the public having to pick up that tab?  There is surely a need for some kind of stand-alone  regulator to monitor how insurers are underwriting business financially to protect the public purse, and ensure punters aren't being ripped off.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Jul 2016)

Blaming might be the wrong word. But they took out cheap insurance. I don't see why the rest of us should compensate them.  If you take out cheap insurance with a company you never heard of, then tough.  You should pay the claims yourself. 

Brendan


----------



## Johno (23 Jul 2016)

Brendan,

Wrightway insurance are not a chain of insurance brokers but an underwriting agency wholly owned by Zurich Insurance.

I also think it's about time the Central Bank take responsibility for theses insurance companies allowed to transact business in Ireland. They are meant to regulate the insurance industry in Ireland yet allow insurance companies passport into Ireland exposing Irish motorists ie Senanta Insurance (which was owned by 4 Irish insurance executives) and now Enterprise.


----------



## peno (23 Jul 2016)

Johno said:


> I also think it's about time the Central Bank take responsibility for theses insurance companies allowed to transact business in Ireland. They are meant to regulate the insurance industry in Ireland yet allow insurance companies passport into Ireland exposing Irish motorists ie Senanta Insurance (which was owned by 4 Irish insurance executives) and now Enterprise.



Setanta was regulated in Malta I think and Enterprise in Gibralter. Due to European rules there is very little the CBI can do to stop them operating in Ireland. They can only ask questions and try put pressure on other regulators to stop these rogue companies. 

Gibralter have a new regulater which is implementing stronger rules so the situation should improve but not before more go I solvent


----------



## vandriver (23 Jul 2016)

Great,I'm abroad on holiday with an uninsured car sitting on my driveway.
I got my insurance through Brittons.


----------



## RichInSpirit (24 Jul 2016)

If cheap insurance is bad, is low interest on mortgages also bad ?


----------



## Jon Stark (24 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> View attachment 1436
> 
> Blaming might be the wrong word. But they took out cheap insurance. I don't see why the rest of us should compensate them.  If you take out cheap insurance with a company you never heard of, then tough.  You should pay the claims yourself.
> 
> Brendan



Sorry Brendan but blaming seems to be exactly the correct word... 

Interesting attitude; does it apply only to insurance or to other products and services as well?

If a few thousand people got poisoned by an own brand food product in one of the major discounters, and required an expensive treatment, would that be another case of "tough, pay for it yourself"?

And if the policy wasn't one of the cheapest, but inertia or whatever kept them with their broker, does that somehow distinguish some of their punters from others? Do we end up in a "you were just unlucky Johnny so you can have your claim covered, but Mick you went with the cheapest policy you scoundrel, so tough cheese pal" situation?

As Rich says above, does the snobbish attitude on this issue extend to mortgage interest - if a new provider comes in and attracts a load of business with a 1.75% interest rate, only for it all to blow up and require a bail out later, would you suggest the customers attracted by price in a regulated market should pay for the regulatory failures?


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> View attachment 1436
> 
> Blaming might be the wrong word. But they took out cheap insurance. I don't see why the rest of us should compensate them.  If you take out cheap insurance with a company you never heard of, then tough.  You should pay the claims yourself.
> 
> Brendan


What an attitude Brendan. Surely the point of a regulator is to ensure the viability of companies operating in the market. I fail to see why this would be the responsibility of customers. Even the mission statement of the regulator (Central Bank of Ireland) is _“Protecting consumers through effective supervision that supports the sustainability of the insurance sector”_. By all means I can see where customers could expect some differences between insurance companies based on the premiums they pay, such as the cover provided and the ease of claiming in the event of an accident, but as to the eventuality where the company goes bust - that is 100% under the responsibility of the licence grantor, not the customers imho. If you want to blame anyone here blame the Central Bank of Ireland.


----------



## T McGibney (25 Jul 2016)

I wouldn't dream of taking out insurance, or buying any other financial or other service, from an obscure outfit registered and regulated in somewhere like Gibraltar.

If a group of Irish people ended up out of pocket after relying on a Gibraltar-based accountant or solicitor, they'd be told "caveat emptor" if they sought a State bailout.


----------



## mathepac (25 Jul 2016)

I guess the big difference from my perspective is that solicitors and accountants are self-regulating and insurance company regulation is a matter for the independent Central Bank.  I'd have to say their score as an effective regulator is a big fat negative number right now, as it has been in the past.


