# Pat Neary Retires - latest Anglo victim?



## mathepac

Following publication of the long-awaited report into the handling of the Anglo-Irish Bank directors' loans controversy, the Financial Regulator, Patick Neary has announced his retirement.

For me there is a sense of deja-vu about his retirement, given that the report cited pressures of work, lost correspondence and internal communications problems as reasons why Mr. Neary was not appraised of the loans problem at Anglo.

Is this yet another case of no-one being responsible / accountable?


----------



## Simeon

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*

It's a case of the Regulator not regulating. So, in his case a breach of contract. Should he not have got the high jump before being given the chance to retire?


----------



## capall

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*

Is he really retired or is he just shunted sideways to another civil service post with the same pay.
He will be retiring on a nice fat guaranteed pension anyway,what does he care
Pity he wasn't on a private sector pension invested in irish bank shares


----------



## Spondulicks

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*

Who is on the Authority there, what are they paid, what are they doing? The systems procedures and processes sound dreadful from the Authority's own statement. They better stop sitting on their hands now as we are all paying more on the government borrowings which are rising by the billion.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*

Full statement from the Authority:

*Statement by Authority*

The Committee established by the Authority on Saturday 20 December 2008 to undertake an urgent review of directors’ loans at Anglo Irish Bank and the regulatory response has today (Friday 9 January 2009) delivered its report to the Authority.  The Authority has accepted the report.
 The essential task of the Committee was to look within the organisation at two issues: when the information about these loans was obtained by the organisation, and how the information was communicated and followed up by way of response.  It did not include an examination of any other issues relating to Anglo Irish Bank, which are the subject of a separate and ongoing investigation.  
 The Authority is subject to strict obligations of confidentiality under legislation and has been legally advised that it may not publish the Committee’s Report. Nevertheless, it is conscious in the interests of transparency and public interest in this issue to outline the essence of the main elements of the Report. 
 Conclusions
 In summary, in relation to dealing with the issue of directors’ loans in Anglo Irish Bank, the Committee concluded that there was a breakdown in terms of internal communications and process and in the regulatory follow-up and response of the organisation.  This resulted in a failure to take appropriate and timely actions in relation to what was a serious matter and to escalate the matter to the Authority.  
 In particular, the Committee concluded that:
 · if the information available from Anglo quarterly returns had been monitored more comprehensively the issue of directors’ loans could have been identified much earlier from the returns dealing with Large Exposures;
 · once the matter of directors’ loans had been identified it was pursued actively by the Banking Supervision Department (BSD).  Two meetings took place between BSD and Anglo;

· the organisation did not use its discretion under its legislation to alert the Director of Corporate Enforcement at the initial stages;
 · the matter was not pursued with Irish Nationwide at the time.  It is now being pursued under the separate review initiated by the Authority;
 · the discussions with Anglo were not broadened out to include Anglo’s Head of Internal Audit, the Chair of the Audit Committee and the external auditors;
 · while concerns persisted in BSD the matter was not pursued partly because a letter from Anglo went missing and partly because of the pressure on officials from the unfolding of liquidity problems in financial markets and in individual institutions;
 · the Committee noted that while the pressures referred to above did not explain what occurred they are an essential part of the background;
 · the issue did not surface again internally, even in Autumn 2008, when major stability and strategic issues were being addressed by the authorities including the Government;
 · in relation to the particular issue of whether this matter had been mentioned to the Prudential Director and Chief Executive after a wider meeting had concluded in January 2008, the Committee was impressed with the coherence, clarity and belief in their stated recollections of the people concerned and their integrity.  Nevertheless, the evidence presented to the Committee on this issue could not be reconciled by the Committee.  There is no suggestion from any party that any communication – verbal or written - on this issue was made to either the Prudential Director or Chief Executive in the period (subsequent to January) to December 2008.

Recommendations
 In its concluding remarks, the Committee noted that it had been greatly impressed by the quality, dedication, commitment and strong work ethic as well as the integrity of the officials with whom they engaged.  The Committee noted the pressures that the staff had faced since the onset of the crisis in the global financial system in August 2007 and noted issues with staffing requirements.  The Committee noted that the adequacy of existing resources would need to be kept under review particularly where modification of the approach to regulation and more intensive supervision would require more staff.  
 The Committee observed that the system of regulation that operated in Ireland was highly regarded internationally. However, the events of 2007 and 2008 in the financial environment globally pointed to serious inadequacies in systems of regulation operating across the world.  Ireland is no exception and a much more intensive type of regulation has been introduced here under the Government Guarantee Scheme and this position is developing all the time.  
 The Authority notes and accepts the recommendations of the Committee and is committed to implementing them in full.  These are:
 · The review of our strategic regulatory approach in the light of developments in 2007 and 2008, to which the Authority is already committed, should be advanced as quickly as possible.  The review should ensure that the organisation meets its statutory mandate and responds to the changed regulatory environment and to EU and international developments in financial regulation.
 · The staffing requirements for the organisation should be reviewed on the basis of both the strategy review and also of the outcome of the work being undertaken by external consultants for the Authority, specifically the Business Process Review and Benchmarking against comparator financial regulators and other similar businesses, which is expected to be concluded shortly.
 · Any changes recommended by these consultants in the organisational structure and reporting lines within the Financial Regulator should be examined and if considered appropriate acted upon by the Authority as a matter of urgency.
 · While no process can eliminate the need for the exercise of good judgement by officials, existing internal communication and escalation procedures and procedural manuals should be reviewed taking account of the lessons to be learned from this report and the ongoing separate review of directors’ loans initiated by the Authority.
 · Filing and document management and tracking arrangements should be improved.
 · The review instigated by the Authority to determine the treatment of directors’ loans in all institutions covered by the Government Guarantee Scheme should be completed at an early date.
 · Loans to directors should be examined in greater detail, especially to ensure that loans to any business in which a director has a major interest (defined as 10 per cent or more of the shares or voting rights) are being included in returns to the Financial Regulator.
 · Arrangements should be made to ensure more effective monitoring of the more important prudential returns, including those for loans to directors, with on-line submission and built-in data validation and checking processes   A progress report should be made to the Authority by end-February 2009.


----------



## mathepac

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*



Spondulicks said:


> Who is on the Authority there, what are they paid, what are they doing? ... They better stop sitting on their hands now as we are all paying more on the government borrowings which are rising by the billion.


23% of current expenditure has to be borrowed and the 3 year deficit has now extended to 5 years (RTE News tonight).

We have all these useless, highly-paid, do-nothings disappearing into DB superannuated anonimity, leaving us to pick up the tab.


----------



## ClubMan

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*



Brendan said:


> Filing and document management and tracking arrangements should be improved.


Doesn't surprise me in the least that _IFSRA _can't even manage their filing systems properly.


----------



## Bob_tg

*Re: Pat Nearey Retires - latest Anglo victim?*



mathepac said:


> We have all these useless, highly-paid, do-nothings disappearing into DB superannuated anonimity, leaving us to pick up the tab.



I second that.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Pat Neary and the Financial Regulator made a serious error in their handling of this issue. But to suggest that they are useless is to ignore the 40 years (?) of Pat Neary's service in the Central Bank and Financial Regulator. 

One would think reading the commentary that Ireland was full of absolutely brilliant, committed, error-free workers, all working at junior levels while only the guys at the top were useless. 

Brendan


----------



## webtax

Brendan said:


> One would think reading the commentary that Ireland was full of absolutely brilliant, committed, error-free workers, all working at junior levels while only the guys at the top were useless.



But it's the guys at the top who create the culture. The financial regulator has such a reputation for treating the banks with kid gloves that it is not surprising that a junior employee saw fit to ignore these loans.

Have the terms of Neary's retirement package & pension been revealed? The taxpayer will be picking up the tab for these €100m loans via the guarantee scheme, so surely Neary's retirement deal should suffer also?
The government was quick to voice it's opposition to the 'failure bonus' for Mannion in Aer Lingus. Why not the same moral stance when they are handing out failure bonuses to FÁS & FR executives.


----------



## corkfella

Brendan said:


> Pat Neary and the Financial Regulator made a serious error in their handling of this issue. But to suggest that they are useless is to ignore the 40 years (?) of Pat Neary's service in the Central Bank and Financial Regulator.
> 
> One would think reading the commentary that Ireland was full of absolutely brilliant, committed, error-free workers, all working at junior levels while only the guys at the top were useless.
> 
> Brendan


 
Brendan,

I have noticed you are very quick to defend Mr.Neary, why is this?

Pat has served for 40 years as a public servant and has been well paid to do so, he will retire with a very generous pension, this surely covers his service to this state?

The facts show that on his watch bank lending was allowed to go out of all control and people were allowed to borrow 7 or times their incomes and not the normal 2 to 3 which would be affordable. His treatment of the banks is laughable, do you believe him when he says he knew nothing of fitzpatricj anglo loans? I certainly don't. 

Corkfella.


----------



## capall

I guess people are angry that in Ireland the people who have contributed to the current economic crises senior bankers,politicians,some civil servants will not be the ones who will suffer because of their misjudgements and incompetence. OK they might be demoted ,fired even but  they won't suffer economic hardship they are cocooned from the financial fallout


----------



## Padraigb

webtax said:


> But it's the guys at the top who create the culture. The financial regulator has such a reputation for treating the banks with kid gloves that it is not surprising that a junior employee saw fit to ignore these loans.



It might be that Neary was not the guy who created the culture. I suggest that we look back to the creation of the IFSC to find the point where Ireland jumped from a conservative approach to regulation to a free-for-all culture (The favoured euphemism being "light touch"). It may be that we should go back to that nexus between the political, business, and administrative establishments to analyse the origins of the culture. And it is the responsibility of our politicians to resolve the conflicting demands and needs of various interest groups in such a way as to benefit society (Society. Remember that idea? It's about people rather than wealth.)



> Have the terms of Neary's retirement package & pension been revealed?



Public service pension packages are no secret.



