tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

Squire wrote:

Tonys

You just do not write a guarantee when you you do not know the extent of the likely exposure and do not know if you can cover the guarantee if called. To write a guarantee that you cannot cover is pretty close to fraud in my books, and for that to be done by a government, well it says all any investor needs to know about Ireland.

With regards the Banks the government should first have asked what purpose in supporting, what is achieved, then is this the best course to achieve that purpose. Currently they could well bankrupt the country. So do tell me what is more important, one or two Banks or the solvency of the country?

They made a series of very bad calls.

I don't agree, I think it's too early to say and so far, I don't see any evidence to support your judgement.

At what point will you be convinced tonys? When Government has to tell civil servants it doesn't have the money for next week's wages? Because that is where they are heading.

If you are as right about that as you were in accepting Kelly's article at face value, we should be safe for a long time yet.
The ball is still very much in play here with no indication of which way the result will ultimately go.

The second time you've come out with that, tonys. Would you produce a link? I would hate people to think that you just make things up as you go along.
This is what I said:

Quote :

We are between a rock and a hard place. Anglo is a sink and AIB and BOI are zombies. I think tonys points about Morgan Kelly's figures are a distraction, as the amount of information coming out is limited and peoples' grasp of the scale of the thing has improved, not got worse, as time has gone on. Personally I think if anything he is underestimating. expatgirl is right though in that if it is feasible to hold on to the land and buildings long enough something would be salvaged.

Where are the personally signed letters of guarantee at this stage, I wonder? Has anyone checked? If they are not to be found, we should not nationalise.

Squire wrote:

ISEQ Financial closed the day at 446.
ISEQ overall at 2230
ISEQ general at 2847.

Ireland is seeing a drop of share value of over 75% which is well above average global decline to date. Question is why?

Our very low competitivity, and poor leadership?

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

Squire wrote:

Tonys

You just do not write a guarantee when you you do not know the extent of the likely exposure and do not know if you can cover the guarantee if called. To write a guarantee that you cannot cover is pretty close to fraud in my books, and for that to be done by a government, well it says all any investor needs to know about Ireland.

With regards the Banks the government should first have asked what purpose in supporting, what is achieved, then is this the best course to achieve that purpose. Currently they could well bankrupt the country. So do tell me what is more important, one or two Banks or the solvency of the country?

They made a series of very bad calls.

I don't agree, I think it's too early to say and so far, I don't see any evidence to support your judgement.

At what point will you be convinced tonys? When Government has to tell civil servants it doesn't have the money for next week's wages? Because that is where they are heading.

If you are as right about that as you were in accepting Kelly's article at face value, we should be safe for a long time yet.
The ball is still very much in play here with no indication of which way the result will ultimately go.

The second time you've come out with that, tonys. Would you produce a link? I would hate people to think that you just make things up as you go along.
This is what I said:

Quote :

We are between a rock and a hard place. Anglo is a sink and AIB and BOI are zombies. I think tonys points about Morgan Kelly's figures are a distraction, as the amount of information coming out is limited and peoples' grasp of the scale of the thing has improved, not got worse, as time has gone on. Personally I think if anything he is underestimating. expatgirl is right though in that if it is feasible to hold on to the land and buildings long enough something would be salvaged.

Where are the personally signed letters of guarantee at this stage, I wonder? Has anyone checked? If they are not to be found, we should not nationalise.

You did say this
” Brian Cowen's statement yesterday that the motivations and agenda behind the Government's actions should not be questioned should be seen in this context.”
and this
“The Government clearly cannot be trusted to act in the national interest and the Banks Guarantee made that clear.”
and this
“Who are Cowen and Lenihan listening to? They appear are clearly lying when they say this bank is systemic.”

But you are right and I do apologise, I mistook you for Aragon, you look so alike.

Apology accepted.

