You have to ask were they acting to cover the Government, if not what were they doing? If they were what was the agreement and with whom?

cactus flower wrote:

Edo wrote:

This shit goes on and on and on...................

"We have avoided the danger of nationalizing either institution, because it would have led to serious difficulty in international perceptions about the Irish banking sector," he said.

The man has a future as a comedian - seriously - does he only read the Sindo - does he not understand why a packet of tayto has more resalable value than any bank shares in this economy at the moment?

Edo wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Edo wrote:

This shit goes on and on and on...................

"We have avoided the danger of nationalizing either institution, because it would have led to serious difficulty in international perceptions about the Irish banking sector," he said.

The man has a future as a comedian - seriously - does he only read the Sindo?

That is truely surreal.

cactus flower wrote:

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Perhaps they would be more likely to do it if they knew a Bank Guarantee was going to go in place.

INDEED! But also you have to think why bother getting involved in something that could turn messy? There is more to this.

I suppose one would have to ask what ILP was getting out of this, or what they stood to lose?

One could ask if they were returning a favour.

Squire wrote:

You have to ask were they acting to cover the Government, if not what were they doing? If they were what was the agreement and with whom?

The idea that Lenihan didn't know about it is very hard to swallow. Unless he just sits in the room sucking his thumb wondering what is going on.

cactus flower wrote:

Squire wrote:

You have to ask were they acting to cover the Government, if not what were they doing? If they were what was the agreement and with whom?

The idea that Lenihan didn't know about it is very hard to swallow. Unless he just sits in the room sucking his thumb wondering what is going on.

We all knew the country needed a functioning banking sector and these banks were and are systemic. No matter what you think, it was at any cost. Any cost.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Squire wrote:

You have to ask were they acting to cover the Government, if not what were they doing? If they were what was the agreement and with whom?

The idea that Lenihan didn't know about it is very hard to swallow. Unless he just sits in the room sucking his thumb wondering what is going on.

We all knew the country needed a functioning banking sector and these banks were and are systemic. No matter what you think, it was at any cost. Any cost.

I .. eh .. wasn't serious.

from the FG website .... just saw it on the Pin
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=18691



Did the Government or Its Regulator Approve ILP/Anglo Transaction? - Coveney

Lenihan's Explanation as to his Involvement not Credible
Serious Questions Arise for Cowen & Lenihan on Anglo €7bn Transfer

Fine Gael Front Bench Spokesman, Simon Coveney T.D. has asked the key question: did the Government or its Regulator approve the ILP/Anglo transfer of €7bn? He was speaking in light of the most recent set of revelations regarding the transfer of billions of euro from ILP to Anglo Irish Bank last September.

"Rumours abound that the Government's Regulator was fully aware of the transactions between Anglo and IL&P to falsify deposit holdings in Anglo at the time that it happened. If this is the case it is simply not credible that the Government would not have been fully aware of the transaction. The announcement of the resignation of the chief executive of Irish Life and Permanent is welcome, but alone will not restore trust in the integrity of our financial system.

"That collapse of trust is not solely linked to bankers; the truth is it also includes a loss of trust in the ability of Government to manage this crisis. Minister Lenihan's explanation as to his involvement in this controversy is simply not credible.

"The Taoiseach and Minister Lenihan now need to provide clear answers to a lot of questions, including:

- Was it the case that, in September 2008, officials in the Department of Finance had prepared the draft legislation needed to nationalise Anglo Irish Bank and did the Taoiseach have any role in arguing the case for not nationalising Anglo?

- Did Anglo Irish Bank make the case to the Taoiseach and the Minister that it needed to shore up its deposit base before its end-of-year on September 30, in a way that would build confidence in the financial strength of the bank?

- Were the Taoiseach and Minister Lenihan personally involved in persuading other banks to provide funding to Anglo Irish Bank before the bank guarantee scheme was introduced?

- Was the Taoiseach or Minister Lenihan aware that when Anglo Irish Bank published its end of year results, that its customer deposit base appeared to have been replenished?

- Is it credible that when Minister Lenihan was making the political case for the €1.5 billion taxpayer recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank in December, that his officials did not make him aware of the implications of the September transaction with Irish Life and Permanent?