> The taxpayer will be picking up the tab for these €100m loans via the guarantee scheme, so surely Neary's retirement deal should suffer also?
> The government was quick to voice it's opposition to the 'failure bonus' for Mannion in Aer Lingus. Why not the same moral stance when they are handing out failure bonuses to FÁS & FR executives.



Because they are not bonuses: they are the normal retirement packages.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Corkfella said



> I have noticed you are very quick to defend Mr.Neary, why is this?


Actually since its formation, I have been one of the strongest critics of the Financial Regulator. I have been critical of their failure to take robust action long before it became a matter of public debate.  But I have always been balanced. I recognize their achievements as well as their failures.

I have set out a full assessment in [broken link removed] but it was before we knew about Fitzpatrick's loans. This article is discussed at length in this thread.


----------



## tiger

I think it is right that Neary should go.
I would agree with the point that he didn't create the culture.  He probably got to the position he had because he didn't rock the boat & wouldn't upset things (safe pair of hands).  I think it's now fair to say that approach hasn't served the ecomony well.

I also feel that he didn't benefit personally from any wrong doings (other than his salary), which may not be the case for some others involved & some of our politicians...


----------



## Carramore

There is a culture in this country of people not taking responsibility.  Pat Neary's departure was very belated and, when it did come, was accompanied by wonderful tributes from the Board on his "retirement".  There has been no mention about the position of Con Horan, Head of Prudential Supervision, who must take primary senior management responsibility in the FR for the mess over the non-disclosure of Fitzpatrick's kiting.  I suspect that Board have decided that he's too young to depart on the pretext of retiring, so nothing is done.

The private sector isn't immune.  It took the Finance Director of Anglo a long time to offer his head on a plate, and then again it was on the pretext of retirement.  In Anglo, there has been no mention of the Internal Auditor resigning.  I bet that, like Con Horan, he/she is too young to "retire".

Maurice Pratt, why aren't there more like you?


----------



## nad

All i've to say on this is i don't believe  Mr Neary is a victim,more a case of him not doing the job the was appointed to do for what reason no one knows only him.


----------



## Padraigb

nad said:


> All i've to say on this is i don't believe  Mr Neary is a victim,more a case of him not doing the job the was appointed to do for what reason no one knows only him.



That's a damning judgement. Perhaps you can back it up by telling us what job Neary was supposed to do: was he supposed to enable banks to do what banks do, or was he supposed to restrict them?

I gather Neary saw his role as an enabler. I don't think he created that view -- rather he got it from that shadowy institution known to us outsiders as "the establishment".

I am prepared to say that I think Neary and his office erred on the side of being too easy on the banks; I am quite prepared to believe that internal communications in the office were poor. But if we start and stop the blame game there, then we are ignoring important questions.


----------



## Spondulicks

Did we learn nothing from the beef tribunal, the Dirt debacle, the various child abuse scandals? There is a rotteness in the way we go about governance in this country and the sooner we wake up to it the better. Otherwise the doodah will be all around us again in some other sphere in a very interval.


----------



## Complainer

Was Neary entitled to resign regardless of this issue, or was a special deal done? The light-touch regulation ethos came directly from McCreevy and McDowell who were hands-on in writing the legislation at set up the FR.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> The light-touch regulation ethos came directly from McCreevy and McDowell who were hands-on in writing the legislation at set up the FR.



This is not a correct reflection on Michael McDowell. He chaired the McDowell report on proposals to set up a Financial Regulator and they very strongly recommended that the Financial Regulator should be completely independent of the Central Bank. On many occasions subsequently, he was critical of the decision to leave the FR within the Central Bank.  He was not in government at the time, having lost his seat. 

He may have been in government when the legislation finally went through, but the principal decisions on structure had already been taken.

Brendan


----------



## webtax

Padraigb said:


> It might be that Neary was not the guy who created the culture.


But he did little or nothing to change it.


Padraigb said:


> I suggest that we look back to the creation of the IFSC to find the point where Ireland jumped from a conservative approach to regulation to a free-for-all culture


There is a big difference between the regulation of international banks in the IFSC and the domestic banking system. These quotes from him give an insight into his mindset (emphasis mine):
"I would find it hard to see how you'd be pressing the typical borrower to be committing more than *40 to 45 per cent of their net income* into servicing a mortgage. I think after that, you'd be getting into a red zone," he warns. *"But there are exceptions to everything."
* Reports that banks were offering loans of up to seven times annual salary have given Neary a bit of a canniption. "That's certainly not a multiple for an ordinary person at the top of a bus. *I wouldn't like to hear that that was established as the norm.* It couldn't be the norm." 
So are the banks lending irresponsibly? "We ask, are you there yet? Are you over-exposed? Do you feel that you're going into the margins of the business where the risk is getting to the stage whether it's questionable whether you should be taking it on or not. *We ask those questions of them. It's their call, though.*" 
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/neary-is-wary-about-trimming-hedge-funds-123215.html



Padraigb said:


> Public service pension packages are no secret


I have looking online for details of Neary's 'retirement' package but found nothing. Has it been made public?


Padraigb said:


> Because they are not bonuses: they are the normal retirement packages.


Normal for those in the political golden circle, far from the norm that anyone else losing their job is getting (particularly when the problems we face are not of their own doing)!

Like the bankers in Anglo, the regisnation of Neary was not prompted by the complete mess they have gotten the country into, but by a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. This deflects from his very poor performance as a regulator, which should have led to his sacking months ago.


----------



## Padraigb

I'm not saying that Neary disagreed with the regulation culture: it is obvious that he believed in it. All I am saying is that he did not create it. I think it a fair guess that if he had a strongly-held disagreement with the culture he would not have been appointed.

Personally, I think Neary was wrong in the positions he took but I don't think he was dishonest or corrupt. If we decide that he was the person primarily responsible for the mess, then we might allow others to escape without criticism.

The fact that you cannot find details of the terms of Neary's retirement package suggests to me that there was nothing special or remarkable about it. Assuming he had 40 years's service, he should have got a lump sum of 1.5 years' final salary, and a pension of half his final salary. Whether that is based on his final rank in the CB or his salary as Regulator, I have no idea.


----------



## webtax

Padraigb said:


> Personally, I think Neary was wrong in the positions he took but I don't think he was dishonest or corrupt. If we decide that he was the person primarily responsible for the mess, then we might allow others to escape without criticism.



Agreed, he was neither dishonest or corrupt and shouldn't be held up as a scapegoat. But there should be some level of accountability. Instead Neary is walking off with a golden handshake, a pension of a multiple of the industrial wage and the praise of the financial regulators board ringing in his ears.

As capall said: "I guess people are angry that in Ireland the people who have contributed to the current economic crises senior bankers, politicians, some civil servants will not be the ones who will suffer because of their misjudgements and incompetence."

With the heads of the banks & govt regulators now being removed the natural conclusion is for the same to happen to the government.


----------



## kaplan

The Anglo story will run and run as the full extent of cross financing of certain Irish businesses will become apparent over time. The question concern at this time has to be just how exposed other financial institutions are through their relationships direct or otherwise with Anglo. One fear is as the extent of this becomes known the tarnishing of prudential regulation will prove the early sceptics who labelled Ireland the Wild West. 

The Neary retirement will not solve the inherent problems with the regulator which remains culturally and behaviourally wedded to its central bank roots. Nor will it deal with the inherent conflict between prudential regulation and consumer protection. I may be wrong but this body had only 20 of its senior staff involved in the prudential regulation of domestic banks until its most recent recruitment of additional expertise. It would appear that whilst it was regulator in name its resources were dissipated across a wide brief it could never have hoped to cover with the diligence required even by 2007 standards. It seems that apart from a new CEO and new way of doing things its very structure and regulatory remit will have to be reconsidered. It is no secret that senior bankers have been seriously concerned for a long time that it hadn’t the resources or competence to deliver on its regulatory brief particularly since the introduction of Basle II. I am struck by the self serving rhetoric used by IFSRA in justifying its consumer protection role where its’ shameful performance since 2003 remains to be unearthed. As a regulator it has won the golden shovel for manure shifting after the horse has bolted.


----------



## Spondulicks

The Regulator is a many headed monster and losing one head will not fundamentally alter the creature's nature or behaviour.

It is a bit rich for the bankers to blame the Regulator for their own conduct. The banks' AGMs shoulds be lively affairs this year . Their shareholders who have watched their investment go down the plug hole are guaranteed to provide some heat on the shareholder value management upholders at the top table.

What do the economists have to say about the efficacy of the incentive systems that have been at play here or are they too busy talking about wage cuts for the low paid as a means to increasing competitiveness?


----------



## Bronte

Spondulicks said:


> The banks' AGMs shoulds be lively affairs this year . Their shareholders who have watched their investment go down the plug hole are guaranteed to provide some heat on the shareholder value management upholders at the top table.


 Not if they are all gone from the top table, what convenient timing for them all to resign before the AGM.  Of course having left with their golden handshakes they'll be replaced with better people who will increase shareholder value as opposed to passing their time increasing their salaries/bonus/pensions etc.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

What time is Pat Neary on before the Dail committee?

Where can we watch it live or a recording?


----------



## Mixednuts

Passive Regulation + Shady Bank practices = current financial crisis . full stop


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The full transcript of the Financial Regulator's appearance is here


----------



## Spondulicks

The Board's of the Banks are under scrutiny. Can someone examine the process by which the Minister for Finance appointed the Board of the Regulator? Are their CVs on the public record?

Has anyone heard from the Irish Association of Investment Managers or the Irish Association of Pension Funds recently : they manage our investments in these companies and surely should exercise some influence over standards of behaviour and competence on the Boards largely elected by institutional shareholders.

Of course IBEC have nothing to say about the impact of the banks' behaviour with respect our competitiveness. They are too busy enjoying the hospitality at FAS. How do they keep a straight face when lecturing the public on tightening our belts and they up to their eyes attending receptions and approving spending on junkets.


