This is by far the more interesting (ok, I'm a sad case
) of the two reports.
Lots of sections merit highlighting. The one I will pick now is the one which discusses whether Anglo was systemic. He starts by citing all the systemic tests it failed - insignificant branch network, not essential to the payments system, not essential to the economic system, not even too big to let fail.
But he rules in the end that it was systemic because to allow Anglo to fail would have led foreigners to think AIB and BoI were next. He even mentions that foreigners might confuse Anglo with AIB on grounds of the same initials.
Really this is very unconvincing. I thought Anglo were systemic because the other banks had lent them money and because to liquidate it would collapse property prices with a contagion effect. These are not mentioned by Honohan.