"Only through forthright answers to these questions can the Government begin to rebuild Ireland's battered financial reputation. If there is confirmation of Governmental (Government & Regulator) awareness of, or involvement in, the ILP/Anglo transaction it would have the most serious of consequences for the Government and its credibility in dealing with the banking crisis."
http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/36710/pkey/653/

Irish Times this morning

....
FitzPatrick loan cover-up may have been illegal, says Appleby

ILP said the transactions – which have cost its chief executive Denis Casey and two other senior executives their jobs – were in effect loans from ILP backed by “collateral” deposits from Anglo Irish.

However, Anglo said in a statement that its multibillion euro “inter-bank placements” with ILP over a week in September were “not cash collateral for deposits” from ILP.

The difference of opinion between Anglo and ILP is significant because if either bank is found to have misrepresented the transactions in their accounts then they may be open to legal action.

The Financial Regulator is already investigating whether Anglo undertook the transactions in an effort to artificially prop up its deposit levels and give a false picture of financial strength at its financial year-end on September 30th.

The regulator said the transactions were “completely unacceptable” and that its investigators have been asked “to complete their work as a matter of extreme urgency”.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0214/1233867937468.html

from Bulls and Bears last night on the Pin and how distorted Anglo's deposits look when you include the 750m from its subsidiary ILA:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=18688
Anglo Irish Bank's Interim Statements are the six month period ending....31/03/2008.

If the €750m was, as with the other lodgements, added under the 'customer account' heading then this is appears to be a major deception in a set of accounts made available to investors and reviewed by Ernst & Young.


In their interim report (http://www.angloirishbank.com/Investors ... ults_2008/) Anglo continually emphasised customer account balances with "Strong growth in Customer Deposits - Up €5.6Bn" on Pg 1 of the report (in fact they were up €1.85bn [€1.1bn without IL&P help] on a non constant currency basis, the way the figures are actually reported in the accounts).

Again, a lot of emphasis is put on the “growth” in customer account balances, especially on page 7.

However....

In the six months from 31/03/07 to 30/09/07 Customer Account Balances grew by 16%. In contrast, in the six months from 30/09/07 to 31/03/08 Customer Account Balances grew by just 3.5% (on a non constant currency basis).

Given that it appears that IL&P provided €750m on the day of 31/03/08, through its subsidiary Irish Life Assurance (ILA), it appears that 41% of the growth in Customer Account balances in the six months ending 31/03/2008 arose from IL&P/Anglo transaction.

Also, the growth in Loans and Advances to Other Banks is of note, especially in the six month period to 31/03/2008.

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=opinion-qqqm=opinion-qqqa=general-qqqid=83921-qqqx=1.asp

Aragon drew our attention to the fact that six Cabinet Ministers refused to say whether or not they had loans from Anglo Irish Bank,

I think at this stage, all of them should come out and say whether or not they had loans, ditto, the former Regulator Mr. Neary.

The IL and P statement that was posted elsewhere here yesterday said that the Banks had been advised by the Regulator and the head of the Irish Central Bank that the banks should "look after" each other.

Why was Neary paid off and allowed early retirement with a bonus and golden handshake and full pension? Was this in the terms of his contract? Given that there were allegations of negligence why was no investigation carried out to see if there was cause for dismissal?

Who approved the payments to Neary and on what basis?

It seems inconceivable that Government did not collude in some way with Anglo Irish Bank's fraudulent manoevers to portray the bank as viable in order to avoid nationalisation. Nationalisation that Lenihan says as if it is a dirty word, and that all of the bankers were so anxious to avoid. Government has persistently and irrationally claimed against the views of all our reputable economists that Anglo Irish is systemic. Systemic to who exactly, I would like to know? Anglo Irish Loan book consists in the main of very large loans to a small number of individuals. Now that we own the bank, do we not have a right to know who they are?

George Lee was right when he said that we have all been suckered, and continue to be suckered.

Listening to these thieving charlatans talk about patriotism and the best interests of the country is beyond toleration.