----------



## bambam

I would love to know where the safe pari fo hands comment comes from?  I find it absolutely astounding that someone would make such comments.  Regulation is not about safe pair of hands etc. it is about regulation - a watch dog - an enforcer - a policer.


----------



## mattmacg

He should be and will be sued for gross negligence. The taxpayer will end up footing the bill. But it will be worth it. People have to be responsible for their judgements and actions. We, the taxpayer pay him to do his job and will pay his pension in years to come. 
A surgeon may operate perfectly for 30 years. But if he is grossly negligent in the care of a patient, he will rightly be brought to court. 
Part of the reason that pay of directors and managers is high is that they are taking on responsibility.


----------



## mathepac

mattmacg said:


> ... Part of the reason that pay of directors and managers is high is that they are taking on responsibility.


Dream on.

The standard defences proffered by the cosy coterie are :

IWNIO (I was never informed officially)
IWSEF (It was someone else's fault)
TWNIDH (There was nothing illegal done here)
TLWM (The letter was mislaid)

and to further cloud areas of responsibility, drive up investigation costs and bore the public to death :

WWNIATOI (What we need is a Tribunal of Inquiry).

Remember the anti-D scandal and the blood transfusion board - how many officials were charged, fined, dismissed or went to jail?


----------



## Padraigb

mathepac said:


> Remember the anti-D scandal and the blood transfusion board - how many officials were charged, fined, dismissed or went to jail?



How many should have? Who? What for?

I don't really want an answer, but I think we need to exercise some judgement and some restraint. I don't think the regulatory regime was good, but I am not sure that Neary was to blame for that (neither do I say he wasn't -- just that we should not be too hasty to judge). He might simply have been reflecting the wishes of the establishment he served -- in effect, taking a direction mapped out for him by the political masters of the system.

We should look hard at the relationship between the big beasts of the business world and the little pussycats of the political world. Perhaps rabbits might be a better simile for our politicians.


----------



## Afuera

Padraigb said:


> He might simply have been reflecting the wishes of the establishment he served -- in effect, taking a direction mapped out for him by the political masters of the system.


What exactly is the point in having a regulator at all then? As the watchdog of the financial system he should have publically stood down if he felt the establishment were hampering his efforts to police it. As he didn't do this until it all came crashing down around him, it either means he went along with what was happening knowingly or else he didn't see any problems and was simply incapable of performing the duty assigned to him. It has been said elsewhere that Neary had nowhere near enough training or qualifications for the role, though not too sure how much truth there is to that. Does anyone know if he has a PhD, Masters or anything that would mark him out as being good potential for the role of regulator?


----------



## Purple

Padraigb said:


> How many should have? Who? What for?


Actually that's a good example. In France the head of the blood bank went to prison and former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius and two former ministers went on trial for involuntary homicide (I can't remember the outcome of the trial). So, what did happen here?
This is typical of how people in positions of power in this country seem to get away with anything and everything.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> ... So, what did happen here? ...


List of related Irish Times articles, the latest last Saturday - [broken link removed]


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> List of related Irish Times articles, the latest last Saturday - [broken link removed]



Exactly.


----------



## Padraigb

Afuera said:


> What exactly is the point in having a regulator at all then? As the watchdog of the financial system he should have publically stood down if he felt the establishment were hampering his efforts to police it. As he didn't do this until it all came crashing down around him, it either means he went along with what was happening knowingly or else he didn't see any problems and was simply incapable of performing the duty assigned to him.



I'm not suggesting that his efforts were being frustrated. What I think might be the case is that a tone was set for the office by "the establishment", and that his approach to regulation was in line with what the establishment expected of him. I think the establishment wanted light touch, and a man was selected who was comfortable with that idea.



> It has been said elsewhere that Neary had nowhere near enough training or qualifications for the role, though not too sure how much truth there is to that. Does anyone know if he has a PhD, Masters or anything that would mark him out as being good potential for the role of regulator?



What are the appropriate qualifications?


----------



## Afuera

Padraigb said:


> I'm not suggesting that his efforts were being frustrated. What I think might be the case is that a tone was set for the office by "the establishment", and that his approach to regulation was in line with what the establishment expected of him. I think the establishment wanted light touch, and a man was selected who was comfortable with that idea.


So you think he may have been chosen purposely because he was a light touch? It's possible that this may be the case, but I think that is really just a nicer way of saying we was inept at his job.



Padraigb said:


> What are the appropriate qualifications?


These days an economist starting off in a banking career would need a minimum qualification at a Masters level, or more ideally have a PhD.

The Irish Times had an article profiling Pat Neary on Jan 10th where it mentioned that he only spent a year in UCD studying Latin and Greek before joining the Central Bank.


----------



## Padraigb

Afuera said:


> So you think he may have been chosen purposely because he was a light touch? It's possible that this may be the case, but I think that is really just a nicer way of saying we was inept at his job.



Yes, I do suspect that he might have been chosen because he believed in light-touch regulation. But I don't think that is just a nice way of saying that he was inept: I think that the job that you (and I) think he should have been given to do was not the job he was actually asked to undertake.



> These days an economist starting off in a banking career would need a minimum qualification at a Masters level, or more ideally have a PhD.
> 
> The Irish Times had an article profiling Pat Neary on Jan 10th where it mentioned that he only spent a year in UCD studying Latin and Greek before joining the Central Bank.



I noticed that, and was a bit surprised. But you seem to presume that the regulator should be an economist. I'm not sure that is necessary, because the regulator does not, as I understand it, have any function in the general guidance or direction of banking. That's why I raised the question about qualifications. I'm not sure what the answer should be.


----------



## Afuera

Padraigb said:


> Yes, I do suspect that he might have been chosen because he believed in light-touch regulation. But I don't think that is just a nice way of saying that he was inept: I think that the job that you (and I) think he should have been given to do was not the job he was actually asked to undertake.


Sorry I don't buy that.

The Financial Regulator's website quite clearly explains the role that was expected of him.


> The Financial Regulator contributes to the work of the Central Bank in discharging its responsibility in relation to the maintenance of overall financial stability.



Given his training and experience I think it is more likely that he was simply unable  for the position.


----------



## Padraigb

Afuera said:


> The Financial Regulator's website quite clearly explains the role that was expected of him.



The site says more than that (I am sure that you have seen the rest, but I quote for the convenience of other readers):


> *Promoting a Sound Financial System*
> 
> A fundamental protection for consumers is the solvency and safety of financial institutions. The Financial Regulator has a key responsibility in this area by giving confidence to consumers that their deposits and investments are safe and that their claims can be met. In turn, this contributes to a stable financial system and to the reputation and good standing of the Irish financial sector.
> The financial services industry is increasingly global in scale and influence. This poses challenges to both the industry and its regulator. Monitoring global financial and economic developments is an important element of our job.
> The focus of work in this area will be on:
> 
> 
> The refinement of a regulatory approach based on risk profile and impact of default;
> Risk assessment, measurement and control techniques in all sectors of the industry;
> Data collection associated with developing better early warning indicators of prudential stress;
> A programme of on-site inspections.


On surface reading, it does seem that the Regulator has considerable responsibilities and associated powers. But I think that if you read it in certain ways, you can argue that there is considerable wriggle room, and I think all that wriggle room was exploited.

I think we can agree that Neary did not do the job that you and I and many others think he should have done. We don't know if he had the capacity to do it; we simply know that he didn't do it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I think you are missing the point here completely. 

The academic qualifications of someone at a very senior level are of little relevance.

Pat Neary distinguished himself as the Prudential Director of the Financial Regulator before he was appointed. Had I been on the interview panel, I would certainly have chosen him ahead of a 27 year old recent PhD graduate. 

Brendan


----------



## Afuera

Brendan said:


> The academic qualifications of someone at a very senior level are of little relevance.


In general I would agree with you on this Brendan. However if someone's remit is to instill confidence in the financial system then I really feel they need to be able to clearly show to outsiders that they are the best person for the job. Academic qualifications are a good way to do this.



Brendan said:


> Pat Neary distinguished himself as the Prudential Director of the Financial Regulator before he was appointed. Had I been on the interview panel, I would certainly have chosen him ahead of a 27 year old recent PhD graduate.


If Morgan Kelly's allegations in yesterdays Irish Times are true, how can you explain his decision to include Anglo in the government guarantee against the advice of his staff? With the benefit of hindsight, this was clearly the wrong move to do.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Afuera said:


> If Morgan Kelly's allegations in yesterdays Irish Times are true, how can you explain his decision to include Anglo in the government guarantee against the advice of his staff? With the benefit of hindsight, this was clearly the wrong move to do.



Sorry, I pay no attention whatsoever to Morgan Kelly who suggested burning the €1.5 billion instead of putting it into Anglo. 

Anyway, the main point I was making was about Pat Neary's qualifications for the job. He was eminently qualified and suggesting that he have a PhD is bizarre.  His predecessor had one, but so what? How many regulatory bodies are headed by PhDs?


----------



## Purple

Has anyone any opinions on Maurice Keane, the new Non executive director of Anglo?
I know he was the CEO of BoI but he was also involved in DCC (as well as a number of political appointments such as the National Pension Reserve Fund and the Garda Management advisory group).

Is he too much of an insider to make a difference?


----------



## Conan

I would much prefer an honest and experienced Director appointed (dont know MK) than an honest inexperienced Director. There are lots of people with PhDs I would not have running a raffle not to mind a Bank. We all know the cliche about "unqualified success".
If I am having open heart surgery I would prefer an experienced surgeon rather than one just out of medical school with all the theory . Academic qualifications on their own just prove that you have a good memory and are good at exams. Lots of academics could not convince me today is Wed.