You should've gone to Specsaver

46 Million AIB shares traded today. 22.5 Million BOI.

Holy Schmoly. Someone must have come in at 4.30 to buy shit loads of BOI.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

46 Million AIB shares traded today. 22.5 Million BOI.

Holy Schmoly. Someone must have come in at 4.30 to buy shit loads of BOI.

Have ye voted in the new AIB price poll for tomorrow ??? Yeah, it could stabilise the price now, this Nationalisation, and very soon that lucky guy with the squillion AIB shares at 45c each could have a small fortune of four times that.

Hm.

Wednesday's Irish Times suggests that illegal short-selling could have caused the extended collapse of Irish banking stocks. London has recently lifted its ban on short-selling but the ban still applies to Irish institutions listed on foreign exchanges. Brokers believe this is what cause the huge sale of Irish stocks on Tuesday afternoon as short-sellers were forced to sell in order to close off positions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0121/1232474670950.html

johnfás wrote:

Wednesday's Irish Times suggests that illegal short-selling could have caused the extended collapse of Irish banking stocks. London has recently lifted its ban on short-selling but the ban still applies to Irish institutions listed on foreign exchanges. Brokers believe this is what cause the huge sale of Irish stocks on Tuesday afternoon as short-sellers were forced to sell in order to close off positions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0121/1232474670950.html

Red Herring ?

ISEQ Haemorrhaging - 2170
BOI down 15% - 34c
Elan down 6%
Independent down 4%

Looks like it.

There are people who make a well argued case that short selling allows the market to function better.

The bottom line is people don't think the banks are worth anything.

ISEQ 2130 - where will it end today ?


http://www.sharewatch.com/iseq.php

Blaming illegal short selling, demonic UK off shore hedge funds etc etc is a complete distraction. It is really quite simple.
1 Few companies will make a profit in the year ahead, so there will be few profits and there should be no dividends.
2 Some companies will fail.
3 The stock market generally will not recover for as far as I can see into next year.
4 Major markets may have further to fall and as they do the pressure on the ISEQ will remain down.
5 Therefore why buy a share now and take a risk, when it could cost less later and with the added benifit of perhaps then seeing some prospect of growth and profit in the foreseeable future.

There are many viable business in Ireland and the job now is to ensure that they remain intact, and are able to be more competitive. Share prices are virtually irrelevant in the current situation. Ireland needs to concentrate on the future and growing an indigenous commercial base and take whatever measures necessary to ensure that it can create the wealth necessary to sustain a reasonable standard of living in the future.

One of the critical economic points to watch for are signs that deflation is decreasing and inflation is on its way. That is when to you need to be in assets.

Squire wrote:

Blaming illegal short selling, demonic UK off shore hedge funds etc etc is a complete distraction. It is really quite simple.
1 Few companies will make a profit in the year ahead, so there will be few profits and there should be no dividends.
2 Some companies will fail.
3 The stock market generally will not recover for as far as I can see into next year.
4 Major markets may have further to fall and as they do the pressure on the ISEQ will remain down.
5 Therefore why buy a share now and take a risk, when it could cost less later and with the added benifit of perhaps then seeing some prospect of growth and profit in the foreseeable future.

There are many viable business in Ireland and the job now is to ensure that they remain intact, and are able to be more competitive. Share prices are virtually irrelevant in the current situation. Ireland needs to concentrate on the future and growing an indigenous commercial base and take whatever measures necessary to ensure that it can create the wealth necessary to sustain a reasonable standard of living in the future.

One of the critical economic points to watch for are signs that deflation is decreasing and inflation is on its way. That is when to you need to be in assets.

I don't think you could say better than that Squire, but on its own I don't think that can fix things for Ireland. The growth of recent years was first dependent on foreign direct investment and then on construction. Not all the FDI will leave overnight but the trend surely will be that much of it will go soon. Construction is gone. Emigration is not an easy option either. I think we need to be prepared to take emergency measures of all kinds to keep producing and to keep people off bread lines.

