Government undertakes to underwrite all domestic financial institutions

asdasd · 02-10-2008 1:20pm

TheBazman wrote: »

All of these guys Morgan Kelly, George Lee etc are obviously not on the inside and dont know everything that is going on. They rely on bits of info here and there and the gaps are filled in by joining the dots

However, not being on the inside has not made his predictions any worse in the last few years. Unlike consumative inside Dan McL who was predicting a 4% increase in GDP this year.

Inside schminside. There is a published bill. It is online. What is Morgan missing?

eamonnm79 · 02-10-2008 1:20pm

After the governments financial masterstroke,
Is this a political masterstroke from labour?
The bill was passed in the dail 124 votes to 18, with only Labour opposed.

20goto10 · 02-10-2008 1:31pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

After the governments financial masterstroke,
Is this a political masterstroke from labour?
The bill was passed in the dail 124 votes to 18, with only Labour opposed.

They're not opposing the bill per se. They wanted to know the exact details. i.e what bank was about to collapse and why and exactly how much the guarantee is going to cost....info they didn't get....so they voted no. On top of that it goes against their socialist/communist ethos. Eamonn Gilmore is a stubborn fool.

is_that_so · 02-10-2008 1:32pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

After the governments financial masterstroke,
Is this a political masterstroke from labour?
The bill was passed in the dail 124 votes to 18, with only Labour opposed.

Given the importance of this not really. There's not an election in sight for the best part of a year and their vote against it is hardly going to be remembered bar the numbers. It's just Labour drifting back to its socialist roots and "representing the taxpayer". The lack of details allowed them to register a protest of sorts.

While I admire some of the contributions of Joan Burton I think there were elements of the Labour contribution that didn't seem to grasp what was going on. But at the very least the question of the details will be foremost in everyone's mind next week when they start to hammer it out.

andrewdeerpark · 02-10-2008 2:04pm

Part of the reason for the long unbroken run of FF in government is the weakness of the opposition plus FG never recovered from Alan Dukes Tallaght Strategy, but these are off the point.

For what its worth I believe labour were correct in voting against because if the full 400billion bailout actually ever came to pass it would sink the government (maybe even the FF party) and cause a political revolution where the population would need to choose whole new leadership.

As I see it all we can do now is monitor the implementation of this bill and hope our free media, forums like this plus the opposition can save us from a costly bill by highlighting issues before they happen and encouraging open honest debate continues and no more late night secret deals with business elites.

is_that_so · 02-10-2008 2:06pm

asdasd wrote: »

However, not being on the inside has not made his predictions any worse in the last few years. Unlike consumative inside Dan McL who was predicting a 4% increase in GDP this year.

Inside schminside. There is a published bill. It is online. What is Morgan missing?

Perspective mostly. That is one serious rant. He disagrees with it because he wants retribution and he wants problems with the banks to be dealt with right now. The bill was not designed for that. The system needed protecting and apart from citing Sweden as the "right" solution, he just seems to want to take the government to task for what he thinks is wrong.
I'd nearly suggest that part of it is because McWilliams suggested the deposit idea first.

Retribution is for another day and I certainly want to see it as well. One would expect and demand that legislation/powers that the Dail/Minister get will deal with the banks appropriately.

02-10-2008 2:39pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Perspective mostly. That is one serious rant. He disagrees with it because he wants retribution and he wants problems with the banks to be dealt with right now. The bill was not designed for that. The system needed protecting and apart from citing Sweden as the "right" solution, he just seems to want to take the government to task for what he thinks is wrong.
I'd nearly suggest that part of it is because McWilliams suggested the deposit idea first.

Retribution is for another day and I certainly want to see it as well. One would expect and demand that legislation/powers that the Dail/Minister get will deal with the banks appropriately.

I disagree. Deal with our problems now. Let certain banks fail. Protect and merge others. Delaying this increases our problems down the road.
I think we are about to ruin our future.

eamonnm79 · 02-10-2008 2:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. Deal with our problems now. Let certain banks fail. Protect and merge others. Delaying this increases our problems down the road.
I think we are about to ruin our future.