----------



## setanta1

The announcement at the time that Pat Neary was appointed was as follows (underlining added):
_"The Financial Regulator today announced that Patrick Neary has been appointed to the post of Chief Executive. The appointment was announced today (Friday, 16 December 2005) by the Chairman of the Financial Regulator, Brian Patterson. Patrick Neary is currently the Prudential Director of the Financial Regulator. He will take up the position of Chief Executive on 1 February 2006 when Liam O’Reilly retires from the post._
_“We are delighted to announce the appointment of Patrick Neary to this crucial post. He has extensive experience across the full range of the financial regulatory spectrum. As a member of our top management team he has played a central role in the shape and direction the Financial Regulator has taken since its establishment in 2003”, said Brian Patterson. “Pat is ideally suited to take the Financial Regulator through the next phase of its development.”_
_He added: “We had a very impressive field of top class candidates for this post from both Ireland and abroad and Pat was the unanimous choice of the selection panel.” The selection panel comprised non-executive members of the Authority and international regulatory expert, Kaarlo Jännäri, Director General of the Finnish Financial Supervision Authority._
_Patrick Neary was appointed to the position of Prudential Director of the Financial Regulator in 2003. His responsibilities included the protection of consumers’ deposits, funds and policies. He was previously Head of Securities and Exchanges Supervision and Deputy Head of Banking Supervision in the Central Bank, where he began his career in 1971. He is a fellow of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants (FCCA)."_
[broken link removed]


----------



## Askar

I recall government review of UK's FSA in light of their financial meltdown last year concluded that the office did not have key competencies - so was unable to properly audit banks. Of course, 'principles based' or 'light handed' regulation does not lend itself to needing these basic competencies where banks are self certifying themselves as compliant.  However, it does not appear that the cost of running IFSRA is cheap, despite the light handed regulatory approach. Yet another example of paying over the odds for incompetence.


----------



## Robin Banks

Brendan said:


> I think you are missing the point here completely.
> 
> The academic qualifications of someone at a very senior level are of little relevance.
> 
> Pat Neary distinguished himself as the Prudential Director of the Financial Regulator before he was appointed. Had I been on the interview panel, I would certainly have chosen him ahead of a 27 year old recent PhD graduate.
> 
> Brendan


 
Yeah, god forbid we'd have put some inexperienced 27 year old in charge. Could have ended up in a right old mess. 

Lucky we had someone "distinguished" and "eminently qualified" at the helm.


----------



## Purple

Askar said:


> I recall government review of UK's FSA in light of their financial meltdown last year concluded that the office did not have key competencies - so was unable to properly audit banks. Of course, 'principles based' or 'light handed' regulation does not lend itself to needing these basic competencies where banks are self certifying themselves as compliant.  However, it does not appear that the cost of running IFSRA is cheap, despite the light handed regulatory approach. Yet another example of paying over the odds for incompetence.


I agree on the price issue (though the Banks pay about half the cost of the IFSRA, no conflict there!), but I would suggest that light handed regulation requires that the regulator is highly competent. Those banging on about light V heavy regulation are missing the point that either system will work if constructed and administered properly and backed up by clear and draconian laws that pummell those that break them. Look at the Enron top dogs or the guys who went to prison because of the Savings& Loans scandal in the USA in the 80's. Who'll give me odds that no one will see prison for destroying the Irish banking system? Our laws in this area are so badly constructed that there’s a good chance that no one broke the law.


----------



## Padraigb

Purple said:


> ...Our laws in this area are so *badly* constructed that there’s a good chance that no one broke the law.



Will you accept a quibble? I think you might delete "badly". Our legislators seem to have a mindset such that certain types of behaviour are treated as possibly undesirable, but not really deserving of criminal sanction.


----------



## kaplan

Brendan for PHD's try Ben Bernanke and Mervyn King. The issue is regulate what? What form of bank do we want to see. Narrow banking, traditional banking or slightly deleveraged ? Our prolonged recession, which will last about 6-10 years will define the type of bank we need. 

Old style traditional banking carrying a high level of capital between 10-15% with a match deposit/loans book. Solving for risk finance for business will take another form of finance which will not be provided by the banks. 

Bring in a regulation and some bankers will figure a way around it - and regulators will race to catch up ...this the nature of regulation. 

The answer is it seems first define the banking model,reset the boundaries of permissable risk taking and reregulate. Do this within a nationalised structure and once the banks fit the new model, are healthy and the economy improves refloat them. 

Of course stucturing, taking them private into state ownership raises issues around funding and preventing political interference - a good indepenent oversight commission with some international heavy weights (with PHD's) anwerable to the Dail and not just a civil servant might work. Oh and find a way to take to provide small sherholders with an upside - swap ord shares for some form of redeemable perp paying a small rate - redeemable for some ord shares on floatation if that happens - this should take care of the political (voters) risk in nationalising the bigger boys

I'm a fan of Morgan Kelly and others who reflect on what has happened everywhere else in a banking crisis led recession in the last 50 years- the experience is compelling for any who bothers to look. Finland, Sweden, Japan, UK to name but four of seventy individual crisis. The average recession lasted 6 years ! and in almost all cases the banking systems were nationalised or as good as. We are only approaching the end of the beginning


----------



## webtax

Finally saw details of Neary's retirement package.... no comment necessary:

"[broken link removed], the regulator who failed to spot what [broken link removed] was up to at Anglo-Irish bank, was not sacked but allowed to take early retirement with a €390,000 golden handshake of taxpayers' money (that is, before he tucks into his pension of €130,000 a year)."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...s-time-it-might-well-be-terminal-1616759.html


----------



## DonDub

Padraigb said:


> Will you accept a quibble? I think you might delete "badly". Our legislators seem to have a mindset such that certain types of behaviour are treated as possibly undesirable, but not really deserving of criminal sanction.


 
Lets be honest, there are a number of things Ireland just doesn't do e.g.

1)Sunshine
2)Snow
3)Healthy living
4)Clean streets
4)Good governance
6)Proper planning
7)*Competent Regulation in any sphere*

.......to name but a few...............


----------



## Brendan Burgess

webtax said:


> Finally saw details of Neary's retirement package.... no comment necessary:
> 
> "[broken link removed], the regulator who failed to spot what [broken link removed] was up to at Anglo-Irish bank, was not sacked but allowed to take early retirement with a €390,000 golden handshake of taxpayers' money (that is, before he tucks into his pension of €130,000 a year)."
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...s-time-it-might-well-be-terminal-1616759.html



Why are you posting this if there is no comment necessary.

A public servant retires and gets the standard package. Of course, no comment is necessary, unless you you want to issue a typical tabloid comment on it? 

Brendan


----------



## Sunny

Brendan said:


> Why are you posting this if there is no comment necessary.
> 
> A public servant retires and gets the standard package. Of course, no comment is necessary, unless you you want to issue a typical tabloid comment on it?
> 
> Brendan


 
To be fair Brendan, whats a typical tabloid comment? I am getting sick of senior executives in both the private and public sector being responsible for major cock ups on their watch and then walking off into the sunset with pay offs and pensions that are large enough to ensure they never have to work again while the people left behind get to clear up the mess. I work in investment banking. I understand large bonuses and pay and lack of responsibility. I see it every day. I am also as far from being a trade Union supporter as you can get but even I have had enough of this type of crap. 

Neary shouldn't have been allowed to resign. He should have been sacked. And so should all the bank CEO's who are going to resign in the next 12 months. Of course they all have clauses in their contracts that give them pay offs if they are sacked as well so I guess whats the point.


----------



## Conan

Whilst not being overly impressed with actions of the FR, none-the-less Mr. Neary -whether he retired or was fired- is still entitled to his normal Pension benefits after 40 years as a Civil Servant, i.e. a lump sum of 150% of Salary + a pension of 50% of Salary. This is standard Civil Service pension. Whether the Civil Service Pension package is excessive (particularly for higher paid Civil Servants) is a different argument. 
The tabloid headlines have certainly been misleading in suggesting that Mr. Neary got some form of "golden handshake". That is clearly not the case.

Fortunately we have not yet introduced hanging for incompetence/oversight (there but for the grace of God etc). But maybe I might make an exception for those guilty of deliberate concealment and misleading of shareholders.....you know who.


----------



## Padraigb

Sunny said:


> Neary shouldn't have been allowed to resign. He should have been sacked. And so should all the bank CEO's who are going to resign in the next 12 months. Of course they all have clauses in their contracts that give them pay offs if they are sacked as well so I guess whats the point.



I don't know if what Neary did or, more particularly, didn't do constitutes a sackable offence. I say that on the basis that he might not have set the tone and style of regulation. But let us suppose he was guilty of grievous error and merited dismissal.

As Brendan pointed out, his package was not created for him; it was the standard package that exists for all public servants. The amounts involved are high simply because he retired at a very high salary level (if the amounts quoted are correct, his salary was €260,000). If you fire somebody, can you confiscate his pension fund?


----------



## Sunny

Padraigb said:


> I don't know if what Neary did or, more particularly, didn't do constitutes a sackable offence. I say that on the basis that he might not have set the tone and style of regulation. But let us suppose he was guilty of grievous error and merited dismissal.
> 
> As Brendan pointed out, his package was not created for him; it was the standard package that exists for all public servants. The amounts involved are high simply because he retired at a very high salary level (if the amounts quoted are correct, his salary was €260,000). If you fire somebody, can you confiscate his pension fund?


 
Amazingly you can. Although it is almost impossible for a civil servant to lose their pension rights, Civil Servants can lose their pension entitlements if their actions lead to a loss of confidence in the civil service. Presume loss of confidence in the regulator is the same as loss of confidence in the civil service.

However, I am not suggesting that he should lose his pension. I am asking why is he allowed to take early retirement as is Brian Goggin from BOI like nothing has happened. If somebody is earning €260,000, the least people should expect that if there is failure on his watch, that they accept repsonsibility. Retirement is not taking responsibility. The least that should happen is that the lump sum should not have been paid.

Can anyone name one senior civil servant, politican, senior executive who has ever been forced to resign or sacked and NOT got a massive pay off to set them up for life? Remember Snoden in BOI. The AIB guys after the Rusnack affair. Fitzpatrick in Anglo. The recent case in Aer Lingus. Charles Haughey. Ray Burke. FAS executives. 

