# Michael Fingleton's son gets his knuckles rapped



## LDFerguson (3 Oct 2008)

Would love to have heard the conversations between father and son over this one.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/1003/irishnationwide.html


----------



## FredBloggs (3 Oct 2008)

Like father like son?


----------



## Sunny (3 Oct 2008)

What on earth was the guy thinking? Surely this is the time if you are a banking executive to keep your head down and not draw any attention to yourselves. The stupidity of it is astounding but I suppose yet again no-one will pay the ultimate penalty. Personally I would remove the guarantee and feed Irish Nationwide to the wolves!


----------



## FredBloggs (3 Oct 2008)

This underlines whats wrong with Irish Nationwide.   Can you imagine the son of one of the chairmen of the other financial institutions even being in a position to send such an email?


----------



## Bronte (3 Oct 2008)

He should lose his job and that's what the Financial Regulator should demand at a minimum.


----------



## theoneill (3 Oct 2008)

Are they trying to start a mini dynasty in Irish Nationwide?


----------



## Howitzer (3 Oct 2008)

The nepotism alone disturbs me, never mind the foolishness (best way of putting it) of the email.


----------



## Sunny (3 Oct 2008)

Howitzer said:


> The nepotism alone disturbs me, never mind the foolishness (best way of putting it) of the email.


 
Yeah, Irish Nationwide doesn't exactly have the best reputation for corporate governance. Probably another example of where the regulator should have taken action before now.


----------



## theoneill (3 Oct 2008)

I would love to see them removed from the guarantee scheme. If nothing else it would serve as an example to other banks to get their houses in order.
The sheer arrogance still baffles me.


----------



## Askar (3 Oct 2008)

Given the performance of the financial regulator on last nights Primetime I doubt much will be demanded. Having missed the intro I initially thought he was a spokesman for the Banker Federation.


----------



## iPoker (3 Oct 2008)

Sunny said:


> Personally I would remove the guarantee and feed Irish Nationwide to the wolves!


 
yeah, because that would be the sensible thing to do???


----------



## iPoker (3 Oct 2008)

Askar said:


> Given the performance of the financial regulator on last nights Primetime I doubt much will be demanded. Having missed the intro I initially thought he was a spokesman for the Banker Federation.


 
I thought he was reasonably good under the circumstances. I wanted to hear what he had to say, but instead had to listen to this mark little clown distrubting everything the man was trying to say. Another example of the crap we get from RTE!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Oct 2008)

Sunny said:



> but I suppose yet again no-one will pay the ultimate penalty.



Hang on a second Sunny. It was very serious indeed, but do you honestly think he should be executed for it? 

Brendan


----------



## iPoker (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> Sunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
the fella should lose his job, and apology made by Nationwide. To suggest INBS should be now thrown out of the scheme is just stupid, and am not sure what the ambitions of those proponents are to suggest this? Are they not subject to the potential of a demut cash BONANZA (even if it is only a grand as suggested by that Burgess dude!)


----------



## Sunny (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> Sunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough. A good public flogging though!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Oct 2008)

Askar said:


> Given the performance of the financial regulator on last nights Primetime I doubt much will be demanded. Having missed the intro I initially thought he was a spokesman for the Banker Federation.




I didn't see it, and the FR has made a lot of mistakes in the way that they regulate the banks especially the Irish Nationwide.

But they have a very difficult balancing act to do. The stability of the banking system is their first priority and it takes precedence over everything else. They can't be too critical of the banks in public in case it causes a loss of confidence.  And we don't see what they do in private. For example, if they insist that Michael Fingleton is removed, it will be done quietly and behind the scenes. Fingleton will just go and we won't know whether or not the FR insisted on it.

Brendan


----------



## Towger (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> Hang on a second Sunny. It was very serious indeed, but do you honestly think he should be executed for it?


 
I don't, but I could see him falling on his sword, a la Michael Soden...


----------



## MugsGame (3 Oct 2008)

Let's not be too hasty in calling for heads, everyone deserves due process.

We should wait for the results of an investigation by the [broken link removed] in the UK to see if this is anti-competitive practice.


----------



## Kemo_Sabe (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> I didn't see it, and the FR has made a lot of mistakes in the way that they regulate the banks especially the Irish Nationwide.
> 
> But they have a very difficult balancing act to do. The stability of the banking system is their first priority and it takes precedence over everything else. They can't be too critical of the banks in public in case it causes a loss of confidence. *And we don't see what they do in private. For example, if they insist that Michael Fingleton is removed, it will be done quietly and behind the scenes. Fingleton will just go and we won't know whether or not the FR insisted on it.*
> 
> Brendan


 
actually I think the opposite. Taxpayers are now propping up the banks via the guarantee scheme (nationalisation by another name). Given that this relationship now exists (whether you agree with it or not), I don't think it's unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect full transparency in the new relationship between the regulatory authorities and the institutions.

therefore I'd expect to see IFSRA issue a press release to the extent of: "The regulator has noted the actions of INBS with extreme concern and has requested that appropriate disciplinary action be taken against the INBS staff members involved. A fine of xxxxxxx has also been levied"

to be followed by one from INBS along these lines: "INBS agrees with the findings of the regulator and has terminated the employment of xxxx xxxxxxxxx with immediate effect"

I believe this would engender much more confidence in the guarantee scheme than the 'wink, wink' old boys network alluded to above.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Oct 2008)

Sunny said:


> Fair enough. A good public flogging though!