Our population is too small to provide a market for a modern industrial base so we need to be able to export at all costs. That brings us into direct competition with places with much lower cost bases as you have pointed out. Since Thatcher on there has been huge confusion about what is really productive in a national economy. The basic necessities of life, and income from exports, are the important things to be producing imo, but there is an illusion that local unneccessary consumption and "services" can in some way pay for themselves.

Squire wrote:

Blaming illegal short selling, demonic UK off shore hedge funds etc etc is a complete distraction. It is really quite simple.

Not 100% true. We do now and always have suffered from London as a financial centre, at base they start off with a negative view of Ireland and Irish companies, they never were comfortable with the “Celtic Tiger” and a standard of living higher than their own was only acceptable as a technical blip. Without a doubt in my opinion, this view informs their decision making at some level, they & others will deny this, but it is now and always has been there to see for anyone who cares to look.

tonys wrote:

Squire wrote:

Blaming illegal short selling, demonic UK off shore hedge funds etc etc is a complete distraction. It is really quite simple.

Not 100% true. We do now and always have suffered from London as a financial centre, at base they start off with a negative view of Ireland and Irish companies, they never were comfortable with the “Celtic Tiger” and a standard of living higher than their own was only acceptable as a technical blip. Without a doubt in my opinion, this view informs their decision making at some level, they & others will deny this, but it is now and always has been there to see for anyone who cares to look.

As expatgirl pointed out, they have their own very serious problems. When there was money to be made here, they were happy enough to pile in. You may well be right though and a residual racist approach is definitely still there. They must be in denial about China and India's development.

You only have to look at what the British Government did to Iceland, evoking "financial terrorism" and shutting down their entire banking system, to see that the mangy old lion still has dangerous claws. I would distinguish the Government from the people, who are by and large friendly and sympathetic.

I don't know about racism and perceptions but the UK investors like any investors will invest anywhere if they think they can make a profit. They have very large investments in the East and as far as I know invest more than any other European country in the likes of China and India.

The English may have a thing about Ireland but I do think the Irish may also have a distorted view of the English. I am a bit of an outsider and find it all a bit odd.

Cactus
On real wealth production. May come back to that, Have a lot of reading and prep to do just now.

tonys wrote:

Squire wrote:

Blaming illegal short selling, demonic UK off shore hedge funds etc etc is a complete distraction. It is really quite simple.

Not 100% true. We do now and always have suffered from London as a financial centre, at base they start off with a negative view of Ireland and Irish companies, they never were comfortable with the “Celtic Tiger” and a standard of living higher than their own was only acceptable as a technical blip. Without a doubt in my opinion, this view informs their decision making at some level, they & others will deny this, but it is now and always has been there to see for anyone who cares to look.

Interesting picture - is that just from the Irish Times you're getting that idea or is there other evidence you have ?

I've been doubtful about short-selling before but I think in the end it's justified. Because a bank surely has to provide for the event of financial mortars getting thrown at it over the wall as much as it has of other risk. You'd imagine banks would be too big to be able to get hit by funds hedged for the purpose of knocking it down so as to just get a return but in the long run, the short-seller needs to keep the victim alive and they do hit banks it seems.

The banks are horribly shedding share value this morning and this week now but they are at the low end of their value, something the short seller mightn't bother with as the return would be very low and the bank in danger of being locked anyway and the share price frozen.

Don't you think it's the market that's losing confidence because there's no truth coming out, just like McWilliams prescribed back in September as his Step #2 after the Guarantee ???

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Squire wrote:

Blaming illegal short selling, demonic UK off shore hedge funds etc etc is a complete distraction. It is really quite simple.

Not 100% true. We do now and always have suffered from London as a financial centre, at base they start off with a negative view of Ireland and Irish companies, they never were comfortable with the “Celtic Tiger” and a standard of living higher than their own was only acceptable as a technical blip. Without a doubt in my opinion, this view informs their decision making at some level, they & others will deny this, but it is now and always has been there to see for anyone who cares to look.