IL&P staff have 'lost confidence' in executives

The Unite union, which claims to represent half of IL&P’s 5,000 workforce, wrote to the head of human resources Tony Hession last night saying the security employment of its members had been compromised by the delay in the CEO’s resignation. This delay had focused "enormous negative attention" on the organisation.

“It is the view of this union that the board risked sacrificing the security and tenure of the jobs of our members in an attempt to support the now resigned CEO.

“On behalf of this Union and our representatives, I wish to formally advise you that the chairman and interim CEO no longer retain the confidence of the 2,500 members of this trade union.”

PS - I am nearly sure I posted on the IL&P loan on one of the threads. It was a brilliant post criticising the board for refusing resignations. Does anybody know where that great prose can be found?

Best way of finding it would be through the "last posts" option in your profile - I had a quick look, but I couldn't see that particular one.

I can't find "last posts" and the search function is not working. I must check my hard copy of my collected writings.

Zhou, try browsing from this link:

https://machinenation.forumakers.com/search.forum?search_author=Zhou_Enlai&show_results=posts

Cheers JF. The post was better in my imagination!

Why haven't these telephone conversations received more media coverage?
They PROVE that the Financial Regulator knew of the ILP Anglo fraud.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/feb/22/revealed-inside-story-of-anglos-deposits-anglo-pho/

Quote :

Phone call between two Anglo Irish Bank Corporation (AIBC) officials and officials from the Financial Regulator (FR).

FR:
I just want to ask about one of the figures on the funding template –
the corporate figure, the €8 billion, is that still a net figure there?

AIBC:
Yes that's still a net figure...that's correct....(pause). That is
correct. Do you want me to continue? It's trying to manipulate our
balance sheet for our financial year end last night.

FR: Yes.

AIBC:
And what we have done is we have boosted our customer funding number
which we didn't include in our liquidity number, but we boosted our
customer funding number so when our snapshot is produced at the
beginning of December it looks as good as possible, it is not a real
number. If you looked at the other side of the balance sheet you will
see an interbank placement of €8 billion, Ok so I wouldn't read too
much into it. It just happens to fall on the last working day of the
month, the last working day of the template etc, so you know it's
something that we did.

FR: Is it in the ratios?

AIBC:
It won't appear in the ratios, no, its excluded from the ratios, it's
going back out today and sort of over the next three to four days.

FR: Ok, that's grand, right I think that's everything.

8 October

Phone call between two Anglo Irish Bank Corporation (AIBC) officials and officials from the Financial Regulator (FR)

FR: On the corporate flows, on the funding template, you netted down 4.5 billion on the week?

AIBC: Yeah

FR: I know last week you were saying you got some money in for over the financial year end.

AIBC: Thats correct.

FR: Does that include the outflows, is that going back, does it?

AIBC: It does indeed.

FR: Do you know what that would be without the chunk of money, kind of included in that then?

AIBC
official 1: Then you would be up quite a bit from Wednesday, you would
have been up significantly... I don't know... what is it... seven... I
don't know (pause)

AIBC official 2: If the underlying is seven then you would be up 2.5 billion.

AIBC official 1: 2.5 billion.

FR: Ok, thats grand.

Gilmore was on about it in the Dáil this week I'm sure - I'll check the transcripts in a second.

It definitely proves that the Regulator gave his blessing to the carry on ? Isn't he in a committee very soon over this? People are calling for his lump sum to be lump hammered.

Gilmore in the Dáil yesterday

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20090224.xml&Node=H7&Page=8

At the weekend, a most extraordinary report, one I find hard to believe, was published in the Sunday Tribune. The newspaper has indicated it has seen transcripts to confirm its report that the financial director of Anglo Irish Bank, Mr. Willie McAteer, told the head of our Financial Regulatory body, Mr. Neary, at a meeting in September that the bank would be “managing” its balance sheet, in other words, cooking its books. According to the Sunday Tribune, Mr. Neary responded with the words, “Fair play to you, Willie.”