And if you correct, labour are the only party that can distance themselves from this.
The rest were happy to give the minister executive power.

02-10-2008 2:59pm

I hope they pull it off and it becomes a masterstroke, the future of the country depends on it. :mad:

is_that_so · 02-10-2008 3:02pm

Labour weren't against it. They voted against it because some of their amendments didn't go in, notably the capping of executive salaries and due to what they perceived as the lack of details on costs and charges. If they'd got these they would have voted in favour as well.

20goto10 · 02-10-2008 3:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. Deal with our problems now. Let certain banks fail. Protect and merge others. Delaying this increases our problems down the road.
I think we are about to ruin our future.

I think in tghe Irish system letting one bank fail will inevitably lead to catastrophic failure of the whole system.

One things for sure, they've passed the first hurdle of success. That is to shaft the 2 companies involved in short selling on the Irish banks. There was a US company and a UK company (sorry I don't have their names). Basically they bet millions on the Irish banking system failing....millions they have now lost.

eamonnm79 · 02-10-2008 3:29pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Labour weren't against it. They voted against it because some of their amendments didn't go in, notably the capping of executive salaries and due to what they perceived as the lack of details on costs and charges. If they'd got these they would have voted in favour as well.

They would be fairly important amendments wouldnt they?
They should also have demanded an amendment preventing banks selling on their "assets".
As Morgan Kelly's article in the times pointed out, without preventitive measures, banks could just use this insurance to protect themselves and screw the tax payer.
Bundles of dodgy loans being put together and sold with a AAA rating (the government guarantee). Sound familiar?

I hope Brian Lenihan makes sure to keep a very close eye on these guys.

02-10-2008 3:29pm

20goto10 wrote: »

I think in tghe Irish system letting one bank fail will inevitably lead to catastrophic failure of the whole system.

yeah I agree. Probably would have happened sooner or later. Probably sooner.

gurramok · 02-10-2008 5:59pm

Questions which i think are valid from the Torygraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/3122146/Warning-to-savers-opening-Irish-accounts.html

Adrian Coles, the director general of the Building Societies Association (BSA), said: “Before any British saver switches accounts because of the new guarantee, they should write to the Irish Embassy to seek answers to some important questions.

“First, has the Irish government quanitified the potentially huge liabilities it is taking on by guaranteeing sterling deposits in Britain, where household cash savings amount to £1.1 trillion?

“Second, where will the Irish government obtain sufficient sterling to meet its liabilities if a bank fails? It cannot do so by printing more £1 notes or by raising taxes in the United Kingdom – both are the prerogatives of the British Government.

“Savers should beware that, if they switch accounts to take up this guarantee, they are effectively betting on the Irish government’s ability to buy sufficient sterling in the foreign exchange markets. It is not at all clear to me that they have quantified the potential risks they are taking on here.”

During global economic setbacks in the early 1990s, several Latin American governments became unable to repay debts that were denominated in dollars. Morningstar, the analyst, rates the Irish government's credit as AAA – or very low risk – but the financial crisis of the past year has demonstrated that credit ratings are not infallible

Valid questions?

SoCal90046 · 02-10-2008 8:33pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The US Government have bailed out JP morgan to the tune of 116Billion.
It wasnt reported in the Same way AIG were and Im not sure why.
Conspiricy theories abound!

Source http://www.cnbc.com/id/26808715

I assume you're talking about JPMorgan Chase, right? The US government hasn't provided funding of $116 to JPMorgan Chase. In fact, were you to actually read the story in the link that you cited, you would discover that it's a report on a funding proposal from the Department of the Treasury; JPMorgan Chase hasn't received $116 billion.

The reason the story wasn't reported is that the story doesn't exist--perhaps the ultimate sound basis for a conspiracy theory!

is_that_so · 02-10-2008 10:38pm

gurramok wrote: »

Questions which i think are valid from the Torygraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/3122146/Warning-to-savers-opening-Irish-accounts.html

Valid questions?