People talk about the concept of moral hazzard when it comes to bailing out banks. Surely the same applys to executive remuneration at the moment in both the public and private sector. What incentive is there for acting properly if you can never be held responsible?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sunny said:


> However, I am not suggesting that he should lose his pension. I am asking why is he allowed to take early retirement as is Brian Goggin from BOI like nothing has happened. If somebody is earning €260,000, the least people should expect that if there is failure on his watch, that they accept repsonsibility. Retirement is not taking responsibility. The least that should happen is that the lump sum should not have been paid.


Early retirement!? Over 40 years service. Godammit he looks like a pensioner. This was his entitlement not like some golden parachutes which are more akin to blackmail ransoms. You really think he should have handed back his TFLS as some sort of atonement. If this guy had played rough and hung in there the government would have been forced to dismiss him with almost certainly an additional compensation *on top* of his retirement package.


----------



## webtax

Brendan said:


> Why are you posting this if there is no comment necessary.
> A public servant retires and gets the standard package. Of course, no comment is necessary, unless you you want to issue a typical tabloid comment on it?
> Brendan



No comment is necessary as people will draw their own conclusions on whether Pat Neary is entitled to such reward for his disastrous reign when thousands are losing their jobs and facing ruin.

Unsurprisingly, you are quick to jump to Neary defence again without referring to the substantive issue of the fairness of his retirement package.


----------



## Towger

Still, 130k a year is not as good as these fellows 'state' pensions: 



> The bank’s former boss, Sean FitzPatrick, enjoys a pension worth €533,000 per annum. An extra €2m was also needed to boost the pension pot of new Anglo boss David Drumm to bring his retirement benefit to €210,000 a year.


 
From : *Irish Agenda: Don’t panic, staff: your bosses have great pension plans*


----------



## Sunny

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Early retirement!? Over 40 years service. Godammit he looks like a pensioner. This was his entitlement not like some golden parachutes which are more akin to blackmail ransoms. You really think he should have handed back his TFLS as some sort of atonement. If this guy had played rough and hung in there the government would have been forced to dismiss him with almost certainly an additional compensation *on top* of his retirement package.


 
Do I think he should be allowed to walk off into the sunset on full benefits? No I don't. I don't doubt he has been a loyal civil servant for 40 years and as I said already, he should be allowed to keep his six figure annual pension as it is too late to change contracts now. My point is that these guys have no problem accepting the top jobs with top salaries but face no consequences for not doing the job properly. Last senior civil servant, politican, senior executive who left the job without massive pay off or pension for messing up or even breaking the law?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

C'mon, _Sunny_. When is the last time that a person in the private sector has had his pension entitlements withdrawn because it is decided that after all he didn't deserve it. The TLFS is as much a contractual entitlement as the pension. Okay, so you want PN to suffer, think of all the board appointments he's goin' to miss as well as the very public witch hunt, which IMHO is grossly misplaced. As another poster has remarked PN's deal pales into insignificance compared to the golden parachutes of some of the Masters of the Universe who have fallen from grace.


----------



## Sunny

Duke of Marmalade said:


> C'mon, _Sunny_. When is the last time that a person in the private sector has had his pension entitlements withdrawn because it is decided that after all he didn't deserve it. The TLFS is as much a contractual entitlement as the pension. Okay, so you want PN to suffer, think of all the board appointments he's goin' to miss as well as the very public witch hunt, which IMHO is grossly misplaced. As another poster has remarked PN's deal pales into insignificance compared to the golden parachutes of some of the Masters of the Universe who have fallen from grace.


 
And if you read my posts you will see this wasn't just about Partick Neary. I was also talking about the private sector. Its the same in both the private and public sector but that doesn't make it right. I am not suggesting that people lose their pension entitlements after 40 years service. I am asking where is the incentive for senior executives in both sectors to do their jobs properly and take the responsibilty that comes with high salaries seriously when they know that no matter what happens, they can walk away and never have to worry about money again.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Ok, that's a different point, sorry if I misinterpreted you.  A similar point is under active discussion regarding private sector bonuses.  Pension is deferred salary, and just because it is deferred it should not become an easy touch for retrospective reductions in remuneration.


----------



## setanta1

An insightful article on the challenges faced by financial regulators:
http://www.economist.com/specialrep...ry_id=12957717&CFID=40502017&CFTOKEN=91447076


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> To be fair Brendan, whats a typical tabloid comment? I am getting sick of senior executives in both the private and public sector being responsible for major cock ups on their watch and then walking off into the sunset with pay offs and pensions that are large enough to ensure they never have to work again while the people left behind get to clear up the mess. I work in investment banking. I understand large bonuses and pay and lack of responsibility. I see it every day. I am also as far from being a trade Union supporter as you can get but even I have had enough of this type of crap.
> 
> Neary shouldn't have been allowed to resign. He should have been sacked. And so should all the bank CEO's who are going to resign in the next 12 months. Of course they all have clauses in their contracts that give them pay offs if they are sacked as well so I guess whats the point.



To answer your question as you asked it. Most of the above is a typical tabloid comment.


----------



## Simeon

So, saying it as it is, is only in the realm of red masts? A little bit of plain speaking is needed. Most people get fed up with gobbledegook and pay offs. OK, if a guy fulfills his terms of employment .......... he deserves what was on offer. However, if the guy indulges in illegal actions (to accrue a greater monitory reward) his wages and pension from the time this is flagged should be frozen, checked out and if proved, confiscated.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Simeon said:


> OK, if a guy fulfills his terms of employment .......... he deserves what was on offer. However, if the guy indulges in illegal actions (to accrue a greater monitory reward) his wages and pension from the time this is flagged should be frozen, checked out and if proved, confiscated.



I don't know if that is the law or not, but it seems reasonable. 

If someone deliberately defrauded his employer, the employer should be able to recover the lost money through unpaid salary, not paying bonuses etc.

If an employee retires or is fired because he is not particularly good or if an employee is made redundant, he should get his salary and pension as per his contract.


----------



## webtax

Brendan said:


> To answer your question as you asked it. Most of the above is a typical tabloid comment.



Brendan,

It is disrespectful to refer to someone else's view as a typical tabloid comment just because it differs from your own. Sunny's views reflect those of the vast majority of the people in the country, and barely touch on the anger felt by many.

Neary was paid a grossly inflated salary to _regulate_ financial services in Ireland. He singularly failed to do so, and just because other were complicit in this does not excuse him. He didn't fulfil his side of the contract (but was happy to take the pay & pension package for so doing), so why should the taxpayer fulfil his?


----------



## Padraigb

webtax said:


> Sunny's views reflect those of the vast majority of the people in the country, and barely touch on the anger felt by many.



I don't think that is true. I suspect that a large majority of the people of Ireland don't know who Patrick Neary is, or what exactly his job was.


----------



## webtax

Padraigb said:


> or what exactly his job was.



I don't think he knew himself


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Webtax

It's not meant to be disrespectful. Sunny posted a link and said no comment was necessary. So I challenged that.



> Sunny's views reflect those of the vast majority of the people in the country, and barely touch on the anger felt by many.



But in essence, isn't that what a tabloid comment is?  They don't aim for any critical or fair analysis of the situation.  They take the temperature of the majority and just reflect that in their headlines and comments. 

There are many views here which I disagree with and both sides are teased out and analysed. 

I have written a balanced and comprehensive review of Pat Neary's performance. I have no objection to someone else doing a well researched and balanced piece and reaching a different conclusion. 

But just shouting "Neary must go"  based on one or two excerpts from a very long career is the stuff of tabloids. 

Brendan


----------



## webtax

Hi Brendan,

It was me who said no comment was necessary, precisely because I didn't want to turn the thread into a rant against him. I was answering my query from an earlier part of the thread where I asked what it was as I think it is relevant. I appreciate that he may have achieved some good in his career and should not be judged on the Anglo affair, which I consider an irrelevant side issue. However, the criticism of him on this issue has been made in the Oireachtas, broadsheets and by many TD's & Senators so it does not qualify as tabloid material.

My issue with his retirement package is the damage he has caused to the economy by giving free reign to the bankers to lure tens of thousands of young people into crippling debt and negative equity. I don't believe he was a fool or incompetent, but merely happy not to rock the boat and continue to cash his own cheque.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to write up a review of his performance, but I think his own words suffice:
"I would find it hard to see how you'd be pressing the typical borrower to be committing more than *40 to 45 per cent of their net income* into servicing a mortgage. I think after that, you'd be getting into a red zone," he warns. *"But there are exceptions to everything."
* Reports that banks were offering loans of up to seven times annual salary have given Neary a bit of a canniption. "That's certainly not a multiple for an ordinary person at the top of a bus. *I wouldn't like to hear that that was established as the norm.* It couldn't be the norm." 
So are the banks lending irresponsibly? "We ask, are you there yet? Are you over-exposed? Do you feel that you're going into the margins of the business where the risk is getting to the stage whether it's questionable whether you should be taking it on or not. *We ask those questions of them. It's their call, though.*" 
http://www.independent.ie/business/i...ds-123215.html


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> However, the criticism of him on this issue has been made in the Oireachtas, broadsheets and by many TD's & Senators so it does not qualify as tabloid material.



Pat Neary and two of his colleagues made a presentation to the Oireachtas committee and they were all very happy with the great work done by the Financial Regulator.

I contacted the committee as I felt that they had not fully understood the situation and I was invited to give evidence which I did, which gave a far harsher, more balanced view of the Regulator than they were used to getting. 

The pendulum has now swung the other way, where there is a blood thirsty group looking for a sacrificial victim. That is just as unfair as the uncritical assessment of the Regulator. 

The Oireachtas and the broadsheets often take a tabloid approach. That is what is being taken here. It's wrong. It's unfair. And the unfairness needs to be highlighted. 

Brendan


----------



## Spondulicks

There is always the mob on these issues. 

There are bigger fish to fry than Pat Neary, especially in the institutions themselves which acted fast and loose with other people's money. We need to shine some light into the corners covered by secrecy to see how that changes peoples behaviour. 

