Morgan Kelly on Bank Robbers

canicemcavoy said:
Many many bulls talked ridiculous nonsense that was both off the top and factually incorrect, yet this is never used as a reason not to be bullish on property.
Click to expand...

Bronte
I don't get this point. What difference does the language make if the point is correct?
Click to expand...
I pay little or no attention to anyone who speaks or writes in a sensationalist manner. It doesn't matter what they are saying. Whether they are bullish or bearish. Whether they are suggesting building houses or knocking down houses. Whether they are supporting socialism or supporting capitalism.

This thread started with Morgan Kelly making a suggestion that burning €1.5 billion was as good as paying of the government's debts with it. That was patent nonsense. Maybe it was just a mistake on his part, that he had not realised that we had committed to paying the debts of Anglo.

And this is a real problem. If people have well constructed arguments, they should be listened to. But I am put off by sensationalism and I suspect many others are as well.
 
That is a fair Point Brendan but so is Canice's.
You have no chance of getting a hearing in today's climate without being sensationalist.

Unfortunately that is the world we live in.

The analogy of setting fire to 1.5Billion is a good one I feel. Realistic or not that is what it feels like to most of us
 
agentino said:
The analogy of setting fire to 1.5 Billion is a good one I feel. Realistic or not that is what it feels like to most of us
Click to expand...

But agentino

That is why it is so unhelpful. The masses are pleased because they can understand that burning money is wasting money. They like the analogy. It's very visual. They like the argument. The guy making the argument is popular.

It's more difficult to explain and understand the arguments behind it.
We guaranteed the depositors' money in Anglo and all the other banks. This stops the pensionsers from losing all their savings.
We subsequently nationalised Anglo and so we have given an undertaking to meet all the liabilities of Anglo.
Paying in €1.5 billion is just part of that commitment.

When Lehman Brothers had collapsed and the opposition were calling on the Government to increase the €20,000 limit on the deposit guarantee scheme, it would have been a good time to make this argument. But to argue it in sensationalist language afterwards, is unhelpful.

I argued at the time that the €20,000 limit should not be increased and that insolvent banks should be allowed to fail and their depositors would lose their deposits. I was thinking at the time of Anglo and Irish Nationwide. I did not appreciate that the systematically important banks were also in serious trouble.
 
An interesting profile of Morgan Kelly in today's [broken link removed]

They list his quotes, but not the one about burning €1.5bn in St Stephen's Green.

Brendan
 
Brendan said:
An interesting profile of Morgan Kelly in today's [broken link removed]

They list his quotes, but not the one about burning €1.5bn in St Stephen's Green.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Because you're the only one bothered by that comment?
Besides "corpulent tooth fairy" is much more soundbite friendly.
 
The only relevant quote afaics is the last in 2006. The others are within a year and are based over the next ten so have not been proved either way just yet.
 
Brendan said:
An interesting profile of Morgan Kelly in today's [broken link removed]

They list his quotes, but not the one about burning €1.5bn in St Stephen's Green.

Brendan
Click to expand...

What's it now 15 bn. Anbody think we'll still have a soft landing?
 
Banging on about a single quote of Kelly's seems rather petty at this stage, especially when the quote itself isn't correct (over the top, maybe, but not incorrect).

The NAMA CEO admitted today that they are going to consider demolishing unfinished developments; another thing that Kelly predicted and which was scoffed at.
 
Well said Canice. Kelly's record stands up to far more scrutiny than that of most other public commentators.
 
I suspect if we were to look objectively at people's analysis over the last 4 years or so and fact-check it for accuracy and perception, Prof Kelly would be No 1 on the list of commentators. Honourable mentions would go to David MacWilliams, Alan Aherne, Constantin Gurgdiev, Brian Lucey

The spoofers who insisted that Irish banks were well-capitalised and well-regulated, that the fundamentals of the economy were sound, and who roundly criticised Prof Kelly and his ilk were proved horribly incorrect.
 
Brendan said:
More sensational stuff from Morgan Kelly in yesterday's Irish Times:

[broken link removed]

Apparently we are going to be demolishing houses now instead of building them.

But I suppose it gets headlines.
Click to expand...

just to make my point:

the NAMA boss yesterday said that it was very likely that NAMA would demolish ghost estates. Story here.

any comment?
 