The Sunday Tribune report also states that staff in the Office of the Financial Regulator were informed in a telephone call from officials of Anglo Irish Bank in October, made after the guarantee was put in place, that the bank was manipulating its balance sheet and the balance sheet did not represent a real number. The newspaper also reports that a senior civil servant, who is described as working closely with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, assured Irish Life & Permanent that he understood why it was necessary to carry out the back-to-back transactions and that there was no need for concern over these arrangements. Has the Taoiseach checked if these stories are true? Has he asked the Minister for Finance about them? What can he tell the House about them?

And the Taoiseach's reply for completeness:

I will make a general point and then answer the specific questions raised. As everyone knows, a thorough investigation is taking place in Anglo Irish Bank and certain matters which have come to the attention of the authorities are being investigated. People will be aware, therefore, that the meeting referred to in the Sunday Tribune article did not take place until 22 January 2009, that is, after the Government’s decision on the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank. It seems from the newspaper accounts that this is an allegation based on a newspaper’s interpretation of a document that is at least a third hand account of impressions of persons who were supposed to have attended the meeting in question.

The Department of Finance has no role in approving transactions of this kind between banks, much less four months after the fact. When the Department became aware in October, as a result of the initial PwC report on Anglo Irish Bank, that such transactions did exist the matter was immediately drawn to the attention of the Financial Regulator. The simple point I am making is that there are interested persons seeking retrospective approval on matters which were not given the imprimatur by the Department of Finance in any shape or form. I am satisfied of that, knowing the official concerned. Therefore, any effort to deal with this matter other than through the proper investigative channels - based on surmise, interpretation, recollection, or the post-dated memo of 22 January which mentioned something that was alleged to have happened in September - will not be useful. I did not attend the meeting in question; nor do I know of anybody who attended.

Let the investigators deal with the matter, because that is the only way we will get to the truth. It is important that any information that becomes available in the public domain be seen in that context. The only way in which this House can proceed - indeed, the only way in which the law can be pursued - is through the investigative arrangements set down by Acts of the Oireachtas. Every aspect of this matter will be investigated by the people concerned, independently and statutorily, and the true facts will be brought out. I cannot add to that.


....

I take the point that has been made. These transactions, as I said, took place at the end of September last year. The meeting referred to in the article in The Sunday Tribune did not take place until 22 January 2009. I am simply making the point that the Department of Finance official concerned had not been briefed on any discussion that may have taken place with the Financial Regulator on the matter and was not in a position to comment on that discussion, and the official concerned gave no imprimatur whatsoever to those transactions.

The position of the Financial Regulator is that it did not give authority to a transaction that would constitute a wrongdoing or would not be in compliance with the Central Bank Acts or the companies legislation. Regardless of what motivation there might be for putting across such a view - it should be kept in mind that this was four months after the fact in a memo dated after the decision on nationalisation of the bank - in respect of people looking back to see whether they could find retrospective approval for any such thing, the investigator is the only person who can come to a conclusion on the matter. The authorities would not agree with the interpretation being put on the reference to the memo dated 22 January, which is an important date when one takes into account that we are now looking back in the aftermath of a due diligence process that had taken place prior to that date and the decision taken by Government to nationalise the bank in the interest of maintaining financial stability in the country and of making sure that a bank of systemic importance did not fail. I am putting it no further than that.

I am as constrained in the matter as Deputy Gilmore but I am simply making those points as they are the reason we should be cautious in accepting the veracity of any such interpretations, given the interests of various parties, if I am making myself clear. Furthermore, I regard the official concerned, whom I know and with whom I have worked in the past, as a person of the highest integrity. I have no reason to believe that the Office of the Financial Regulator was not also seeking to discharge its duties conscientiously.

Tribune article wrote:

AIBC:
Yes that's still a net figure...that's correct....(pause). That is
correct. Do you want me to continue? It's trying to manipulate our
balance sheet for our financial year end last night.

FR: Yes

Taoiseach wrote:

People will be aware, therefore, that the meeting referred to in the Sunday Tribune article did not take place until 22 January 2009, that is, after the Government’s decision on the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank.