A good start would be to examine the performance of all executives earning more than €500k in the financial institutions and see how have they been performing relative to their responsibilities. Any underperformance should warrant either a transfer to special projects, a renegotiation of their salary or redundancy. 

Meanwhile it seems the Dept of Finance has appointed 20 people to represent industry in a consultative role ( all executives in their own walks of life) with respect to the financial regulator , while around 10/11 individuals, dispersed around the country and with many other responsibilities, are the voice of consumer interests. This is hardly a good start to a new broom on regulation.


----------



## Sunny

Brendan said:


> Pat Neary and two of his colleagues made a presentation to the Oireachtas committee and they were all very happy with the great work done by the Financial Regulator.
> 
> I contacted the committee as I felt that they had not fully understood the situation and I was invited to give evidence which I did, which gave a far harsher, more balanced view of the Regulator than they were used to getting.
> 
> The pendulum has now swung the other way, where there is a blood thirsty group looking for a sacrificial victim. That is just as unfair as the uncritical assessment of the Regulator.
> 
> The Oireachtas and the broadsheets often take a tabloid approach. That is what is being taken here. It's wrong. It's unfair. And the unfairness needs to be highlighted.
> 
> Brendan


 
Whats unfair Brendan? I am not interested in sacrificial lambs and I resent you implying that my point is just some sort of cheap tabloid shot at someone. I am merely pointing out that I am tired of people in positions of power in both the private and public sector getting high salaries and pension entitlements that they can't lose and taking no repsonsibility for what happens on their watch. If thats tabloid, then so be it. If your definition of taking responsiblility is taking early retirement on a pension of €130,000 a year then so be it. 

And Brendan, I talk to foreign investors every day. I also have had plenty of dealings with the regulator. I know what opinion people have of them and it was never great. Now they have lost all respect. I know of business that has been pulled from this country because of what happened with Sean Fitzpatrick and the actions of the regulator.

I know you criticised the regulators actions with regard to consumer protection. You balanced this with priase by saying to the same joint committee in June 2008 

_"The Financial Regulator supervises the solvency and liquidity of Irish financial institutions very well. Irish banks are conservative in their lending and none has been exposed directly to the subprime lending problems although all are suffering from the subsequent credit crunch. The Financial Regulator seems to have been well ahead of the game on liquidity reporting."_

_"The Financial Regulator has won international recognition for its appropriate regulatory regime for the funds industry. It does not overregulate or underregulate; it gets it about right"_

Do you still feel the same?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Sunny_, as I understand your point you want a fundamental change in society's economic paradigm. The current position is that what you have earned you have earned and what you have sold you have sold. Only in the event of proven fraud can these transactions be unwound. PN had earned his FULL retirement package over 40 years, there was nothing ex gratia in his award and it was not early retirement. You protest your innocence of the witchhunt against PN and yet you demand the illegal confiscation of his TFLS to be the first salvo in the launch of your new economic paradigm.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> _"The Financial Regulator supervises the solvency and liquidity of Irish financial institutions very well. Irish banks are conservative in their lending and none has been exposed directly to the subprime lending problems although all are suffering from the subsequent credit crunch. The Financial Regulator seems to have been well ahead of the game on liquidity reporting."_
> 
> _"The Financial Regulator has won international recognition for its appropriate regulatory regime for the funds industry. It does not overregulate or underregulate; it gets it about right"_
> 
> Do you still feel the same?



I would word it differently. The main point I was making was that Irish banks had not bought syndicated sub-prime loans. No one on the Oireachtas committee challenged the assessment of lending as "conservative". Now everyone is saying that the dogs in the street knew that the banks had lent too much to property. In retrospect, this is fine. But the politicians were not saying it. 

The regulation of the funds industry is done very well. I have seen nothing to challenge that.  I would add that The Credit Union Regulator's attempts to regulate unwilling credit unions has been very appropriate but when a Credit Union goes to the wall, the FR will again get blamed for being too lax with them.

Sunny, I am sorry that you are taking offence. But I would describe the harrassment of Pat Neary, as a tabloid response. Not just your comments, but the comments by the majority. If someone looks at all the facts of his 37 years' service - lists out his achievements and his failures - and then concludes that he should resign, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with a TD or a journalist or a contributor on Askaboutmoney looking to fire someone based on one particular episode. 



Brendan


----------



## Sunny

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Sunny_, as I understand your point you want a fundamental change in society's economic paradigm. The current position is that what you have earned you have earned and what you have sold you have sold. Only in the event of proven fraud can these transactions be unwound. PN had earned his FULL retirement package over 40 years, there was nothing ex gratia in his award and it was not early retirement. You protest your innocence of the witchhunt and yet you demand that PN's TFLS to be the first salvo in the launch of your new economic paradigm.


 
I do want a fundamental change. I have already said I don't like Neary walking off into the sunset with full entitlements but I have already stated that I accept that it is too late in his case to change things and so he is entitled to what he got. I didn't demand that he lose his TFLS. I said I would like him to to lose it however unrealistic that is. Hardly going to kill him as he will continue to earn over €130,000 a year. Just as I think it is wrong that Sean Fitzpatrick can walk off with a pension of over €500,000 a year despite having a brilliant career as a businessman. Ray Burke is still getting a six figure pension from the taxpayer.

I am not looking for a new economic paradigm. I think senior executives and senior civil servants and politicians should be very well paid. I just want them to accept responsibility some accountability. Look at Patrick Neary. He was a career civil servant. He knew going into the job of Regulator that if anything happened (like it has), he faced no penalty whatsoever. And yet we pay him €260,000 a year.


----------



## Bronte

Is there any situation where a civil servant can commit the gravest of offences and can be docked in pay even if they have given a lifetime of service.  In other words is there anything so bad that a person can do that they will have financial penalties or any other type of punishment?


----------



## Padraigb

Brendan said:


> ...The main point I was making was that Irish banks had not bought syndicated sub-prime loans...



I don't know if that point on its own tells us anything about the quality of the regulatory regime or the quality of Irish banks' decision-making. It looks to me as if Irish banks stayed out of that market because they were poring funds into a more convenient pit. I suspect that if we had not had a property bubble then the banks might have bought securitised sub-prime products.


----------



## Sunny

Bronte said:


> Is there any situation where a civil servant can commit the gravest of offences and can be docked in pay even if they have given a lifetime of service. In other words is there anything so bad that a person can do that they will have financial penalties or any other type of punishment?


 
1) With effect from 1 January 1994, total forfeiture of superannuation benefits would apply only in cases where civil servants were dismissed, or resigned to pre-empt dismissal, on foot of:

(a) major fraud against the Exchequer;

(b) offences which were gravely injurious to the State; or

(c) other offences liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the Civil Service.

Have never heard it happen which is a credit to the majority of people involved in the civil service. I also don't know if in reality it ever would happen.


----------



## Sunny

Brendan said:


> I would word it differently. The main point I was making was that Irish banks had not bought syndicated sub-prime loans. No one on the Oireachtas committee challenged the assessment of lending as "conservative". Now everyone is saying that the dogs in the street knew that the banks had lent too much to property. In retrospect, this is fine. But the politicians were not saying it.
> 
> The regulation of the funds industry is done very well. I have seen nothing to challenge that. I would add that The Credit Union Regulator's attempts to regulate unwilling credit unions has been very appropriate but when a Credit Union goes to the wall, the FR will again get blamed for being too lax with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Brendan


 
Irish banks weren't big into securitised investment products because they didn't need to invest excess liquidity. They just poured it into the property market. As mentioned above, it was more luck than anything.

Brendan, it wasn't the politicians job to challenge the assessment that lending was conservative. It was up to the regulator. Remember the reaction when 100% mortgages were introduced. Concerns were raised and First Active and the Regulator replied that the lending would only be targeted at suitable borrowers. Within weeks, every bank was offering the product, there was advertisements on buses and leaflets being given out every where you looked.


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> 1) With effect from 1 January 1994, total forfeiture of superannuation benefits would apply only in cases where civil servants were dismissed, or resigned to pre-empt dismissal, on foot of:
> 
> 
> (b) offences which were gravely injurious to the State;
> 
> (.


  Would that include if the regulator by not doing his job properly resulted in our banking system collapsing or nearly collapsing do you think?  Would the near collapse of the banking system be 'gravely injurious to the State.'  It would be hard to think of anything more serious.


----------



## Sunny

Bronte said:


> Would that include if the regulator by not doing his job properly resulted in our banking system collapsing or nearly collapsing do you think? Would the near collapse of the banking system be 'gravely injurious to the State.' It would be hard to think of anything more serious.


 
I don't think it even crossed peoples mind. I don't think anyone deserves to lose all their pension entitlements for one mistake throughout a 40 year career but I am not sure why he should be allowed to use the salary that he was paid for the job that he failed to do properly as the base for calculating the pension entitlement. Could his salary that he was on before becoming regulator not be used instead and lose the benefits for the years he was regulator.

Maybe I am completely wrong about all this and we should continue to see people at the top of our public and private sectors accept massive salaries and pensions without facing any consequences for something that happens on their watch. People talk about reckless banks etc but surely having executives who are paid massive sums no matter what happens is just asking for trouble. 

Actually I think I will grow a beard!


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> 1) With effect from 1 January 1994, total forfeiture of superannuation benefits would apply only in cases where civil servants were dismissed, or resigned to pre-empt dismissal, on foot of:
> 
> (a) major fraud against the Exchequer;
> 
> (b) offences which were gravely injurious to the State; or
> 
> (c) other offences liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the Civil Service.
> 
> Have never heard it happen which is a credit to the majority of people involved in the civil service. I also don't know if in reality it ever would happen.


Wasn't there a case recently of a formal postal worker being refused his An Post pension because he had been convicted of robbing a post office?


----------



## Superman

Complainer said:


> Wasn't there a case recently of a formal postal worker being refused his An Post pension because he had been convicted of robbing a post office?


