expat girl wrote:

hmm.... Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor did get canned. I would agree that 2 jailed politicians is not a lot.....but....Frank Dunlop, didn't he go down as well??

We did have the tribunals and Haughey and Lowry were roundly humiliated, Ahern was forced to resign.... can anyone think of any others??

Interesting that Zhou says Seanie has benefitted from a Basel loophole not just an Irish one. Which leads on to the question of how many international merchant bankers have been doing a Seanie?? guess we'll never know, but I'll bet when the dust settles in a few years time he'll not be the only one. I'd bet half the City was borrowing moolah to put on property and shares during the boom. And as for Wall Street.....

I think Zhou is introducing smoke and mirrors with the reference of Basel. According to Deputy Burton, she, as a professional accountant, cannot understand why Seanie Fitz is not facing prosecution under the Companies Act. So it has nothing to do with Basel. And I share Deputy Burton's bewilderment regarding Fitzpatrick.

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

Credit Unions don't keep their money in a safe on the premises and they also lend more than they have. The invest their money to get a return and risk is entailed. Its the capitalist system.

There is one big difference:

"What is a credit union?
A credit union is a group of people who save together and lend to each other at a fair and reasonable rate of interest. Credit unions offer members the chance to have control over their own finances by making their own savings work for them. Every credit union is owned by the members — the people who save and borrow with it — People like you.
When you become a member and start saving with your credit union you will have access to fair and reasonable rates on savings and loans.
Your savings contribute to your credit union’s loan fund. So your savings are helping other members. Members like you.
A credit union exists only to serve its members — not to profit from their needs. Surplus income generated is returned to the members by way of a dividend an/or is directed to improved or additional services required by the members.
Credit unions are non-sectarian and non-political, and continue that Irish tradition of co-operative self help.
It has been shown throughout history that by working together people can achieve far more through co-operation than by individual effort. The success of the credit union movements worldwide is a clear illustration of this. Credit unions have served their members well in Ireland for the last 50 years, and as long as there are active members, they will continue to do so.

http://www.creditunion.ie/Default.aspx?p=101&n=141

That's all very nice, but the Credit Union money is still part of the global financial system and is subject to risk when it is invested, in just the same way. A credit union recently settled for 500,000 euro compensation from a financial advisor that had given dubious advice to the CU on where to put its money.

Quote :

In almost any other country where proper corporate governance is in place SF would be charged. Here he goes on holidays. Fcuking nonsense!!

Sums it up. Shooting messengers is a national passtime in Ireland. It's a sort of disease of public discourse here that when once a person or people are discovered doing patently wrong things, there is a rush to find mitigating circumstances so that the wrong begins to look like something else entirely - or at least is 'contextualised' into something other than what it is. A thing that is as clear and plain as it could be gets finessed into a sort of grey blancmange in the interests of 'balance' - mainly for the sake of disguising our collective embarrassment and/or wanting not to have to think about it. Give it another two weeks and Fitzpatrick will be yet another hero of the cute hoors, and the widows in the doorways will be saying 'sure, God love him. wouldn't he make a great Taoiseach!' The Anglo Irish situation stinks to high heaven. We are CRAZY to let the government do this to us - especially this government at this time. We have only a fraction of the information we need and are being forced effectively to sign a contract without seeings terms and also to sign a blank cheques. What information we do have tells us that the thing is quite possibly corrupt. It's certainly massively incompetent and it is being put into the hands of politicians who have shown themselves to be massively incompetent. Cowen himself is directly implicated - one of the most arrogant of the FF party pack who thought his bullying of people who counseled fiscal caution was admirable and connoted 'leadership qualities'. In fact he's just an incompetent bully. If Fitzpatrick, in his position, could get away with doing what he did for so long, what on earth were those around him up to? There are certainly some savers/investors at Anglo Irish who do not deserve to suffer but as compared to the scale of the problems this measure will cause the entire country, it's the lesser of two evils that the problem should be rstricted to those on whom the burden of the risk lies.

I'm astounded at the way people don't see what is going un - how extraordinarily undemocratic this Bill is - it's about much more than Anglo Irish. What has happened to Irish people? We used to be better than this.

