Didn't they get it? I was reading a few months ago that they got something off (family farm I think??) off the Bankruptcy Trustees in the UK . Think there are still court cases going on.And what happened when the banks tried to enforce their collateral? Thats the point I'm making
https://extra.ie/2018/01/30/news/irish-news/ivan-yates-aib-high-courtDidn't they get it? I was reading a few months ago that they got something off (family farm I think??) off the Bankruptcy Trustees in the UK . Think there are still court cases going on.
Hard for a bank to function as a bank in this country!AIB has been ‘waiting for my mother to die’, Ivan Yates said yesterday as he sued the bank over his family home.
The broadcaster made the extraordinary claim outside the High Court and said he would fight the bank ‘tooth and nail’.
But AIB is fighting Mr Yates’ case over his home at Blackstoops in Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford.
Q Who were the bondholders ?The core point of Brendan's post if that the banks were not bailed out, the bondholders and depositors were.
Does anyone disagree with that?
Ivan Yeats and his personal affairs are a distraction from that point.
But the thing is, the vast vast majority of Bank liabilities were not bonds, they were deposit accounts & current accounts. The bondholders only got bailed out because the needed to bail out the regular joes and irish businesses with cash in the banks.Q Who were the bondholders ?
A Mostly other Financial Institutions.
We bailed out the banks, make no bones about it. I agree with The Big Short that it would be more accurate to say the banking system, but I am keeping it simple for you to understand Purple.
Conan you have to pay because you as an individual simply do not matter. The Government was heavily lobbied by the Banks for the State Guarantee at this time. The Government could easily have grown a pair and let Anglo go to the wall, after all, they were far from been a systemically important bank (3 or 4 branches at max). If I owned a factory making something and became hopelessly indebted, the bank would call in the receiver, sell any assets and move on. When the banks became hopelessly indebted they went to the Government (which was democratically elected by the people) and got a guarantee. Do not blame Ivan Yates for attempting to better himself, blame the banks for recklessly lending to him or indeed the Government for guaranteeing the banks behaviour in this regard.“Keeping it simple” is the excuse used by the likes of Ivan Yates, Sinn Fein, People who never made any Profit etc for saying that Banks (and Bankers) were “bailed out”. In reality if the main Banks were let go to the wall, it is depositors who would have been the big losers. The protest against paying a tiny water charge would have been dwarfed had all citizens had their bank accounts frozen (or left to wait on the Government guarantee to kick in). Remember the week on the Joe Duffy show where he effectively encouraged a run on the Banks.
Yates still displays his anger at the Banks for daring to seek him to repay his borrowing. Whilst many Banks did over- lend, nobody forced Yates (and others) to borrow the money to finance his business expansion. Why do I have to pay for Yates’ profligacy?
Could be a case of crossed wires here?Some like to think we have a democratic society, probably suits them to do so.
Yea, that sounds very like Jack Kennedy's version of what happened. I think most people know it's BS.I will use the analogy of Jack Kennedy in the USA. A shoeshine boy told Mr Kennedy which stocks to invest in. Within a week of this, he had liquidated his entire holdings. A week later, the Great Depression came and Jack Kennedy rebought stock at rock bottom prices and became one of the richest and most powerful men in America at the time. He got his son elected as President of America.
Nobody should be criticised for taking decisions based on a sound and well researched reasoning which contain an element of risk. People taking massive risks, literally betting the Farm, when there's no need to should be criticised. I see no difference between what he did and the people who kept borrowing to buy property against the capital in the last property they borrowed. I know a Tiler who, during the boom, had 6 rental properties and borrowings of over €2 million. Should he not be blamed for attempting to improve his lot?I reiterate, no one should blame people like Ivan Yates for attempting to improve their lot by borrowing monies to expand their business, the banks had risk weight analysis departments, credit risk departments, forecasting economists etc. (all of whom were on large salaries). They should have known better!
Absolutely; what we did and are still doing is forcing our children to pay for our mistakes. It's disgraceful.The Government of the time, who gave them the comfort of the State Guarantee should have known better. Your kids, kids and in turn their kids, will be paying for this comfort blanket.
I've heard similar story about buying stocks of whisk(e)y before Prohibition.I will use the analogy of Jack Kennedy in the USA. A shoeshine boy told Mr Kennedy which stocks to invest in. Within a week of this, he had liquidated his entire holdings. A week later, the Great Depression came and Jack Kennedy rebought stock at rock bottom prices and became one of the richest and most powerful men in America at the time. He got his son elected as President of America.