Interesting picture - is that just from the Irish Times you're getting that idea or is there other evidence you have ?

Practically any and all financial articles coming out of London, pre Celtic Tiger, during Celtic Tiger and post Celtic Tiger, in fairness they weren’t the only ones, the Germans liked us when we were poor, but became less keen thereafter.

If its any comfort to you tonys, Lloyds and Barclays are crashing today.

It isn't, I own Barclarys shares and it is not pretty . About the only shares I do own - the Glaziers siezed my Manchester United Shares .

[quote="cactus flower"]

tonys wrote:

Not 100% true. We do now and always have suffered from London as a financial centre, at base they start off with a negative view of Ireland and Irish companies, they never were comfortable with the “Celtic Tiger” and a standard of living higher than their own was only acceptable as a technical blip. Without a doubt in my opinion, this view informs their decision making at some level, they & others will deny this, but it is now and always has been there to see for anyone who cares to look.

This is bang on the money. Let us not forget that the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) is actually ALLOWED to publish surveys which ask which British accent employers prefer... RP comes top (posh), followed by Scottish. I heard this survey on the radio two years running and they were actually ALLOWED to say on air that Scouse, Welsh and Brummie accents made the speaker sound lazy. They didn't mention Irish, possibly because of our independence, they could have been accused of racism. Can you imagine of this sort of survey had been carried out on the basis of skin colour or gender?? The CBI would be banged up... but no, we are still allowed to discriminate on the basis of accent, apparently

Folks, the class system is alive and well. As is the "fog on channel, Continent cut off" mentality. As for us Irish, a friend knows someone in the IDA who used to talk about the "Nigel effect"... if the IDA had a meeting trying to market investment opportunities here or whatever, they could guarantee that if there was a Nigel on the UK delegation, the investment wouldn't happen. They disn't know why, but were hypothesising that Nigel is a very conservative, middle englander kind of name.....not popular outside England, and conservative English people probably don't rate us very highly.

There is this unsaid undercurrent in the UK... probably as a part derived from their "our glorious imperial history" teachings in schools, where if one tells people that x,y,or z is better in Ireland or Europe, they just mostly blank out and you can tell you are not being believed. Sadly, people here often don't believe me when I say some stuff is better organised here...WE need higher national self esteem and those across the water could perhaps deal with less. The entertaining thing is that Brits are usually only too happy to believe that Canada or Australia might be better places to live, but then, Lizzie W is still on their coinage...coincidence...I think not!!

And in case anyone is tempted to bawl me out for a racist rant, I hold joint citizenship. I feel therefore that I have the right to complain.

People can publish surveys of whatever they want. How could you stop someone publishing such a survey anywhere? It is not illegal. Thus the question of "allowed" does not arise. However, if a potential employee felt that a potential employer had discriminated against them on this basis they would obviously have a course of action and would win if the evidence was in their favour.

On a point of information I can find nothing about this survery when I search Google so a link would be useful. Did the employers actually say that they discriminate on the basis of accent? This is a tall accusation and really we'd need the evidence in order to examine the matter to a proper degree. For instance was this a survey of employers in their professional or personal capacity? I can't make a judgement on anything without the raw data in front of me.

It was published an air, announced on one of the BBC radio channels, 2003 and 2004 I think. Having heard it and not remembered when, I'm afraid I can't be more precise. However, the survey originated from the CBI, I think and I can dig out my (British) husband to corroborate what I heard, he was in the car with me both times, on the way to work. We discussed it over coffee at work too, most of the (Welsh) people I worked with at the time were less than thrilled with it. Quite a topic of conversation!

ISEQ recovering a little this morning - at 2264

AIB up 5%
BOI down 8%
Ryanair up 6%
McInerney down 6%

Swings and roundabouts this morning

Guardian now blaming hedgies for Barclay's crash.....why EXACTLY did they lift the shorting ban again?? Hedgies made 4bn. Well, I suppose at least SOMEONE is making money....