Burton calls Fitzpatricks behaviour "Fraud. F. R. A. U. D."

Slim Buddha wrote:

expat girl wrote:

hmm.... Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor did get canned. I would agree that 2 jailed politicians is not a lot.....but....Frank Dunlop, didn't he go down as well??

We did have the tribunals and Haughey and Lowry were roundly humiliated, Ahern was forced to resign.... can anyone think of any others??

Interesting that Zhou says Seanie has benefitted from a Basel loophole not just an Irish one. Which leads on to the question of how many international merchant bankers have been doing a Seanie?? guess we'll never know, but I'll bet when the dust settles in a few years time he'll not be the only one. I'd bet half the City was borrowing moolah to put on property and shares during the boom. And as for Wall Street.....

I think Zhou is introducing smoke and mirrors with the reference of Basel. According to Deputy Burton, she, as a professional accountant, cannot understand why Seanie Fitz is not facing prosecution under the Companies Act. So it has nothing to do with Basel. And I share Deputy Burton's bewilderment regarding Fitzpatrick.

I would be interested to know what provision of company law Joan Burtin is talking about. Did she specify it?

Sean Fitz's case has rightly been referred to the Director of corporate enforcement who loves a day in court. If there is something to charge S. Fitz with then I think we can rest assured that will be done.

I was not trying to defend S Fitz or the regulator or the Auditors. I was merely trying to defend Ireland by showing that regulatory problems are not unique to Ireland.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

The Irish banks are governed by Basel.
It appears the loans to Directors were disclosed in quarterly reports to the Financial Regulator.
The regulatory failure is international and is a failure of the system:
FT Article - The Failure of Financial Regulation

I agree Zhou, but we can deal with our bit of it right here in Ireland.

expat girl wrote:

....
Interesting that Zhou says Seanie has benefitted from a Basel loophole not just an Irish one......

I didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that the suggestion that we are a banana republic a regulatory framework isn't correct. It may have failed but the suggestion was there are no relevant laws in Ireland.

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

Credit Unions don't keep their money in a safe on the premises and they also lend more than they have. The invest their money to get a return and risk is entailed. Its the capitalist system.

There is one big difference:

"What is a credit union?
A credit union is a group of people who save together and lend to each other at a fair and reasonable rate of interest. Credit unions offer members the chance to have control over their own finances by making their own savings work for them. Every credit union is owned by the members — the people who save and borrow with it — People like you.
When you become a member and start saving with your credit union you will have access to fair and reasonable rates on savings and loans.
Your savings contribute to your credit union’s loan fund. So your savings are helping other members. Members like you.
A credit union exists only to serve its members — not to profit from their needs. Surplus income generated is returned to the members by way of a dividend an/or is directed to improved or additional services required by the members.
Credit unions are non-sectarian and non-political, and continue that Irish tradition of co-operative self help.
It has been shown throughout history that by working together people can achieve far more through co-operation than by individual effort. The success of the credit union movements worldwide is a clear illustration of this. Credit unions have served their members well in Ireland for the last 50 years, and as long as there are active members, they will continue to do so.

http://www.creditunion.ie/Default.aspx?p=101&n=141

That's all very nice, but the Credit Union money is still part of the global financial system and is subject to risk when it is invested, in just the same way. A credit union recently settled for 500,000 euro compensation from a financial advisor that had given dubious advice to the CU on where to put its money.

It's not just 'nice' Cactus. There is a bid difference between that situation and the one at Anglo Irish. It's a lot more egalitarian and bottom up in its operation. And at least they did get compensation from the person who owed it and are not demanding it from the country. Neither do they have directors helping themselves to massive loans, undeclared. It's possible that the CU too have not been behaving as well as they might and no doubt there will be some scandal any day now that proves how even they have been corrupted by the Celtic Tiger mentality. But absent deliberate fraud or wrong-doing, the nature, structure, governance and purpose of the institution make it a lot more difficult for that to happen.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

expat girl wrote:

....
Interesting that Zhou says Seanie has benefitted from a Basel loophole not just an Irish one......

I didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that the suggestion that we are a banana republic a regulatory framework isn't correct. It may have failed but the suggestion was there are no relevant laws in Ireland.

