Bronte
Your rant is unfair to Pat Neary, and perhaps more damming, shows that you really have very little idea aout the roe and powers of the regulator. An hour or so on the regulator's website can be very rewarding! Taking your points one-by-one:
1 Allowed banks to give loans to people at many multiples of their salary which were unsustainable and without a real stress test
I know of no power that would enable the regulator to set conditions upon which banks may extend credit. Like all public bodies the regulator can only perform those actions and functions that are permitted by legislation. If you can find the relevant power please share it with AAM.
2. Allowed banks to give 30 and 40 year mortgages
See answer to 1 above.
3. AAM says there was overcharging of certain customers but the regulator is not going to force the banks to pay it back
The issues with regard to overcharging by banks occurred prior to 2005 (i.e. the date on which the regulator received its powers). Nevertheless the regulator recovered €167 million for consumers. All of this information is on their website for anyone who is interested.
4. Allowing bankers to give developers the money to purchase development at vastly overinflated prices which resulted in number 5
See answer to 1 above.
5. Allowed banks and developers to be so cosy that it was in the interest of both to sell property at a premium in order for the developer to repay the cost of number 4 plus making substantial profits for both bank and developer to the detriment of the thousands of people in negative equity.
This point is unanswerable, it’s just a rant.
6. Not knowing that certain banks were giving loans to directors that were hidden
I think it is fair to say that this was the responsibility of the internal and external auditors, not the regulator. The regulator does not audit banks.
7. Allowing directors of banks to borrow from their own bank to invest (gamble) on the banks own shares
See answer to 1 above. Subject only to company law requirements directors of banks are free to borrow from those banks.
The following statement appeared on the regulator's website on 5 February:
The Financial Regulator proposes to impose a requirement on credit institutions to disclose in their annual accounts, on an individual director basis:
· Details of the maximum amount of loans from that credit institution outstanding at any time during the year to that director (including connected loans)
· The year-end balance of borrowing by that director (including connected loans)
It is intended that this requirement will become effective from 1 March 2009.
While this might sound suspiciously like a barn door being bolted,perhaps more interesing is that they are only putting a reporting requirement in place because they don't have the power to prohibit the practice.
8. Not noticing when a certain bank colluded with 'investors' to stop the bank from going under when one individual said he was selling his massive shareholding/pulling out
Nobody knows what the real story here is at this time – or at least neither you nor I do. It would seem invidious therefore to draw any conclusions.
9. Allowing the situation to develop wherein one bank had to be nationalised and two others on the brink
You may have noticed that the world banking system is in crisis triggered, though not caused by the collapse of Lehman and the liquidity crisis that has followed. Virtually every government has underwritten their entire banking sector. The only signifcant difference is that in Ireland the regulator stepped down. I’ve not seen a report of any other regulator that has accepted that whoever is on the bridge is responsible.
10 Presiding over a banking system wherein the government/taxpayer has to guarantee all deposits of 100K in order to prevent a run on a bank
See answer at 9 above
11. Letting the situation develop so seriously that recapitalistion of the banks is being funded by the raiding of the national pension fund
The manner in which the recapitalisation is funded is entirely a matter for the Government and not the regulator.
12. Currently banks being allowed to give builders/developers loans with no interest while punishing home mortgage defaulters by repossessing their homes and probably chasing them for the interest, interest on interest, fees, costs and charges till death us do part etc
Regarding the rolling up of interest please see answer at 1 above. The Consumer Director of the regulator has addressed the issue of repossessions, see here
And the arrogance of the bankers goes on unabated and unchecked, they now want the exposure they have in relation to property purchased (point 4) to be taken over by the taxpayer. I don't remember the banks passing on their profits to the taxpayer.
Banking is the second oldest profession in the world, sharing much of the moral equivalence of the oldest, but being far less pleasant to deal with. Bankers are arrogant and self-important, and I imagine that in a few years they’ll be preaching to us all again – it was ever thus.
Yeah all in all poor Pat Neary is a victim and we should feel sorry for him.
Pat Neary is not a victim – and he has never sought to portray himself as such. His retirement announcement (here ) supports the view expressed by Brendan and others that he is a competent man who chose the honourable course of action.
Have I forgotten anything,
I don’t know
I'm so lost with it all..........
True
I don't know why there isn't a revolution...........
Me too!
Of course it was a rant I'm seriously vexed. Also I apologise as my writing skills are not the best
1. I can't do bit by bit quotes but I don't want to read the regulators website I want to see and know and have confidence that the regulator is acting in the interest of Ireland Inc. If he didn't have the powers then he should have insisted on having them and in fact he should have told the Irish people this (his paymaster) and he should have resigned on that point alone. That would be the honourable thing to do. Resigning now is not honourable. He may be a nice man, I'm sure he is, but that's not the point. You are giving circular answers to my post it's the government who didn't give the power to the regulator, it's not the law, he's only a civil servant etc.
2. Even if he didn't have the power he could have come out and said to the banks, no 40 year mortgages, stress testing of x% to be applied to all customers, prudent steady lending, not allowing credit card limits to be increased willy nilly etc.
3. I don't care what the rest of the world is doing (Lehman et al) that does not excuse what has gone on in Irish banking and it's not the first time. That's like saying there was a riot in town on Saturday night and everyone was stealing so I did too.
4. You state that the overcharging only applies to prior to 2005 do you mean it was in the past and doesn't occur now so it's alright and sure they paid 167 million to the regulator? There is no way I belive that the banks aren't consistently overcharing. I just read another case this weekend wherein a businessman with ACC bank had systematic overcharging and the banks internal emails said the cusomers could not tell from his statements that overcharging was occuring. Why doesn't the regulator recommend to government a law that overcharging will be a serious offence because it is theft after all. Also that consumers get statements that are really simple and easy to calculate the interest, penalties etc. If I were regulator that is what I'd be doing being proactive rather than being part of the old boys club. Is the regulator there for the banks the government or the people.
5. I think that bank staff should be under a duty legally to disclose where they know there is systematic overcharging by banks. To overcharge it requires people with financial know how to create the system of overcharging, otheres to produce a computer system that will do it, others to implement it etc. Also the smart ones who cop on that it's going on. That's a lot of people.
You are right on one thing, I don't understand the role of regulator, no I don't but I now know it's a non role, a pretend job, a powerless role, a passive role but very well paid.
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.