Of the company? Isn't that what most members want.


----------



## theoneill (3 Oct 2008)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before some bank related faux pas came to light


----------



## Howitzer (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> I didn't see it, and the FR has made a lot of mistakes in the way that they regulate the banks especially the Irish Nationwide.
> 
> But they have a very difficult balancing act to do. The stability of the banking system is their first priority and it takes precedence over everything else. They can't be too critical of the banks in public in case it causes a loss of confidence. And we don't see what they do in private. For example, if they insist that Michael Fingleton is removed, it will be done quietly and behind the scenes. Fingleton will just go and we won't know whether or not the FR insisted on it.
> 
> Brendan


Do you think any more will come of this other than the rap on the knuckles already seen. I honestly don't.


----------



## briancbyrne (3 Oct 2008)

unbelievable when you consider that the irish gov are trying to defend thier intravention in the face of anti ciompetitive claims.

An immediate strong response from the Gov would send out a message not only to Europe vis a vie the anti competitive claim but also to the banks benifitting


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Oct 2008)

> therefore I'd expect to see IFSRA issue a press release to the extent of: "The regulator has noted the actions of INBS with extreme concern and has requested that appropriate disciplinary action be taken against the INBS staff members involved. A fine of xxxxxxx has also been levied"



You might expect that but the Banking legislation prohibits the FR from disclosing anything confidential about banks for very good reasons.

However, there are Administrative Sanction Procedures and that does allow for them to agree a sanction and publish the details. 

Brendan


----------



## Don_08 (3 Oct 2008)

Definitely think we need to see more than this statement that was issued:

_Irish Nationwide has described as inappropriate and regrettable an email sent by the son of its CEO seeking business in Britain on the strength of the Government's deposit guarantee._

_A Department of Finance spokesman has confirmed that the email, which surfaced yesterday, has been referred to the Financial Regulator._


----------



## FredBloggs (3 Oct 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Of the company? Isn't that what most members want.


 

Even for you Clubman that is funny!


----------



## oceanclub (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> I didn't see it, and the FR has made a lot of mistakes in the way that they regulate the banks especially the Irish Nationwide.
> 
> But they have a very difficult balancing act to do. The stability of the banking system is their first priority and it takes precedence over everything else. They can't be too critical of the banks in public in case it causes a loss of confidence.


 
Because the, er, softly-softly approach has worked really well so far?

Sorry but you're talking as if the banking system was stable up until now.

P.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2008)

I sense a bit of hypocracy in all this bashing of _baby fingers_.  The whole blo*dy point of the initiative was to give a competitive advantage to Irish banks and attract as much funds as possible.


----------



## webtax (3 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> You might expect that but the Banking legislation prohibits the FR from disclosing anything confidential about banks for very good reasons.



I don't think that whatever these reasons were could have been very good, and in the light of the current crisis they certainly are not. The financial regulator should be on the side of the citizens of this country and not helping to cover up for the banks. 
A lot of the uncertainty has arisen from the failure of the banks to honestly disclose their difficulties and the central bank/regulator should be taking steps to bring about some clarity to the situation instead of going on the national airwaves to deny the banks culpability for the crisis or that there is any problem.
The banks have been part of the golden circle in this country for far too long and are comfortable in the knowledge that no misdeed will go punished. The current debacle which leaves all the architects of the financial mess in situ is contemptible (how long until we hear of a new round of share options for the directors to take advantage of the recovery in a few years time?).


----------



## bond-007 (3 Oct 2008)

Would funds from UK savers be covered under the scheme?


----------



## z109 (3 Oct 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Would funds from UK savers be covered under the scheme?


Yes. All funds in the institutions are covered. Without limit, as far as I can see.

The Irish taxpayer has just underwritten all deposits in Europe that care to make their way into an Irish bank. Given that they have to do something with this money to earn the, for example, 7.1% that INBS are giving out on it and that earning 7.1% requires pretty substantial lending we are either going to see a huge drop in deposit rates or additional risks being taken by the banks to earn a return on the deposits.


----------



## OPTIMUM (3 Oct 2008)

You would have to believe that there is no way that the Irish government will allow Irish banks to shore in funds and then lend away willy nilly, now that the world is watching. Each back will have a non-executive apponited in the coming months, Id say, and a reduction of balance sheets will be enforced. The guarantee will have to be premium based, so banks wont want to take in funds if they have to pay say 1-3% for them...

You can expect savings rates to be reduced by all Irish banks over time to reduce the inflows as we have seen N Rock do, starting with INBS first to ensure they can afford the premium cost.