We most certainly have a culture of not enforcing the law. That MUST change!

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

In almost any other country where proper corporate governance is in place SF would be charged. Here he goes on holidays. Fcuking nonsense!!

Sums it up. Shooting messengers is a national passtime in Ireland. It's a sort of disease of public discourse here that when once a person or people are discovered doing patently wrong things, there is a rush to find mitigating circumstances so that the wrong begins to look like something else entirely - or at least is 'contextualised' into something other than what it is. A thing that is as clear and plain as it could be gets finessed into a sort of grey blancmange in the interests of 'balance' - mainly for the sake of disguising our collective embarrassment and/or wanting not to have to think about it. Give it another two weeks and Fitzpatrick will be yet another hero of the cute hoors, and the widows in the doorways will be saying 'sure, God love him. wouldn't he make a great Taoiseach!' The Anglo Irish situation stinks to high heaven. We are CRAZY to let the government do this to us - especially this government at this time. We have only a fraction of the information we need and are being forced effectively to sign a contract without seeings terms and also to sign a blank cheques. What information we do have tells us that the thing is quite possibly corrupt. It's certainly massively incompetent and it is being put into the hands of politicians who have shown themselves to be massively incompetent. Cowen himself is directly implicated - one of the most arrogant of the FF party pack who thought his bullying of people who counseled fiscal caution was admirable and connoted 'leadership qualities'. In fact he's just an incompetent bully. If Fitzpatrick, in his position, could get away with doing what he did for so long, what on earth were those around him up to? There are certainly some savers/investors at Anglo Irish who do not deserve to suffer but as compared to the scale of the problems this measure will cause the entire country, it's the lesser of two evils that the problem should be rstricted to those on whom the burden of the risk lies.

I'm astounded at the way people don't see what is going un - how extraordinarily undemocratic this Bill is - it's about much more than Anglo Irish. What has happened to Irish people? We used to be better than this.

Aragon, I felt the same over the Bank Guarantee. We were hijacked and it was undemocratic, deliberately manoevred to rush a measure through without any opportunity for the public or opposition to understand what was going on. Sinn Fein voted for the Guarantee, and Finian McGrath (I think). Only Labour and Tony Gregory voted against. Once the Guarantee was in place the noose was tightly around our necks. Now we are being strung up.

Alan Shatter and Joan Burton would be good regulators.

Shatter is asking if Sean Fitzpatrick was a "front" for other borrowers.

He says that the actions involved - Nationwide and Anglo Irish - are criminal and not just negligent.

tonys wrote:

youngdan wrote:

If what Kelly is saying about the bonds is true and it must be assumed that it is then 2 things are obvious and 1 hidden.

It is clear that Cowen has committed Treason by overruling those consided to be the experts who advised a different approach.
If we accept that Kelly’s informant from the meeting is to be trusted and who would not trust a rat, then we know that there were two “expert”, but opposing opinions offered.
So, a question for you, Youngdan, in the event of two or more “expert” opinions being offered, how do you propose that a Minister should be made aware of your preferred choice?

It is clear that Cowen does not understand the details of bond markets and CDSs.
Maybe they thought that for a Government to deliberately decide to let a national bank default to international investors might, just might, send the wrong signals to international financial markets and that this might not be in the best interests of the other banks or indeed the Government, who also deal with these same international investors.

It is hidden but clear to be that Cowen is obeying his masters and does not have the well-being of the Irish people foremost
Bollox.

There are 3 paragraphs here so yes us take them in order

If it were me who was in Cowen's position, as he is the boss, then I would listen to both sides. The ministry of finance people tell me not to gaurantee Anglo and the regulator and the central bank man say to do it. I would be thinking that the regulator sleeping at the switch was one of the reasons that the grim situation had reached this stage but I would hold my tongue. I would have plenty of questions but it all boils down to this question. "Do we have the money to cover the gaurantee and what is your best guess of this figure being" Because if they gave the gaurantee and were not able to meet the commitment then the country would be in default and ruined. To me it appears that they don't have the cash and the country will default


The 2nd paragraph. Your reply to my statement has no connection what so ever.
According to Kelly the bond holders were covered by the CDS insurance. Even if they were not Cowen is supposed to represent the interests of the Irish State and not the bondholders. Who gives a bollix about the bondholders.

