Pat Neary Retires - latest Anglo victim?


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?
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

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

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.
 
Brendan said:
To answer your question as you asked it. Most of the above is a typical tabloid comment.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register