----------



## T McGibney (25 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> I guess the big difference from my perspective is that solicitors and accountants are self-regulating



Accountants are not self-regulating. Check https://www.iaasa.ie/


----------



## Sarenco (25 Jul 2016)

Ceist Beag said:


> If you want to blame anyone here blame the Central Bank of Ireland.



Why would you blame the Central Bank?  They had nothing to do with the regulation of this company.

Enterprise was selling motor insurance in a number of European countries, including Ireland, on a freedom of services basis. Its financial position was not supervised by the Central Bank  and the Central Bank has no role in that regard.

It was reported in the press over the weekend that the Central Bank specifically asked the Gibraltar regulator earlier this year to review the Irish motor business of Gibraltar-based firms and followed up with a visit to the Gibraltar regulator earlier this month.


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Jul 2016)

Sarenco said:


> Why would you blame the Central Bank?  They had nothing to do with the regulation of this company.
> 
> Enterprise was selling motor insurance in a number of European countries, including Ireland, on a freedom of services basis. Its financial position was not supervised by the Central Bank  and the Central Bank has no role in that regard.
> 
> It was reported in the press over the weekend that the Central Bank specifically asked the Gibraltar regulator earlier this year to review the Irish motor business of Gibraltar-based firms and followed up with a visit to the Gibraltar regulator earlier this month.


Clearly I'm showing my ignorance in this matter so! How exactly does this work then? Are there some operators who are regulated and others who are not (who operate on a freedom of services basis whatever that means)? If so, how is one to know which category the company underwriting your insurance is in? Is this something each customer should get their broker to clarify (if going via a broker and if not, should clarify for themselves) as it is certainly not a question I ever thought to ask before. And also, if this is the case, what exactly is the point of regulating some insurance companies if others are able to freely operate in the same market without this obligation? Sorry if these are stupid questions but I'm a bit surprised at what appears to be how this market operates here.


----------



## Sarenco (25 Jul 2016)

Ceist Beag said:


> How exactly does this work then?



Basically an insurer that is authorised in one EEA member state is entitled to write insurance policies in any other EEA member state, either on a services or on a cross-border establishment basis.

An insurer must confirm its authorisation and regulatory status on all business stationery, advertisements and electronic communications, including its website - you can't really miss it!


----------



## mathepac (25 Jul 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Accountants are not self-regulating. Check https://www.iaasa.ie/


Yes they are. https://www.iaasa.ie/About-IAASA/Our-Remit 

"IAASA's key RMSU responsibilities are:


*to deliver independent and effective supervision of the Prescribed Accountancy Bodies (PABs)* regulatory obligations and promote prompt, robust and proportionate action in instances of non compliance;
*to oversee the performance of functions relating to statutory auditors carried out by the Recognised Accountancy Bodies*;
to promote adherence to high professional standards by accountants, auditors and preparers of financial reports;
to provide specialist advice and support to the Minister and high quality information to our stakeholders on key auditing and accounting matters;
to cooperate with other EU Member States regarding education requirements and approval of statutory auditors."
The IAASA has no role in the direct regulation of accountants or accountancy firms. The PABs do that and they are composed of accountants. Accountants are self-regulating like solicitors.


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Jul 2016)

Thanks Sarenco. Just where you say though that you can't really miss it - in this case, if I understand it right, many of the customers impacted would have seen Wrightway Underwriting on their policies, not Enterprise Insurance. So it may not have been as obvious as you suggest to trace it back to find out whether their insurance was with a company regulated in Ireland by the Central Bank or in another EU country by their central bank and even to know if they should have concerns over said regulation (or are we simply to assume that all Gibraltar or Malta based insurance companies should raise a concern?).
So the upshot is, in this case it is the regulator in Gibraltar who is to blame, still hard to see how anyone can hold customers liable.


----------



## T McGibney (25 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> Yes they are. https://www.iaasa.ie/About-IAASA/Our-Remit
> 
> "IAASA's key RMSU responsibilities are:
> 
> ...



Veering off-topic a bit so I'll restrict myself to pointing out that IAASA will come down like a ton of bricks on the PABs if they're not doing their job to IAASA's liking and that their oversight/supervision role clearly involves a strong element of regulation.  If a PAB fails to deal adequately with a complaint lodged by a third party, IAASA can bring them to heel.

On this basis, my point about someone using an unqualified or unregulated accountant and bearing the consequences when it goes pearshaped stands.


----------



## Sarenco (25 Jul 2016)

No, the intermediary is required to state the full legal name of the relevant underwriter on all insurance policy documentation and renewal notices issued to a consumer.