3rd paragraph. You think Cowen is a great Offallyman who is only worried about the Irish people. Good luck with that. I think you are confusing him and Joe Dooley the hurler.

A question that perhaps Dan or Rocky could give me an answer to.
The mantra spun is oft repeated regarding the paddybanks."Irish banks had no exposure to US sub-prime securities issued"Usually followed with a self-congratulory pat on the back.
However.Up to 30 September 2008,Anglo Irish Bank was top of the Global Pile when it came to the worldwide issuance of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities(cmbs) last year.8.7 billion dollars worth equating to a 30% market share.
http://www.cmalert.com/Public/MarketPlace/Ranking/index.cfm?files=disp&article_id=1044690862

Presumably these asset backed issuances are covered by the midnight guarantee?
If covered,is it possible to determine who the holders of this Anglo paper are?

powderfinger wrote:

A question that perhaps Dan or Rocky could give me an answer to.
The mantra spun is oft repeated regarding the paddybanks."Irish banks had no exposure to US sub-prime securities issued"Usually followed with a self-congratulory pat on the back.
However.Up to 30 September 2008,Anglo Irish Bank was top of the Global Pile when it came to the worldwide issuance of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities(cmbs) last year.8.7 billion dollars worth equating to a 30% market share.
http://www.cmalert.com/Public/MarketPlace/Ranking/index.cfm?files=disp&article_id=1044690862

Presumably these asset backed issuances are covered by the midnight guarantee?
If covered,is it possible to determine who the holders of this Anglo paper are?

I can't answer but I hope someone can. Just before anyone else goes to an encyclopedia, I'm guessing that a CMBS or Commercial Mortgage Backed Security is a loan raised on the strength of an adequate return from the mortgages that you, as the bank, have on your books. You borrow on the belief that your mortgages will generate a healthy return.

So it is another name for a loan using a mortgage as 'collateral' - using a loan to borrow a loan. (I wonder at a higher level did not another bank borrow on the strength of all the cmbs it had loaned out ... )

From wiki on Mortgage Backed Securities

Quote :

There are many reasons for mortgage originators to finance their activities by issuing mortgage-backed securities. Mortgage-backed securities

1. transform relatively illiquid, individual financial assets into liquid and tradable capital market instruments.
2. allow mortgage originators to replenish their funds, which can then be used for additional origination activities.
3. can be used by Wall Street banks to monetize the credit spread between the origination of an underlying mortgage (private market transaction) and the yield demanded by bond investors through bond issuance (typically, a public market transaction).
4. are frequently a more efficient and lower cost source of financing in comparison with other bank and capital markets financing alternatives.
5. allow issuers to diversify their financing sources, by offering alternatives to more traditional forms of debt and equity financing.
6. allow issuers to remove assets from their balance sheet, which can help to improve various financial ratios, utilise capital more efficiently and achieve compliance with risk-based capital standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security

Or have I it completely wrong ?


On the pricing of these loans:

Quote :

Theoretical pricing

Pricing a vanilla corporate bond is based on two sources of uncertainty: default risk (credit risk) and interest rate (IR) exposure[3]. The MBS adds a third risk: early redemption (prepayment). The number of homeowners in residential MBS securitizations who prepay goes up when interest rates go down. One reason for this phenomenon is that homeowners can refinance at a lower fixed interest rate. Commercial MBS often mitigate this risk using call protection.[citation needed]

Someone's maths went badly wrong somewhere anyway.

powderfinger wrote:

A question that perhaps Dan or Rocky could give me an answer to.
The mantra spun is oft repeated regarding the paddybanks."Irish banks had no exposure to US sub-prime securities issued"Usually followed with a self-congratulory pat on the back.
However.Up to 30 September 2008,Anglo Irish Bank was top of the Global Pile when it came to the worldwide issuance of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities(cmbs) last year.8.7 billion dollars worth equating to a 30% market share.
http://www.cmalert.com/Public/MarketPlace/Ranking/index.cfm?files=disp&article_id=1044690862

Presumably these asset backed issuances are covered by the midnight guarantee?
If covered,is it possible to determine who the holders of this Anglo paper are?