No I'm fairly certain he was given his pension - which is why the story hit the news.


----------



## Complainer

Superman said:


> No I'm fairly certain he was given his pension - which is why the story hit the news.


Nope - he was refused

[broken link removed]


----------



## Bronte

Well what the postman did was very very serious and I suppose the following is less serious and certainly not 'gravely injurious to the State' nor 'likely to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the Civil Service' really a trival few oversights when you think about it.................

1 Allowed banks to give loans to people at many multiples of their salary which were unsustainable and without a real stress test
2. Allowed banks to give 30 and 40 year mortgages
3. AAM says there was overcharging of certain customers but the regulator is not going to force the banks to pay it back
4. Allowing bankers to give developers the money to purchase development at vastly overinflated prices which resulted in number 5
5. Allowed banks and developers to be so cosy that it was in the interest of both to sell property at a premium in order for the developer to repay the cost of number 4 plus making substantial profits for both bank and developer to the detriment of the thousands of people in negative equity
6. Not knowing that certain banks were giving loans to directors that were hidden
7. Allowing directors of banks to borrow from their own bank to invest (gamble) on the banks own shares 
8. Not noticing when a certain bank colluded with 'investors' to stop the bank from going under when one individual said he was selling his massive shareholdinging/pulling out
9. Allowing the situation to develop wherein one bank had to be nationalised and two others on the brink
10 Presiding over a banking system wherein the government/taxpayer has to guarantee all deposits of 100K in order to prevent a run on a bank
11. Lettign the situation develop so seriously that recapitalistion of the banks is being funded by the raiding of the national pension fund
12. Currently banks being allowed to give builders/developers loans with no interest while punishing home mortgage defaulters by repossessing their homes and probably chasing them for the interest, interest on interest, fees, costs and charges till death us do part etc

And the arrogance of the bankers goes on unabated and unchecked, they now want the exposure they have in relation to property purchased (point 4) to be taken over by the taxpayer. I don't rembember the banks passing on their profits to the taxpayer. 

Yeah all in all poor Pat Neary is a victim and we should feel sorry for him.  

Have I forgotton anything, I'm so lost with it all..........  I don't know why there isn't a revolution...........


----------



## Joe Hill

Bronte
Your rant is unfair to Pat Neary, and perhaps more damming, shows that you really have very little idea aout the roe and powers of the regulator. An hour or so on the regulator's website can be very rewarding! Taking your points one-by-one:

*1 Allowed banks to give loans to people at many multiples of their salary which were unsustainable and without a real stress test*
I know of no power that would enable the regulator to set conditions upon which banks may extend credit. Like all public bodies the regulator can only perform those actions and functions that are permitted by legislation. If you can find the relevant power please share it with AAM.

*2. Allowed banks to give 30 and 40 year mortgages*
See answer to 1 above.

*3. AAM says there was overcharging of certain customers but the regulator is not going to force the banks to pay it back*
The issues with regard to overcharging by banks occurred prior to 2005 (i.e. the date on which the regulator received its powers). Nevertheless the regulator recovered €167 million for consumers. All of this information is on their website for anyone who is interested. 

*4. Allowing bankers to give developers the money to purchase development at vastly overinflated prices which resulted in number 5*
See answer to 1 above.

*5. Allowed banks and developers to be so cosy that it was in the interest of both to sell property at a premium in order for the developer to repay the cost of number 4 plus making substantial profits for both bank and developer to the detriment of the thousands of people in negative equity.*
This point is unanswerable, it’s just a rant.

*6. Not knowing that certain banks were giving loans to directors that were hidden*
I think it is fair to say that this was the responsibility of the internal and external auditors, not the regulator. The regulator does not audit banks.

*7. Allowing directors of banks to borrow from their own bank to invest (gamble) on the banks own shares *
See answer to 1 above. Subject only to company law requirements directors of banks are free to borrow from those banks.

The following statement appeared on the regulator's website on 5 February:
_The Financial Regulator proposes to impose a requirement on credit institutions to disclose in their annual accounts, on an individual director basis:_
_· Details of the maximum amount of loans from that credit institution outstanding at any time during the year to that director (including connected loans)_
_· The year-end balance of borrowing by that director (including connected loans)_
_It is intended that this requirement will become effective from 1 March 2009._

While this might sound suspiciously like a barn door being bolted,perhaps more interesing is that they are only putting a reporting requirement in place because they don't have the power to prohibit the practice.

*8. Not noticing when a certain bank colluded with 'investors' to stop the bank from going under when one individual said he was selling his massive shareholding/pulling out*
Nobody knows what the real story here is at this time – or at least neither you nor I do. It would seem invidious therefore to draw any conclusions.

*9. Allowing the situation to develop wherein one bank had to be nationalised and two others on the brink*
You may have noticed that the world banking system is in crisis triggered, though not caused by the collapse of Lehman and the liquidity crisis that has followed. Virtually every government has underwritten their entire banking sector. The only signifcant difference is that in Ireland the regulator stepped down. I’ve not seen a report of any other regulator that has accepted that whoever is on the bridge is responsible. 

*10 Presiding over a banking system wherein the government/taxpayer has to guarantee all deposits of 100K in order to prevent a run on a bank*
See answer at 9 above

*11. Letting the situation develop so seriously that recapitalistion of the banks is being funded by the raiding of the national pension fund*
The manner in which the recapitalisation is funded is entirely a matter for the Government and not the regulator.

*12. Currently banks being allowed to give builders/developers loans with no interest while punishing home mortgage defaulters by repossessing their homes and probably chasing them for the interest, interest on interest, fees, costs and charges till death us do part etc*
Regarding the rolling up of interest please see answer at 1 above. The Consumer Director of the regulator has addressed the issue of repossessions, see here 

*And the arrogance of the bankers goes on unabated and unchecked, they now want the exposure they have in relation to property purchased (point 4) to be taken over by the taxpayer. I don't remember the banks passing on their profits to the taxpayer. *
Banking is the second oldest profession in the world, sharing much of the moral equivalence of the oldest, but being far less pleasant to deal with. Bankers are arrogant and self-important, and I imagine that in a few years they’ll be preaching to us all again – it was ever thus. 

*Yeah all in all poor Pat Neary is a victim and we should feel sorry for him. *
Pat Neary is not a victim – and he has never sought to portray himself as such. His retirement announcement (here ) supports the view expressed by Brendan and others that he is a competent man who chose the honourable course of action. 

*Have I forgotten anything,* 
I don’t know

*I'm so lost with it all.......... *
True

*I don't know why there isn't a revolution...........*
Me too!


----------



## Complainer

Joe Hill said:


> *1 Allowed banks to give loans to people at many multiples of their salary which were unsustainable and without a real stress test*
> I know of no power that would enable the regulator to set conditions upon which banks may extend credit. Like all public bodies the regulator can only perform those actions and functions that are permitted by legislation. If you can find the relevant power please share it with AAM.
> 
> *2. Allowed banks to give 30 and 40 year mortgages*
> See answer to 1 above.
> 
> *4. Allowing bankers to give developers the money to purchase development at vastly overinflated prices which resulted in number 5*
> See answer to 1 above.


As I public servant, I know only too well the difficulties of operating in a tight legislative environment. However, if the Regulator felt that he didn't have sufficient powers to prevent the crash, he should have been hammering this point home to the Dept Finance at every opportunity. 

There have been a few public bodies that had the cojones to take this approach, notably the Ombudsman, the Ombusdman for Children (neither of which are controlled by politically appointed boards) and the Equality Authority (and look where it got them).

It is not enough for the Regulator to say he didn't have sufficient powers.


----------



## Joe Hill

Complainer said:


> However, if the Regulator felt that he didn't have sufficient powers to prevent the crash, he should have been hammering this point home to the Dept Finance at every opportunity.


 
This is, on the face of it, a fair comment. However at the end of the day the powers of the regulator were set by the Department of Finance and their political masters, and I think we all instintively know that anyone who would have sought to limit the expansion of banks and developers in the Ireland of the "Galway tent" (not to mention all that lovely tax revenue) would have been about as welcome as a fart in a lift!


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> As I public servant, I know only too well the difficulties of operating in a tight legislative environment. However, if the Regulator felt that he didn't have sufficient powers to prevent the crash, he should have been hammering this point home to the Dept Finance at every opportunity.
> 
> There have been a few public bodies that had the cojones to take this approach, notably the Ombudsman, the Ombusdman for Children (neither of which are controlled by politically appointed boards) and the Equality Authority (and look where it got them).
> 
> It is not enough for the Regulator to say he didn't have sufficient powers.



I agree again! (That's the second time today!)


----------



## Complainer

Joe Hill said:


> I think we all instintively know that anyone who would have sought to limit the expansion of banks and developers in the Ireland of the "Galway tent" (not to mention all that lovely tax revenue) would have been about as welcome as a fart in a lift!


True, but I'd expect people at that level to be more worried about doing their job than about being welcome.


----------



## capall

Its the same story around the world with regulation

In alot of instances the laws in force should have allowed for better regulation,it didnt ,the main reason seems to be that the political will wasnt there to regulate. The regulation offices were staffed with people who didnt rock the boat as it was not in the best interest of anyones career to do this.