I'm not trying to "blame" anybody but there is an obvious risk in buying any policy from an unfamiliar underwriter.  In this case, I gather premiums will be refunded to policyholders so hopefully nobody will be out of pocket.

Mind you, it's bound to put upward pressure on motor premiums generally...


----------



## Malcolm Tucker (25 Jul 2016)

The real issue here is the ability of Insurers to passport across borders without their home state (the state where they are established and where there solvency is regulated) having an Insurance Compensation mechanism in place.  From what I can gather there is no insurance compensation fund in Gibraltar, so a firm can set up an insurance operation at low cost and if everything goes tits up it is the policyholders in the state where they sell the policies that take the hit.

The Central Bank itself has an awful track record of regulating Banks, Investment and Insurance Companies (The DIRT scandal, the Banking Crisis, Custom House Capital, Quinn, RSA) but it can't carry the can for Setanta and Enterprise as it has zero power to allow insurance firms regulated in another EEA state to transact business here. This needs action at a European level.  It looks like Enterprise was selling insurance in a number of EU states, so maybe we will finally see some action this time?  Setanta were only selling insurance in Ireland, so the powers that be didn't seem too interested in it.

Interestingly the EU produced a white paper on this very problem 7 years ago, but nothing has been done about it since.  I can't post the link, as I'm a new member, but you'll find it on the EU website if you google it.


----------



## mathepac (25 Jul 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Veering off-topic a bit so I'll restrict myself to pointing out that IAASA will come down like a ton of bricks *on the PABs* ...  *If a PAB fails* to deal adequately with a complaint lodged by a third party, IAASA can bring them to heel...


My point stands. IAASA has no direct role in regulating accountants, accountancy firms or accountancy practices. They oversee the PABs, which are composed of accountants. Therefore accountants, just like solicitors, are self-regulating, which was my original point.

Unlike passporting motor insurance companies which seem to have no meaningful or enforceable solvency regulation or accountability.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> My point stands. IAASA has no direct role in regulating accountants, accountancy firms or accountancy practices. They oversee the PABs, which are composed of accountants. Therefore accountants, just like solicitors, are self-regulating, which was my original point.


Again its rather irrelevant to the thread but you're wrong in stating that PABs are composed of accountants. The board of CARB for example is by rule composed of a majority of non-accountant members. http://www.carb.ie/en/About-Us/General-Information/

The reason I mentioned accountants in the first instance is that an aggrieved member of the public has recourse to file a complaint, which much be handled and processed to IAASA standards, if they have a grievance arising from an engagement with an accredited Irish accounting firm.  (They also have potential remedies in domestic civil law.) They have no guaranteed recourse if they choose to engage with an operator in an "exotic" ie cowboy location overseas.

Anyone would be foolish enough to do so would be laughed off the park if they sought the State to underwrite their losses or otherwise bail them out if things went wrong.


----------



## Jon Stark (26 Jul 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Again its rather irrelevant to the thread but you're wrong in stating that PABs are composed of accountants. The board of CARB for example is by rule composed of a majority of non-accountant members. http://www.carb.ie/en/About-Us/General-Information/
> 
> The reason I mentioned accountants in the first instance is that an aggrieved member of the public has recourse to file a complaint, which much be handled and processed to IAASA standards, if they have a grievance arising from an engagement with an accredited Irish accounting firm.  (They also have potential remedies in domestic civil law.) They have no guaranteed recourse if they choose to engage with an operator in an "exotic" ie cowboy location overseas.
> 
> Anyone would be foolish enough to do so would be laughed off the park if they sought the State to underwrite their losses or otherwise bail them out if things went wrong.



All well and good, except that Joe punter in the market for motor insurance has no idea that they are engaging "with an operator in an exotic location overseas", as they are most likely dealing with a high street / household name broker, with whom they routinely deal, and that they believe is offering them regulated products. 

To become aware, they'd need to be made aware (by the broker and/or insurer explaining the important distinctions), or else be of a sufficiently pedantic and thorough disposition that they read up on domestic and EU law and do due diligence on potential motor policy underwriters, which frankly is a nonsense...


----------



## T McGibney (26 Jul 2016)

Jon Stark said:


> All well and good, except that Joe punter in the market for motor insurance has no idea that they are engaging "with an operator in an exotic location overseas", as they are most likely dealing with a high street / household name broker, with whom they routinely deal, and that they believe is offering them regulated products.
> 
> To become aware, they'd need to be made aware (by the broker and/or insurer explaining the important distinctions), or else be of a sufficiently pedantic and thorough disposition that they read up on domestic and EU law and do due diligence on potential motor policy underwriters, which frankly is a nonsense...