----------



## banchang (5 Oct 2008)

Towger said:


> I don't, but I could see him falling on his sword, a la Michael Soden...


 
Like thats gonna happen


----------



## darag (5 Oct 2008)

iPoker said:


> Are they not subject to the potential of a demut cash BONANZA (even if it is only a grand as suggested by that Burgess dude!)


You'll be lucky not to be facing a massive bill if they demutualised.  Your potential bonanza was spent on office blocks and shopping centres here and in the UK which are worth 60% what fingers paid for them.  To be safe, I'd renounce my membership as quickly as possible if I were you.


----------



## Bronte (6 Oct 2008)

I think he should lose his job, quietly or otherwise but based on the arrogant interview of the Anglo Irish boss with Marion Finucane on Saturday he will just be given a telling off.  He said something to the effect that "he feels sorry for the poor boy (boy !) making a mistake like that.. "  Sorry if you are in a position to be sending emails at that level you are no boy.  That's not the attitude the bank manager has to you and me if we can't afford to repay our loans.  Is reckless trading/lending be a crime?  Can the bosses of the banks who have created this mess be prosecuted for not doing their job properly?


----------



## LennyBriscoe (6 Oct 2008)

Why should touting business in another jurisdiction be a sackable offence? Even if it is on the back of the Irish governements guarantee.


----------



## Howitzer (6 Oct 2008)

LennyBriscoe said:


> Why should touting business in another jurisdiction be a sackable offence? Even if it is on the back of the Irish governements guarantee.


Umm, maybe because it could have resulted in the Govt withdrawing the guarantee from Irish Nationwide which would almost certainly have resulted in them going bust. I'd consider that a sackable offence - you know, bankrupting the company and all.


----------



## Sunny (7 Oct 2008)

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/1007/nationwide.html

That will show them.


----------



## Howitzer (7 Oct 2008)

A 50K fine. Absolutely pathetic.


----------



## theoneill (7 Oct 2008)

Howitzer said:


> A 50K fine. Absolutely pathetic.



Indeed, at the very least it could use an extra zero


----------



## Kemo_Sabe (7 Oct 2008)

if anyone didn't believe Neary should be sacked and replaced by somebody remotely sentient....well now they must surely have changed their mind


----------



## nukenelly (7 Oct 2008)

theoneill said:


> Indeed, at the very least it could use an extra zero


 
+1
It just shows the FR is too infiltrated into the system to be a watchdog. The gamekeeper is the poachers best mate...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2008)

Folks

You are very hard. 

Does it actually matter whether it is €50k or €500k. 

Within a week of the offence being committed, they have named and shamed and fined the Irish Nationwide. 

The FR is now moving onto the next highest priority. What would you prefer them to do? Assign 3 staff to investigate this. Hold formal adminstrative sanctions hearings. Impose a fine of €500k. Have it appealed as disproportionate. 

I have long been a critic of the FR's tolerance of the misbehaviour of the Irish Nationwide, but in this case, they got in quickly and imposed a very public sanction. 

They should be congratulated for it.

Brendan


----------



## Howitzer (7 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> Folks
> 
> You are very hard.
> 
> ...


I agree, it doesn't matter if it's 50K or a 2 bob note. Who pays that fine is the shareholders, essentially the members. What is pathetic is the lack of accountability.

I would have been sacked for an offence such as this which could have brought the very future of the company into question.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2008)

Howitzer said:



> Who pays that fine is the shareholders, essentially the members.



I had forgotten that. I hope young Fingleton gets fined personally as well.

Brendan


----------



## rmelly (7 Oct 2008)

Brendan said:


> Howitzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The fact we haven't heard about it suggests it hasn't happened, at least not yet. They're unlikely to do it in private because he needs to be seen to be reprimanded/sanctioned given who he is and the context.


----------



## moneyminder (8 Oct 2008)

I don't see what was so bad about the email?

This is taken from RTE's website. Maybe I am missing something?

"Michael Fingleton Jnr sent the e-mail to a friend from the Irish Nationwide's London office stating that Irish Nationwide represented the 'safest place to deposit money in Europe with an AAA guarantee from a country with the lowest national debt to GDP ration of any AAA country'.
The e-mail said that deposits attracting fixed-term interest rates of 6.75% and 7.1% were guaranteed regardless of size and represented the best value in the UK market. 
 The e-mail continued: 'Please be so kind as to pass on to friends, colleagues and clients as you see fit.'"


----------



## guy incognit (9 Oct 2008)

talk about a storm in a tea cup, yes it was a mistake but seemed people baying for blood and sackings?

steady on.


----------



## Bronte (10 Oct 2008)

I'm furious at all the bankers behavouir and if Fingleton junior can send emails like this what else do you think they get up to?  He thinks he can do anything - that's the point.  I don't care about a trifling fine, I want a solid reliable reputable banking system not an old boys network.  What age is he, what is his job title?  I think what he did was very serious indeed.


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Oct 2008)

Bronte said:


> I want a solid reliable reputable banking system not an old boys network.



And you're right. But what else has the INBS been for the past 20+ years?


----------