Is the Taoiseach referring to the document above ? When is the financial year end ? 22nd January ?

edit
kenny quizzing cowen in the Dáil last week
http://web.oirarcone.heanet.ie/asx.aspx?Channel=Dail&Date=20090217&Start=01:58:01.000&Duration=00:00:00.000

Dreaded_Estate wrote:

Why haven't these telephone conversations received more media coverage?
They PROVE that the Financial Regulator knew of the ILP Anglo fraud.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/feb/22/revealed-inside-story-of-anglos-deposits-anglo-pho/

Quote :

Phone call between two Anglo Irish Bank Corporation (AIBC) officials and officials from the Financial Regulator (FR).

FR:
I just want to ask about one of the figures on the funding template –
the corporate figure, the €8 billion, is that still a net figure there?

AIBC:
Yes that's still a net figure...that's correct....(pause). That is
correct. Do you want me to continue? It's trying to manipulate our
balance sheet for our financial year end last night.

FR: Yes.

AIBC:
And what we have done is we have boosted our customer funding number
which we didn't include in our liquidity number, but we boosted our
customer funding number so when our snapshot is produced at the
beginning of December it looks as good as possible, it is not a real
number. If you looked at the other side of the balance sheet you will
see an interbank placement of €8 billion, Ok so I wouldn't read too
much into it. It just happens to fall on the last working day of the
month, the last working day of the template etc, so you know it's
something that we did.

FR: Is it in the ratios?

AIBC:
It won't appear in the ratios, no, its excluded from the ratios, it's
going back out today and sort of over the next three to four days.

FR: Ok, that's grand, right I think that's everything.

8 October

Phone call between two Anglo Irish Bank Corporation (AIBC) officials and officials from the Financial Regulator (FR)

FR: On the corporate flows, on the funding template, you netted down 4.5 billion on the week?

AIBC: Yeah

FR: I know last week you were saying you got some money in for over the financial year end.

AIBC: Thats correct.

FR: Does that include the outflows, is that going back, does it?

AIBC: It does indeed.

FR: Do you know what that would be without the chunk of money, kind of included in that then?

AIBC
official 1: Then you would be up quite a bit from Wednesday, you would
have been up significantly... I don't know... what is it... seven... I
don't know (pause)

AIBC official 2: If the underlying is seven then you would be up 2.5 billion.

AIBC official 1: 2.5 billion.

FR: Ok, thats grand.

Thank you Dreaded-Estate. You're very welcome here.


"Balance sheet management" at Anglo Irish Bank is described here too:
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/feb/22/revealed-inside-story-of-anglos-deposits-anglos-cu/


It appears from this Tribune article that even Anglo Irish did not view itself as systemic and did not expect a bail out. This kind of confidence trickery was supported by the Financial Regulator and a number of other banks.


Those telephone conversations are dated from a couple of days after the Banks Guarantee was put in place. Would the inflow of funds (2.5 billion) have taken place as a direct result of the Guarantee? Or was that further manipulation of the books?

This is what we were told when on the morning of the Guarantee:

http://www.centralbank.ie/frame_main.asp?pg=nws_article.asp%3FID%3D401&nv=nws_nav.asp

Well we know that the issue was focussed on prior to nationalisation and that the regulator was asked to look at it after PWC reported. If the phone conversation happened as part of the investigation then it just looks like the bank official told the FR the truth. If the phone call took place in january then that is not an issue.

In any event, it has to be recognised that people are facing possible jail time over this. Accordingly, there are a lot of people out there under phenomenal pressure and with huge motive to prejudice the investigation or skew the pitch. Cowen s correct that the official investigation must be allowed to continue and to be effective. Our credibility will suffer further damage if the investigation is prejudiced.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Well we know that the issue was focussed on prior to nationalisation and that the regulator was asked to look at it after PWC reported. If the phone conversation happened as part of the investigation then it just looks like the bank official told the FR the truth. If the phone call took place in january then that is not an issue.

In any event, it has to be recognised that people are facing possible jail time over this. Accordingly, there are a lot of people out there under phenomenal pressure and with huge motive to prejudice the investigation or skew the pitch. Cowen s correct that the official investigation must be allowed to continue and to be effective. Our credibility will suffer further damage if the investigation is prejudiced.

Don't worry, we'll all bite our tongues here and keep our noses clean

Quote :

If the phone call took place in january then that is not an issue.

The website dates the phone call as October 1.