Kemo_Sabe said:
I suspect if we were to look objectively at people's analysis over the last 4 years or so and fact-check it for accuracy and perception, Prof Kelly would be No 1 on the list of commentators. Honourable mentions would go to David MacWilliams, Alan Aherne, Constantin Gurgdiev, Brian Lucey

The spoofers who insisted that Irish banks were well-capitalised and well-regulated, that the fundamentals of the economy were sound, and who roundly criticised Prof Kelly and his ilk were proved horribly incorrect.
Click to expand...

Really?

[broken link removed]


I am sure I could track down stories from the others if I had the time.

I also hate this 'I told you so attitude' and think it is pointless. Morgan Kelly might have been right about the property bubble. He could be completly wrong about NAMA and Anglo. Who knows.
I know a fund manager who called the tech bubble correctly but was actually advising people to buy Lehman Brother shares a week before they collapsed.
 
Sunny said:
Really?

[broken link removed]

I am sure I could track down stories from the others if I had the time.

I also hate this 'I told you so attitude' and think it is pointless. Morgan Kelly might have been right about the property bubble. He could be completly wrong about NAMA and Anglo. Who knows.
I know a fund manager who called the tech bubble correctly but was actually advising people to buy Lehman Brother shares a week before they collapsed.
Click to expand...

interesting that you link to an article where Lucey - shock, horror - admits he was wrong about something. Some other people could do with a dose of the same humility.

It's hardly 'pointless' to credit people for correct analysis and to discredit people for incorrect analysis - which group would you rather take advice from?
 
Kemo_Sabe said:
interesting that you link to an article where Lucey - shock, horror - admits he was wrong about something. Some other people could do with a dose of the same humility.

It's hardly 'pointless' to credit people for correct analysis and to discredit people for incorrect analysis - which group would you rather take advice from?
Click to expand...

Not the only thing he has been wrong about if you have been reading him recently. Also, I can live with him or anyone else being wrong and making honest mistakes. However considering he said all that in a report for a sub prime lender, you would have to question his objectivity.

I already said in another thread that Morgan Kelly and McWilliams deserves credit for calling it right but doesn't mean I am going to start worshiping them or any other so called guru including Rubini in the States.

Both groups actually unless you are nieve enough to believe that just because they are right once, it means they are always going to be right and vice versa.
 
Brendan Burgess quotes:

“Irish banks are very well regulated. Irish banks are very sound…the risk to an Irish bank is some panic, if everybody felt that a particular bank was going to go and they all rushed down that would create a liquidity problem and you could have a very fine solid bank getting into difficulty just like Northern Rock which was a solvent bank but it had a liquidity problem…I think we are going to look back at Irish banks and the Irish stock exchange in a few years and say how did we not fill our shoes with those shares” RTE News 16th September 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.” Joint Oireachtas committee June 2008
 
Here’s Jim Power writing on Irish Economy Blog today:

“There are many things in my life that i regret. Spending 9 years with Bank of Ireland is one of them, but appearing on RTE’s Prime Time with Morgan Kelly early in 2007 is top of the pile. Despite my deep scepticism about Fianna Fail’s stewardship of the economy since 1997, I went on and argued that Morgan Kelly’s views on the housing market and the banking system were over the top. I was totally wrong and he was totally right. I haven’t met Morgan since, but when I do I will offer him my sincerest apologies for doubting his prescience. I now realise that I was totally duped by what the regulator and the banks themselves were telling us about the health of the banking system. I had no idea that the banks could possibly engage in the quality of lending that they did or indeed that they could possibly get away with the quality of guidance that they were providing up until very recently. I also realise that i need to educate myself on the workings of a bank balance sheet and the credit cycle. Contrary to what the IT said, Morgan is a past pupil of Templeogue College, of which I am now on the Board of Management. The College is quite proud of its former pupil, as indeed it should be. Fair play to you Morgan and have some sympathy for us lesser mortals who have to ply our trade in the awful financial services sector.”
 
I can't fully understand how one can feel that "better burning it" is over the top.

To me it simply expresses the idea of pouring good money after bad. By putting money into Anglo, the government must keep to their plan - or else seem foolish.

If one's opinion is that the hole in Anglo is large, then it is precisely correct to state that burning the 1.5Bn is a better use of the money - because that does not bring with it additional cost.
 
This is all a bit silly, raking up quotes from the past to see who was right at a point in time.

I will be impressed if Morgan Kelly tells us correctly when is a good time to buy a house.

He was right and many other were wrong, this doesn't mean he'll be always right and others will always be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top