Seán Fitzpatrick has resigned due to a controversy over loans to directors. He had an 87 million loan from the bank.

More to follow.

87 Million ! Good God. What tf was he doing with that.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

87 Million ! Good God. What tf was he doing with that.

Im too scared to even contemplate it - if he invested it as well as the bank themselves - well we wont be seeing much change out of that emerge anytime soon if ever.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

87 Million ! Good God. What tf was he doing with that.

Maybe investing it in Sean Quinn's businesses ?

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=16590
http://www.politics.ie/economy/39117-chairman-anglo-irish-bank-resigns.html
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055444380

I imagine he was spending it. Does he not deserve a bit of gravy. The important thing is that hopefully he was able to offload his shares to the unfortunates. I hope his privacy is respected. Imagine the pressure of owing 87 million. He should just declare bankruptcy.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

87 Million ! Good God. What tf was he doing with that.

Apartment in Kusadasi?
Getting the lawn weeded?
Attic conversion?

Who can really adequately imagine the lifestyles of the Septic Tigers financial plutocrats?

Richard Bruton and Cowen (?) will be on Prime Time in a second or two... They should be talking about this new infrastructure programme but will no doubt be mentioning your man too.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1216/primetime_av.html?2463951,null,230

I think she said Eamon Ryan... but it does rhyme . I can never understand what Miriam says anyway - she speaks out her nose.

IFIN (Irish financial index) down below 1000 today. It's been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Every time it went down to a new and lower milestone, there was some informed investor (usually on the pin) who said the financials couldn't go any lower and they were investing. I suppose its only in the investment community that someone sees a train wreck occuring and wants to jump onto it. Exciting, no doubt, but ultimately damaging. Only Tommy Cruise can play around with trains and not get hurst. The rest of us are mere mortals.

€87 million, shmillion. Mere pennies to the big boy financiers during the bomiest of booms until it all went boom boom.

Let's see. I'll take depositors money. I'm the expert financier. Who will I lend it to? Meself! Happy days are here again.

Director's loans are something every Director is obliged to know must be treated with care and fully documented. It appears that this loan was kept off the audited books by being covered by temporary loans at time of audit.

I find it very hard to understand how that was legal (RTE says it is).

Quote :

In a statement Mr Fitzpatrick he said he had made his decision “in
the best interests of the bank and all its stakeholders”. He said his
decision related to loans he had with the bank totalling €87 million
“which will be included in the annual report for 2008 in the note
relating to Directors’ Loans.” “This balance is substantially
higher than in the 2007 report because in prior years I had temporarily
transferred my loans to another bank before each year end. I had done
this on my own initiative over an eight year period,” the statement
said. He said the transfer of the loans between banks did not
breach banking or legal regulations. “However it is clear to me, on
reflection, that it was inappropriate and unacceptable from a
transparency point of view,” he added. He said he was “fully responsible for my own decisions and actions” and said he regretted he had “adopted this approach”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1218/breaking89.htm

If he used it for investing in just about anything, he's fucked.

cactus flower wrote:

I find it very hard to understand how that was legal (RTE says it is).

Its more legal when it is a bank. Most of the legislation relating to company loans to directors have an exclusion for companies who lend money in the ordinary course of their business, ie a bank. I'm not saying that is how it should be.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

If he used it for investing in just about anything, he's fucked.

Alot of the initial reporting of these events tends to be less rather than more accurate. I would imagine he didnt have 87 million of personal loans. I would imagine most of it would be held in companies. He is in a bad state but if he had decent financial and legal advice (which presumably he did) he will have been able to minimise his personal liability alot.

Bruton is destroying Ryan btw.

A person who controls the money of the a publicly traded financial institution should never, never be allowed access to the funds. If these individuals want loans, there are plently of other financials institutions which can lend the funds after they have done their own independent due diligence. This is just common sense. The fastest dwindling commodity in the western hemisphere.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I find it very hard to understand how that was legal (RTE says it is).

Its more legal when it is a bank. Most of the legislation relating to company loans to directors have an exclusion for companies who lend money in the ordinary course of their business, ie a bank. I'm not saying that is how it should be.

Do banks in the "ordinary course of their business" have loans out for tens of millions not shown in the books?

Directors have a duty to ensure that the Company keeps adequate books of accounts and can be made personally liable for the debts of the Company under s.204 Companies Act 1990 if they fail to do so.

I don't know enough regarding this situation to make anything resembling an informed judgement as to whether or not that has been complied with. Beyond which, the correct arbitrator in such matters is the courts.

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I find it very hard to understand how that was legal (RTE says it is).

Its more legal when it is a bank. Most of the legislation relating to company loans to directors have an exclusion for companies who lend money in the ordinary course of their business, ie a bank. I'm not saying that is how it should be.

Do banks in the "ordinary course of their business" have loans out for tens of millions not shown in the books?

CF, there was a good artcile in the Financial Times by a young lady who is well versed in analysing financial statements. The gist of her article (which I'll never find now) is that it is becoming nearly impossible to get a clear picture of any company's financial and economic well being. The accounting rules, along with the way a company can finance its debts, are changing every year, and rather than making the accounting and reporting standards clearer the relevant authorities are allowing them to become more opaque with every passing year. Hell, the US FASB rules have been allowed to be manipulated even as the authorities recognised the damage they have been doing to confidence in the financial sector this year because they are afraid if people knew the actual liabilities the entire system would collapse. Trying to ferret out a mere few million in loans to directors and other sundaries is nearly impossible these days.

rockyracoon wrote:

A person who controls the money of the a publicly traded financial institution should never, never be allowed access to the funds. If these individuals want loans, there are plently of other financials institutions which can lend the funds after they have done their own independent due diligence. This is just common sense. The fastest dwindling commodity in the western hemisphere.

Indeed, no one in their right mind places themselves in an invidious position. They owed responsibility to the share holders.

It is not common sense that is in short supply but proper ethical standards and effective regulatorary structures. Standards have become base and unacceptable behaviour not only accepted but at times almost venerated.

When I look at some who are communally held in high regard I wonder about peoples judgement, comprehension of what the issues are and what is taking place, and wider ethical standards.

The market capital of Anglo is 240 million or so (it won't be by the end of today) and this guy had a loan of 87 million .. along with the other directors loans according to Morning Ireland, the fraction of what the bank has in directors loans was 60% - if I got all that right.

Joan Burton on Morning Ireland is talking about her days as an accountantancy and auditing lecturer and she said that now and again she would give a lecture on something like this which was a textbook example of money manipulatio by directors.

Anglo 20 cents this morning; BOI 76c AIB 1.66c IL&P 1.48c

What the bank is worth Audi and the loans have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

youngdan wrote:

What the bank is worth Audi and the loans have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Do you think the bank will be worth less soon because of the loans ?

They were discussing it like this on the radio this morning so I suppose they were giving a picture of the figures in relation to each other.

I suppose the question is what will happen now if Anglo goes to zero ?

Morning Ireland on it this morning, for the late risers
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1219/morningireland_av.html?2465612,null,209

There was an extraordinary statement by Pat Carey on Newstalk where he said that the time had probably come for the nationalisation or orderly wind-up of Anglo. Put that in your share portfolio and smoke it. Did anybody else hear that? Did I mistake somebody else for Carey?

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

There was an extraordinary statement by Pat Carey on Newstalk where he said that the time had probably come for the nationalisation or orderly wind-up of Anglo. Put that in your share portfolio and smoke it. Did anybody else hear that? Did I mistake somebody else for Carey?

I don't know who it was but I half-heard something like that on Morning Ireland too.