Ah come on, the insurer's name and credentials appear on the policy documents and insurance cert. All they have to do is read them. They wouldn't lodge their money with Delboy Bank, why insure with Delboy Insurance?


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Jon Stark said:


> ...do due diligence on potential motor policy underwriters, which frankly is a nonsense...



That's fine but then you, as a customer, are putting your full faith in the robustness of the regulatory framework where the insurer/bank/broker is domiciled. 

Your choice but common sense dictates that some level of prudence is merited.


----------



## Jon Stark (26 Jul 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Ah come on, the insurer's name and credentials appear on the policy documents and insurance cert. All they have to do is read them. They wouldn't lodge their money with Delboy Bank, why insure with Delboy Insurance?



You're falling into the trap of assuming that other people, less educated and knowledgeable than yourself, will apply the same rationale as you.

I can't really say anymore than I already have, other than that insurance is seen by the majority of us plebs as a highly regulated commodity, like a foodstuff. If you go to a fully licensed vendor of food, and buy a loaf of bread - which you later find out has mercury in it because some EU level legal Mumbo jumbo that the average Joe doesn't know about allowed an unfit product into the shelf - I don't see how that's your fault.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Jon Stark said:


> I don't see how that's your fault.



It might not be your "fault" but you might find yourself with a useless policy nonetheless. 

You really don't need to know anything about EU law to at least query whether it's a good idea to buy a policy from an insurer you've never heard of before with an address on a rock.


----------



## mathepac (26 Jul 2016)

In this country it's not even a good idea to deal with an insurer or bank you have heard of or might have dealt with for years. There is no protection for policy-holders / depositors / victims of other failed financial services organisations. Why not follow Iceland's lead - burn the bond-holders, jail the wrong doers. The Dellboys flock here and breed because they have lots to gain and risk no penalties.


----------



## Leo (26 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> Why not follow Iceland's lead - burn the bond-holders



You've never been to Iceland, have you?


----------



## Jon Stark (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco said:


> It might not be your "fault" but you might find yourself with a useless policy nonetheless.
> 
> You really don't need to know anything about EU law to at least query whether it's a good idea to buy a policy from an insurer you've never heard of before with an address on a rock.



Who do you query though? If you've gone through Zurich, who as far as you're aware are a properly legit and reputable crowd. By the time you get anything that says Gibraltar on it you've already handed over your readies, and so much of what goes on these days in the financial world is to do with tax avoidance and routing things through offshore locations that you'd probably just shrug it off.

The people on this thread with the most unsympathetic views towards the unwitting consumer are those who are most educated and knowledgeable about such matters - well sorry lads, the vast majority of punters have neither the time nor the interest to invest in performing due diligence into the provision of a commodity that is, in the lay person's view, offered subject to heavy regulation.

If there is fault here, it's with the brokers who do know better, failing to tell the customer that this quote is from Delboy Insurance Co as Tommy put it. 

Or alternatively it's with the domestic industry who for whatever reason despite all their resources, have chosen not to educate the public - and you'd have to wonder why that is - it seems the less the average Joe understands how the industry works, the happier they are, and events like this facilitate a narrative to go with increasing premiums...


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Jon Stark said:


> Who do you query though?



Yourself! 

As in; "Do I really think it's a good idea to take out an insurance policy with a crowd I've never heard of with an address in Gibraltar?  Hmmm, perhaps not..."



Jon Stark said:


> If there is fault here, it's with the brokers who do know better, failing to tell the customer that this quote is from Delboy Insurance Co as Tommy put it.



Well, brokers are required to do just that and I haven't seen any suggestion that they failed to do so in this case.



Jon Stark said:


> Or alternatively it's with the domestic industry who for whatever reason despite all their resources, have chosen not to educate the public - and you'd have to wonder why that is - it seems the less the average Joe understands how the industry works, the happier they are, and events like this facilitate a narrative to go with increasing premiums...



So you think the domestic insurance industry conspired to sell insurance policies from an under-provisioned Gibraltar insurer to gullible customers so that they could subsequently justify increasing their premiums?  Ok so.