If it weren't from the Irish-loving Torygraph, the source and that qualification "if a bank fails", maybe. It's also a little bit of a "clarification" to discourage people from jumping ship. And then there's that guff about writing to the Irish Embassy. But the Brits are pretty miffed at present and they really should focus some of that spleen-venting at their own government. Apparently their own deposit guarantee will be raised to £50K shortly.

andrewdeerpark · 03-10-2008 9:49am

Just to prove my cynicism of bank chiefs

http://www.independent.ie/business/stocks-markets/bank-chiefs-facing-share-deals-probe-1488613.html

The company going down and all that was concerning the top people; turning a profit for themselves in these weeks of national crisis.

[FONT=&quot]If proven treason against the state if ever there was a charge. This is serious!
[/FONT]

Hanley · 03-10-2008 10:39am

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Just to prove my cynicism of bank chiefs

http://www.independent.ie/business/stocks-markets/bank-chiefs-facing-share-deals-probe-1488613.html

The company going down and all that was concerning the top people; turning a profit for themselves in these weeks of national crisis.

[FONT=&quot]If proven treason against the state if ever there was a charge. This is serious!
[/FONT]

I'm surprised he hasn't been pulled up sooner tbh. He's either consistently got the best and luckiest time going, or something else is up.

asdasd · 03-10-2008 10:44am

That, if true, is a cut and dried instance of Insider Trading. Martha Stewart was jailed for a lot less.

SoCal90046 · 03-10-2008 5:59pm

asdasd wrote: »

That, if true, is a cut and dried instance of Insider Trading. Martha Stewart was jailed for a lot less.

It's something that is widely misreported, but Martha Stewart wasn't jailed for "insider trading'; she was convicted and imprisoned for making false statements to federal prosecutors, conspiracy and obstruction--more serious charges!

asdasd · 03-10-2008 7:50pm

It's something that is widely misreported, but Martha Stewart wasn't jailed for "insider trading'; she was convicted and imprisoned for making false statements to federal prosecutors, conspiracy and obstruction--more serious charges!

To federal police - she also lied about a non-crime. That trial was a joke.

stepbar · 04-10-2008 4:39pm

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Just to prove my cynicism of bank chiefs

http://www.independent.ie/business/stocks-markets/bank-chiefs-facing-share-deals-probe-1488613.html

The company going down and all that was concerning the top people; turning a profit for themselves in these weeks of national crisis.

[FONT=&quot]If proven treason against the state if ever there was a charge. This is serious!
[/FONT]

The article mentions that Sean Fitzpatrick bought shares @ 3.85 on September 23. A few days later his transaction was up 18%. The article never mentioned that he also bought shares @ 4pm on the day Anglo dropped 46% - September 29. The next day Anglo recovered these losses because of the announcement of the Government guarentee.

Now to some this would sound like insider dealing but I don't think anything of the sort. It takes a brave man to buy up more shares when there was no guarentee at that stage that Anglo were going to survive. Remember when times were good he (and others) would have bought shares when they were hovering aroung the 12-13eur mark. Like many Joe Soaps he's also sitting on heavy losses (on average). Mind you he's in a better position to be able to weather the storm than most.

gurramok · 06-10-2008 9:38am

Has anyone got insights on how the German/Danish/Austrian/Greek guarantees on savings will affect Irish banks?
BBC say now the German one is a political commitment without legislation

I think it will be negative as in a level playing field and the govt AAA rating is the only thing helping the banks here now.

TheBazman · 06-10-2008 11:56am

OMG - Enda Kenny " For the duration of the guarantee, there should be no more bonuses, no more dividends, no more derivative trading" - What an ignorant gombeen - no more derivative trading - he has no idea what he is talking about! You'd think that someone who is in the public eye like that would have someone vetting what he says

mike65 · 06-10-2008 1:05pm

I see that as Dansk bank is now "nationalised" the National Irish Bank have withdrawn thier application to be protected by the Irish government.

Mike

Government undertakes to underwrite all domestic financial institutions

Comments