That is very well put.
But Anglo was descending with or without SQ. Anglo could have tried to sort their business and SQ's actions probably gave them breathing room to do so. They choose not to.
Drummer never coming back now
- Thread starter Duke of Marmalade
- Start date
That is very well put.
But Anglo was descending with or without SQ. Anglo could have tried to sort their business and SQ's actions probably gave them breathing room to do so. They choose not to.
Duke,
The judge said that it was wrong for one arm of the state to send men to prison on the basis of advice given by a different arm of the state.
Neary wasn’t thrust into a role that was “way above his pay grade”. He took a job that was way beyond his ability.
Anglo made our problems worse but the idea that they brought the country to its knees, as if everything would have been rosy if only they hadn’t been around, just doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
The judge said that it was wrong for one arm of the state to send men to prison on the basis of advice given by a different arm of the state.
Neary wasn’t thrust into a role that was “way above his pay grade”. He took a job that was way beyond his ability.
Anglo made our problems worse but the idea that they brought the country to its knees, as if everything would have been rosy if only they hadn’t been around, just doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
Having read the IT I have a nauseating feeling.
The Anglo two are portrayed by the judge as victims led astray by a wicked regulator in their selfless attempts to save their beloved bank from the ravages of a greedy man. This judge has no doubts who are the bad guys and who are the good guys.
"The men were not motivated by avarice or greed or the pursuit of profit but by a genuine though misguided attempt to save the bank". Mistaken heroes on a noble cause. Presumably by contrast the regulator was a wicked schemer out to line his own pockets.
Neary was a public servant on maybe 300K p.a. charged with an enormous responsibility which proved way above his pay grade. But I have no doubts that he was doing his best as a public servant.
Our heroes were masters of the universe who paid themselves millions and who lent themselves tens of millions of other people's money. We know from the Anglo tapes how much contempt the regulator was held in by the masters of the universe. One has no doubt that the judge was right that they were only motivated to save the bank. Anyone who had tens of millions at stake in shares, salaries, bonuses and pensions would share that motivation. What then does the learned judge think was motivating our wicked regulator?
Let's get this straight. Anglo brought this country to its financial knees. We can look for all the scapegoats we like, but this was not Neary's doing, it was not Quinn's doing. This was first and foremost the doings of the masters of the universe running Anglo.
The case should never have been taken. It was a mere technicality. It should have been seen that it would badly backfire. Seanie is a hero who can do no wrong. His fellow executives were led astray by a venal regulator when they tried to bail out a greedy man, all in a good cause, with a commendable disregard for their own self interests. In England the judge would be recommending them for honours.
But the trial wasn't about Anglo bringing the Country to it's knees. It was about this one transaction and I don't see anything in the Judge's comments that I could disagree with. I don't think the judge was accusing Neary of anything but incompetence. And considering Neary's memory loss, it's hard not to agree.
I think it is pretty obvious that Anglo carried out this transaction thinking that they had legal advice and regulator sign off. Unfortunately the entire mess just shows what muppets were involved in banking at that time. How many times during the trial did I hear both Anglo and Regulator staff say that Morgan Stanley carrying out the transaction gave them comfort because they had their own compliance department and they didn't see anything wrong!!!! Relying on Wall Street for compliance. WOW!
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,559
Maybe, again on something of a technicality, that is a correct judgement. But to lavish commendations on the Anglo two for not acting out of "avarice, greed or desire for profit" but in the noble cause of saving the bank is outrageous. Perhaps something else in the evidence suggested that these two were the exception and so, to avoid possible libel, I will give them the benefit of the doubt; they stood out as beacons of virtue, albeit misguided, from their colleagues. But in the general scheme of things everyone else recognises that the culture that led to the Anglo orgy and the subsequent revelation through the Tapes of the immorality at the core of that organisation clearly identifies Anglo for what it was - an obscene testimony to human "avarice, greed and search for profit" at it absolute worse.
On the other point, there are many causes for the global financial meltdown but when we search for what made Ireland the worst exemplar, Anglo must be in the frame.
I agree.
Has it changed?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,559
From another IT article, Pat Neary's performance as a witness:
"I don't recall" 30 times
"I don't know" 23 times
"I can't recall" 12 times
"I can't remember" 12 times
"I've absolutely no recollection" 4 times
So I am not going to put myself in the contrarian position of defending PN.
But still, I can't get away from the breath taking contradictions of the judge's comments.
According to him the Anglo Two were "only interested in saving the bank", "no avarice, greed or search for profit" i.e. a completely selfless exercise albeit misguided because of the wicked witch. The judge did seem to have a low opinion of Drummer. So does he think that the "no avarice, greed or search for profit" doesn't apply to him? What is the difference, pray?
On the other hand "the regulator was only interested in saving the banking system". Well yeah. But this time the comment is left hanging as a crushing indictment. We now know that PN's personal financial retirement package, coming up soon, would be absolutely unaffected by whether he succeeded in saving the banking system or not and yet the learned judge leaves us with the impression that his only being interested in saving the banking system was a wanton selfish act.
Clearly the interest of the regulator was solely motivated by saving the banking system with no real personal financial wellbeing at stake, contrary to Anglo executives who were facing financial ruin.
Honohan tells us that everything has changed at the CB. Let us hope that this obsession with saving the banking system from collapse is not one of those changes. I would hope that if the banking system depended on an urgent mobile phone call Honohan would make that call even if he were driving and to do so would be illegal.
"I don't recall" 30 times
"I don't know" 23 times
"I can't recall" 12 times
"I can't remember" 12 times
"I've absolutely no recollection" 4 times
So I am not going to put myself in the contrarian position of defending PN.
But still, I can't get away from the breath taking contradictions of the judge's comments.
According to him the Anglo Two were "only interested in saving the bank", "no avarice, greed or search for profit" i.e. a completely selfless exercise albeit misguided because of the wicked witch. The judge did seem to have a low opinion of Drummer. So does he think that the "no avarice, greed or search for profit" doesn't apply to him? What is the difference, pray?
On the other hand "the regulator was only interested in saving the banking system". Well yeah.
But this time the comment is left hanging as a crushing indictment. We now know that PN's personal financial retirement package, coming up soon, would be absolutely unaffected by whether he succeeded in saving the banking system or not and yet the learned judge leaves us with the impression that his only being interested in saving the banking system was a wanton selfish act. Clearly the interest of the regulator was solely motivated by saving the banking system with no real personal financial wellbeing at stake, contrary to Anglo executives who were facing financial ruin.
Honohan tells us that everything has changed at the CB. Let us hope that this obsession with saving the banking system from collapse is not one of those changes. I would hope that if the banking system depended on an urgent mobile phone call Honohan would make that call even if he were driving and to do so would be illegal.