In this case, I gather Zurich (a pretty big player in the domestic market) has agreed to make whole the relevant policyholders.  They are under absolutely no legal obligation to do so but obviously decided that it was the right thing to do given their interest in the broker that sold the policies.  Personally, I think Zurich should be applauded for taking this approach.


----------



## Malcolm Tucker (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco said:


> It might not be your "fault" but you might find yourself with a useless policy nonetheless
> 
> You really don't need to know anything about EU law to at least query whether it's a good idea to buy a policy from an insurer you've never heard of before with an address on a rock.



If a Broker is selling you an insurance policy, ask him/her two simple questions: 1) Where is the Insurer located and 2) what is the Insurer's Financial Strength rating.  

If the Insurer is located in Gibraltar, Liechtenstein or Malta, can you really be satisfied that a robust regulatory regime is in place?  Particularly where the Insurer is located there but is primarily selling into the Irish or UK market.

The Financial Strength rating is also important.  If the company doesn't have one it is probably a start-up and although it might be well run, new start ups in insurance always carry a greater level of risk as they don't have the capital to protect themselves against a run of bad claims.  I'm not saying don't Insure with an unrated insurer, you may have no other option as in some instances they'll be the only quote you can get, but you need to be aware that there is an added risk in dealing with them.  If you have the option of paying a few hundred euro extra to insure with an A rated company located in a country with a well established insurance compensation scheme it might be worth the extra money to do so.


----------



## Leo (26 Jul 2016)

Jon Stark said:


> Who do you query though? If you've gone through Zurich, who as far as you're aware are a properly legit and reputable crowd. By the time you get anything that says Gibraltar on it you've already handed over your readies...



It'll generally be written in the terms of business that you accept you have read and understood if getting a quote online.



Jon Stark said:


> The people on this thread with the most unsympathetic views towards the unwitting consumer are those who are most educated and knowledgeable about such matters - well sorry lads, the vast majority of punters have neither the time nor the interest to invest in performing due diligence into the provision of a commodity that is, in the lay person's view, offered subject to heavy regulation.



And that's their prerogative. I'm sure you can understand the frustration of those who do put time and effort into reading the small print, who often end up with a more expensive policy effectively subsidising those who are not prepared to put that effort into protecting themselves.


----------



## mathepac (26 Jul 2016)

Leo said:


> You've never been to Iceland, have you?


I don't need to visit the place or live there to laud  some of their actions against financial industry crooks. As well as beating England in a recent soccer-ball competition they seem a praise-worthy bunch.



mathepac said:


> In this country it's not even a good idea to deal with an insurer or bank you have heard of or might have dealt with for years. There is no protection for policy-holders / depositors / victims of other failed financial services organisations. ... The Dellboys flock here and breed because they have lots to gain and risk no penalties.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Well, policyholders and depositors were certainly protected during the recent financial meltdown.  

Lots of people that worked in banks lost their jobs and three of our most prominent former bank officials will be sentenced this coming Friday for conspiracy to defraud.

The UK and US probably have the most sophisticated regulatory regimes in the world and both these jurisdictions have had their fair share of controversies in recent times.

Our Central Bank was rightly castigated in the wake of our financial meltdown.  No question about it.  However, that doesn't mean that consumers are somehow absolved of the need to be vigilant and prudent about who they transact with.

The reality is that financial regulation will always be imperfect.  However, simple common sense never goes out of style.


----------



## thedaddyman (27 Jul 2016)

I find it strange on the one hand that people are complaining about oversea regulation and how you shouldn't do business with overseas insurers and other people complain about the inability of the Irish regulators to regulate just about anything. We can't have it both ways

It really is a case of caveat emptor and why for something like insurance it may be safer to go with a larger more established provider.


----------



## mathepac (27 Jul 2016)

@Sarenco How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

We are still paying insurance levies for the bail-out of PMPA, ICI (AIB) etc for crying out loud. The government bailed out the failed, insolvent banks, for government read tax-payer. Each one of us, citizens all, is still in the red to the tune of €25,000 per person.

The central banks in the US & UK are in private ownership and are not arms of government, they have a different agenda.