That might be the most shocking thing that I have read all day.

Read what I wrote on the other thread where slim posted what was covered. Asset backed securities are covered. In my post I said that this would be a neglible figure and I had not seen figures for it and assumed it to be small where they took loans on their own assets.

Now I realize these bastards were doing what Freddy and Fannie were doing. That is outlandish. They bundled commercial mortages, sold them to investors, used the money from the investors to issue more mortages and then bundle and sell them to repeat the process until they owe investors over 8 billion euro.

No way should it have been gauranteed because Freddy had an implyed gaurantee but anglo is just a halfass bank.

It dosn't matter who owns the bonds, fuck to hell for being stupid and now they found a bollox even more stupid.


It is all over just turn out the light.

youngdan wrote:

powderfinger wrote:

A question that perhaps Dan or Rocky could give me an answer to.
The mantra spun is oft repeated regarding the paddybanks."Irish banks had no exposure to US sub-prime securities issued"Usually followed with a self-congratulory pat on the back.
However.Up to 30 September 2008,Anglo Irish Bank was top of the Global Pile when it came to the worldwide issuance of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities(cmbs) last year.8.7 billion dollars worth equating to a 30% market share.
http://www.cmalert.com/Public/MarketPlace/Ranking/index.cfm?files=disp&article_id=1044690862

Presumably these asset backed issuances are covered by the midnight guarantee?
If covered,is it possible to determine who the holders of this Anglo paper are?

That might be the most shocking thing that I have read all day.

Read what I wrote on the other thread where slim posted what was covered. Asset backed securities are covered. In my post I said that this would be a neglible figure and I had not seen figures for it and assumed it to be small where they took loans on their own assets.

Now I realize these bastards were doing what Freddy and Fannie were doing. That is outlandish. They bundled commercial mortages, sold them to investors, used the money from the investors to issue more mortages and then bundle and sell them to repeat the process until they owe investors over 8 billion euro.

No way should it have been gauranteed because Freddy had an implyed gaurantee but anglo is just a halfass bank.

It dosn't matter who owns the bonds, fuck to hell for being stupid and now they found a bollox even more stupid.


It is all over just turn out the light.

Dan, you can only run up that white flag so many times. If they were mortages given to Anglo's irish customers then whatever else they were or are, they weren't & aren't "sub prime".

tonys

"sub prime" means "higher risk"

Some massive half-finished developments down the docklands worth a fortune that are not going to perform anytime soon could be said to be risky.

I think Ireland had sub-prime for developers

Tonys. I was running up the white flag even before I heard about the 8 billion commercial mortage backed securities. You are like the lads in the Alamo and are going to fight. They all got killed.

We are talking commercial mortages here. The are defaulting like flies. Commercial real estate is worse than residential.

On this latest news I am in full flight so have you any last words for next of kin

Powderfinger

Thanks for that link. It is utterly chilling.


Tonys

Why can you not see just how serious this is? It is dire, there is no silver lining to this, none at all. The choice is default, emigrate or have future generations of Tonys paying for someone else's folly.

Anglo's debt was 8bn and the total loans there was 28bn - a fair fraction of it among a dozen other banks which included JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank ...

I got a little shiver from seeing Lehman's there

Audi I was looking at market share, Anglo nearly 30% Deutsche Bank 4.3% They were busy little beavers in Anglo.

Do either of ye know what 'Contracts For Difference' means in relation to what Fitzpatrick was doing in Anglo ?

There's those figures ! What do they mean 'Through September 30' ? Does that mean for months and years up to September 30 ?

I am unfamiliar with that term

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys

"sub prime" means "higher risk"

Some massive half-finished developments down the docklands worth a fortune that are not going to perform anytime soon could be said to be risky.

I think Ireland had sub-prime for developers

It means the borrowers were “sub prime” when the loans were given and now have no chance of servicing their loan.
There is nothing to suggest here that loans were extended on a sub prime basis by any of our banks, which in turn means even with a serious fall in property values the banks here stand a very much better change of getting out with their arse intact than those involved in “sub prime” lending.