----------



## Bronte

Joe Hill said:


> Bronte
> Your rant is unfair to Pat Neary, and perhaps more damming, shows that you really have very little idea aout the roe and powers of the regulator. An hour or so on the regulator's website can be very rewarding! Taking your points one-by-one:
> 
> *1 Allowed banks to give loans to people at many multiples of their salary which were unsustainable and without a real stress test*
> I know of no power that would enable the regulator to set conditions upon which banks may extend credit. Like all public bodies the regulator can only perform those actions and functions that are permitted by legislation. If you can find the relevant power please share it with AAM.
> 
> *2. Allowed banks to give 30 and 40 year mortgages*
> See answer to 1 above.
> 
> *3. AAM says there was overcharging of certain customers but the regulator is not going to force the banks to pay it back*
> The issues with regard to overcharging by banks occurred prior to 2005 (i.e. the date on which the regulator received its powers). Nevertheless the regulator recovered €167 million for consumers. All of this information is on their website for anyone who is interested.
> 
> *4. Allowing bankers to give developers the money to purchase development at vastly overinflated prices which resulted in number 5*
> See answer to 1 above.
> 
> *5. Allowed banks and developers to be so cosy that it was in the interest of both to sell property at a premium in order for the developer to repay the cost of number 4 plus making substantial profits for both bank and developer to the detriment of the thousands of people in negative equity.*
> This point is unanswerable, it’s just a rant.
> 
> *6. Not knowing that certain banks were giving loans to directors that were hidden*
> I think it is fair to say that this was the responsibility of the internal and external auditors, not the regulator. The regulator does not audit banks.
> 
> *7. Allowing directors of banks to borrow from their own bank to invest (gamble) on the banks own shares *
> See answer to 1 above. Subject only to company law requirements directors of banks are free to borrow from those banks.
> 
> The following statement appeared on the regulator's website on 5 February:
> _The Financial Regulator proposes to impose a requirement on credit institutions to disclose in their annual accounts, on an individual director basis:_
> _· Details of the maximum amount of loans from that credit institution outstanding at any time during the year to that director (including connected loans)_
> _· The year-end balance of borrowing by that director (including connected loans)_
> _It is intended that this requirement will become effective from 1 March 2009._
> 
> While this might sound suspiciously like a barn door being bolted,perhaps more interesing is that they are only putting a reporting requirement in place because they don't have the power to prohibit the practice.
> 
> *8. Not noticing when a certain bank colluded with 'investors' to stop the bank from going under when one individual said he was selling his massive shareholding/pulling out*
> Nobody knows what the real story here is at this time – or at least neither you nor I do. It would seem invidious therefore to draw any conclusions.
> 
> *9. Allowing the situation to develop wherein one bank had to be nationalised and two others on the brink*
> You may have noticed that the world banking system is in crisis triggered, though not caused by the collapse of Lehman and the liquidity crisis that has followed. Virtually every government has underwritten their entire banking sector. The only signifcant difference is that in Ireland the regulator stepped down. I’ve not seen a report of any other regulator that has accepted that whoever is on the bridge is responsible.
> 
> *10 Presiding over a banking system wherein the government/taxpayer has to guarantee all deposits of 100K in order to prevent a run on a bank*
> See answer at 9 above
> 
> *11. Letting the situation develop so seriously that recapitalistion of the banks is being funded by the raiding of the national pension fund*
> The manner in which the recapitalisation is funded is entirely a matter for the Government and not the regulator.
> 
> *12. Currently banks being allowed to give builders/developers loans with no interest while punishing home mortgage defaulters by repossessing their homes and probably chasing them for the interest, interest on interest, fees, costs and charges till death us do part etc*
> Regarding the rolling up of interest please see answer at 1 above. The Consumer Director of the regulator has addressed the issue of repossessions, see here
> 
> *And the arrogance of the bankers goes on unabated and unchecked, they now want the exposure they have in relation to property purchased (point 4) to be taken over by the taxpayer. I don't remember the banks passing on their profits to the taxpayer. *
> Banking is the second oldest profession in the world, sharing much of the moral equivalence of the oldest, but being far less pleasant to deal with. Bankers are arrogant and self-important, and I imagine that in a few years they’ll be preaching to us all again – it was ever thus.
> 
> *Yeah all in all poor Pat Neary is a victim and we should feel sorry for him. *
> Pat Neary is not a victim – and he has never sought to portray himself as such. His retirement announcement (here ) supports the view expressed by Brendan and others that he is a competent man who chose the honourable course of action.
> 
> *Have I forgotten anything,*
> I don’t know
> 
> *I'm so lost with it all.......... *
> True
> 
> *I don't know why there isn't a revolution...........*
> Me too!


 

Of course it was a rant I'm seriously vexed.  Also I apologise as my writing skills are not the best

1. I can't do bit by bit quotes but I don't want to read the regulators website I want to see and know and have confidence that the regulator is acting in the interest of Ireland Inc.  If he didn't have the powers then he should have insisted on having them and in fact he should have told the Irish people this (his paymaster) and he should have resigned on that point alone.  That would be the honourable thing to do.  Resigning now is not honourable.  He may be a nice man, I'm sure he is, but that's not the point.  You are giving circular answers to my post it's the government who didn't give the power to the regulator, it's not the law, he's only a civil servant etc.  
2.  Even if he didn't have the power he could have come out and said to the banks, no 40 year mortgages, stress testing of x% to be applied to all customers, prudent steady lending, not allowing credit card limits to be increased willy nilly etc.  
3.  I don't care what the rest of the world is doing (Lehman et al) that does not excuse what has gone on in Irish banking and it's not the first time.  That's like saying there was a riot in town on Saturday night and everyone was stealing so I did too.
4.  You state that the overcharging only applies to prior to 2005 do you mean it was in the past and doesn't occur now so it's alright and sure they paid 167 million to the regulator?  There is no way I belive that the banks aren't consistently overcharing.  I just read another case this weekend wherein a businessman with ACC bank had systematic overcharging and the banks internal emails said the cusomers could not tell from his statements that overcharging was occuring. Why doesn't the regulator recommend to government a law that overcharging will be a serious offence because it is theft after all.  Also that consumers get statements that are really simple and easy to calculate the interest, penalties etc.  If I were regulator that is what I'd be doing being proactive rather than being part of the old boys club.  Is the regulator there for the banks the government or the people.
5. I think that bank staff should be under a duty legally to disclose where they know there is systematic overcharging by banks.  To overcharge it requires people with financial know how to create the system of overcharging, otheres to produce a computer system that will do it, others to implement it etc.  Also the smart ones who cop on that it's going on.  That's a lot of people.    

You are right on one thing, I don't understand the role of regulator, no I don't but I now know it's a non role, a pretend job, a powerless role, a passive role but very well paid.


----------



## LennyBriscoe

Good post Bronte.


----------



## VOR

Being a victim implies you suffered in some way. €143K pension and a c.€400K lump sum.


----------



## Conan

As someone who "accepted" the retirement pakage going to Patrick Neary after some 40 years of public service (the level of salary being a separate issue) I am really annoyed at the extra €202,000 payment he received. Why is this justified?
If he retires and gets his full entitlement, what justifies an additional €202,000? In the current climate of public cutbacks, pension levy (which I believe is absolutely justified) etc, why is this extra payment made? If the Government is really trying to better manage public expenditure, then every €202,000 counts......surely.
Brendan, do you know why this extra payment is made?


----------



## peno

Irrespective of the extra cash payment of 202K how is it that he got his full pension?

It seems from the report he did not have 40 years service so 

1. How was he given the 40 years to get his full pension and lump sum
2. Why was it not reduced for early payemnt as he is retiring early.

In normal circumstances retiring early you geta reduced pension - this guy didn't so his job and is rewarded to the max.

The cost of this enhanced package is far more than 202K and for me is the biggest problem.
At at time when ordinary staff have to pay increased pension levies this is disgraceful and will no doubt be used as a bomb by the unions.

as usual the worse job you do for the state the more you are rewarded.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Early retirement!? Over 40 years service. Godammit he looks like a pensioner. This was his entitlement not like some golden parachutes which are more akin to blackmail ransoms. You really think he should have handed back his TFLS as some sort of atonement. If this guy had played rough and hung in there the government would have been forced to dismiss him with almost certainly an additional compensation *on top* of his retirement package.


It is with acute embarrassment that I read this earlier naive posting of mine.  It transpires that PN did receive a "blackmail ransom" of 202K.  It also seems he didn't do the full 40 years service.


----------



## Complainer

Conan said:


> As someone who "accepted" the retirement pakage going to Patrick Neary after some 40 years of public service (the level of salary being a separate issue) I am really annoyed at the extra €202,000 payment he received. Why is this justified?
> If he retires and gets his full entitlement, what justifies an additional €202,000? In the current climate of public cutbacks, pension levy (which I believe is absolutely justified) etc, why is this extra payment made? If the Government is really trying to better manage public expenditure, then every €202,000 counts......surely.
> Brendan, do you know why this extra payment is made?


Me too.


----------



## Sunny

Conan said:


> As someone who "accepted" the retirement pakage going to Patrick Neary after some 40 years of public service (the level of salary being a separate issue) I am really annoyed at the extra €202,000 payment he received. Why is this justified?
> If he retires and gets his full entitlement, what justifies an additional €202,000? In the current climate of public cutbacks, pension levy (which I believe is absolutely justified) etc, why is this extra payment made? If the Government is really trying to better manage public expenditure, then every €202,000 counts......surely.
> Brendan, do you know why this extra payment is made?


 
As far as I know, it was a settlement to buy out the remainder of his contract (even though he resigned??). I have given up trying to understand what a senior executive in either the private or public sector has to do to get their employment contracts terminated. Why does everyone have to 'resign'?


----------



## Towger

Sunny said:


> Why does everyone have to 'resign'?


 
The same with could be said for IL&P, the word on the street is that the did not loan the money to Anglo off their own back. Yet they took the heat, while the other parties are still denying any knowledge of the matter.


----------



## Trildrin

The words Brian Lenihan used when refering to the additional payment apparently were  “having regard to independent legal advice and his exclusive availability to the Authority for a period of three months, the Authority agreed to the payment of an additional €151,500, equivalent to six months remuneration, plus an additional two months salary, to the former chief executive.”   

Why did he need legal advice as Mr Neary resigned?  The additional payment he received appears to be aproximately €50k per month for three month so he can be *exclusively *available to the Authority.   What is he doing for these three month?  

In relation to Pensions, how come Rody Molloy received TFLS of 1.5 times his salary and full pension benefits based on 40 years service on his resignation if he is only aged 54 or am I wrong on his age??  On top of this he received a further €110k.


----------