Buying a financial product, like car insurance, has always been a lottery in this country because the Central Bank continues to fail in its duties and responsibilities. For Sean & Sheila Citizen, buying motor insurance is one of the areas where we need the sophisticated insight and protection supposedly housed in our Central Bankers. Time and time again they have failed us, the tax-payers, purchasers of financial services products, including motor insurance. They are good at the "blame game" though and contributors here seem to be singing off the same song-sheet :-

"_In July 2009, a senior Central Bank official told the Oireachtas Enterprise Committee that shareholders (later corrected/clarified to refer to institutional investors) who lost their money in the banking collapse were to blame for their fate and got what was coming to them for not keeping bank chiefs in check. The official did admit that the Central Bank had failed to give sufficient warning about reckless lending to property developers. The Governor later described the share wipeout in which tens of thousands of investors lost their lives’ savings as a "stock exchange adjustment"_ Wikipedia quoting from articles in the Evening Herald and Irish Mirror.

"_The Central Bank of Ireland’s mandate calls on it to contribute to the well being of the people of Ireland and more widely in Europe by performing statutory responsibilities which cover a wide range, including :_

_financial stability;_
_*consumer protection*;_
_*supervision and enforcement*;_
_regulatory policy development;_
_*the provision of economic advice* and financial statistics; and_
_the recovery and resolution of distressed financial services firms."_ extracted for Wikipedia quoting the Central Bank's own Strategic Plan to 2020 as the source. Looks like we can rate this as Failed to Meet Objectives.


----------



## mathepac (27 Jul 2016)

Sorry I meant to add that the Central Bank, independent of any EU regulation, can insist that any motor insurer wishing to transact business here have sufficient liquid assets in the State to cover claims / losses or can prove that their potential liabilities are sufficiently covered by their own re-insurance.


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> I don't need to visit the place or live there to laud  some of their actions against financial industry crooks. As well as beating England in a recent soccer-ball competition they seem a praise-worthy bunch.



Fair enough, you're happy with the course of action they took. You don't have to live with the consequences though. I'm very happy we didn't follow their lead.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2016)

It's gas to see Iceland lauded as a champion of consumers. They wiped out savers to meet the undischarged debts of a buccaneering financial industry that made the worst Irish banks look like school children.

As for the US and UK central banks being independent of government, the career of Alan Greenspan and Mark Carney's recent Brexit embarrassment each knock that one for six.


----------



## Sarenco (27 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> @Sarenco How on earth did you reach that conclusion?


 
What conclusion?  That financial regulation will always be imperfect?  I would have thought that was pretty obvious from our recent past.


----------



## Sarenco (27 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> Sorry I meant to add that the Central Bank, independent of any EU regulation, can insist that any motor insurer wishing to transact business here have sufficient liquid assets in the State to cover claims / losses or can prove that their potential liabilities are sufficiently covered by their own re-insurance.



That's news to me - can you provide a link?  

An insurer authorised in one EEA member state is entitled to write business in any other EEA member state, subject to completing an administrative process.  The Central Bank can certainly liaise with the home state regulator (the GFSC in this case) regarding the financial position of the insurer in question (which they apparently did in this case) but they cannot insist on additional reserving or solvency measures - that is the responsibility of the home state regulator.

It's certainly true that all insurance companies underwriting motor insurance in Ireland must, by law, be members of MIBI and contribute to the funding of claims in proportion to their market share.


----------



## Sarenco (27 Jul 2016)

mathepac said:


> @Sarenco
> The central banks in the US & UK are in private ownership and are not arms of government, they have a different agenda.



Neither the FED nor the Bank of England has any role in the authorisation or prudential supervision of insurance companies.  They are both independent of any executive or legislative branch of government (as is the case with our Central Bank) but they are certainly not in private ownership.

I've no idea what relevance the quote from Wikipedia has to do with the protection of depositors or policyholders.

I've already expressed the view that the Central Bank was rightly castigated in the wake of our financial meltdown.  We seem to be in violent agreement on this point.


----------



## mathepac (27 Jul 2016)

Sarenco said:


> Neither the FED nor the Bank of England has any role in the authorisation or prudential supervision of insurance companies.  They are both independent of any executive or legislative branch of government (as is the case with our Central Bank) but they are certainly not in private ownership...



http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm 

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks."

So commercial banks in each of the the regions own shares, up to 6% each, in the Federal Reserve Banks. So the Federal Reserve Bank, through this share ownership of its 12 constituent FEDs is in private, commercial banking ownership.


----------



## Sarenco (27 Jul 2016)

Eh, that link specifically states that the FED is not a private institution and is subject to Congress oversight.

In any event, the FED has nothing to do with the authorisation or supervision of insurers.  In the US insurers are still largely regulated on a State-by-State basis by local commissioners.


----------



## johnwilliams (29 Jul 2016)

"what is the Insurer's Financial Strength rating".
where can i check this myself?


----------

