Irish Deposit Guarantee Raised to 100K/Government backing Irish banks

ixoy

Just saw this on RTE:

he Government has raised the Irish deposit guarantee to €100,000 for savers.

The measure will apply to people who have savings in credit unions as well as banks and building societies.

This new measure will take effect from today.

The guarantee of €100,000 is five times higher than the previous level of 90% of a deposit up to €20,000. That safeguard has remained unchanged since 1999.

The new measure means Ireland will have one of the highest levels of guarantee of any country in Europe.

Britain by comparison has €48,300, the Netherlands €38,000 and Italy €103,000.

Changing the guarantee has been under consideration for some time.

But the timing comes after a week of concerns among consumers prompted by unprecedented international banking meltdown.

The move requires legislation which will be back dated to today.

Good news and it will allay some fears for those with larger deposits in one bank. Gives me a little comfort as I had too much shoved in with BoI.

staker

Proper order!
It should be 100% though.

stepbar

staker wrote: »

Proper order!
It should be 100% though.

Put it under the mattress. 100% security there :rolleyes:

Increasing the level of deposit guarentee is a bit of an unnecessary move. We have a well regulated financial system. None of our banks are exposed to sub prime and are well capatilised. The financial regulator are keeping a very close eye on things, so much so that all the banks are now obliged to submit daily liquity reports. In living history I can't remember any Irish bank coming close to failure (bar AIB in the 80's - and the government bailed them out!). What's to think the government would act any differently in order to protect the intergity of our financial system?

People need to start finding the truth out for themselves, instead of listening to the scare moungering going round in the media at the moment.

BuffyBot

While it's nice to hear, one can't help but feel it's just a kneejerk reaction to the Joe-Duffy-calling mob mentality

redroar1942

BuffyBot wrote: »

While it's nice to hear, one can't help but feel it's just a kneejerk reaction to the Joe-Duffy-calling mob mentality

Well said, I loathe Joe Duffy and his gutter/scaremongering style shows. Fair enough people should be aware of the facts but he purposely ignored anyone who had a different point of view to the "stick it in the post office" brigade.

ixoy

redroar1942 wrote: »

Fair enough people should be aware of the facts but he purposely ignored anyone who had a different point of view to the "stick it in the post office" brigade.

True enough but our protection was pretty poor next to other countries. I imagine that from a PR point-of-view it could look odd that your savings would be better protected in say Northern Rock than Bank of Ireland before this scheme.

Having said all that, I would imagine that if someone like BoI were in trouble, we'd have seen the State or the CB inject a load of cash into it - if it or AIB were to fail, there's no way the Government would let it drop off without trying to save it as the ramifications would be far too high. I really couldn't see any danger in those two collapsing completely, especially as I believe their portfolios aren't as exposed to the housing environment to the extent that some of the US banks were.

parsi

stepbar wrote: »

Put it under the mattress. 100% security there :rolleyes:

Increasing the level of deposit guarentee is a bit of an unnecessary move. We have a well regulated financial system. None of our banks are exposed to sub prime and are well capatilised. The financial regulator are keeping a very close eye on things, so much so that all the banks are now obliged to submit daily liquity reports. In living history I can't remember any Irish bank coming close to failure (bar AIB in the 80's - and the government bailed them out!). What's to think the government would act any differently in order to protect the intergity of our financial system?

People need to start finding the truth out for themselves, instead of listening to the scare moungering going round in the media at the moment.

You're right that it's probably technically un-necessary.

However in a political/emotional sense it does fill a need. My father was quite worried about deposits and being old and half-blind his main source of info was the radio shows and lets face it (like with Lisbon) people tend to believe scare stories more than reassuring stories.

OldRope

Will the BoI of Ireland guarantee of 100k be honored if it is taken over by the Spanish bank Santana. What are the Spanish Bank deposit guarantees for depositors:rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/boi-denies-talks-with-santander-1478903.html


OldRope

BuffyBot

I don't think BoI is in negotiations with any Mexican rock legends..but in the current climate, who knows

They've already dismissed the Santander rumours, but in a hypothetical situation it all depends on where they lay their regulatory hat. Since Santander took over Abbey in the UK, Abbey has remained under the UK's FSA and there doesn't seem to be any great rush to change that.

Where as NIB, when taken over by Danske Bank, are now under the authority of the Danish regulators - so basically it depends on what they new owner of any bank would want to do.

OldRope

BuffyBot wrote: »

I don't think BoI is in negotiations with any Mexican rock legends..but in the current climate, who knows

They've already dismissed the Santander rumours, but in a hypothetical situation it all depends on where they lay their regulatory hat. Since Santander took over Abbey in the UK, Abbey has remained under the UK's FSA and there doesn't seem to be any great rush to change that.

Where as NIB, when taken over by Danske Bank, are now under the authority of the Danish regulators - so basically it depends on what they new owner of any bank would want to do.

As you said BufflyBot who knows....governments want to keep the public in the dark because they do not want to cause a run on the Banks

I understand that the UK government is going to increase the deposit scheme for savers when they are back in parliament in October. The rumors are it will be about 100%. But again who can trust what governments say.

daltonm

I find it amusing that Joe Duffy is being blamed on the government putting proper protection in place for savets - surely this "knee jerk" reaction is a good thing? If it wasn't needed then the minister wouldn't have done it? The Joe Duffy show is a conduit for the normal joe soap to air their concerns, this is a shoot the messenger scenario if I ever heard one. On another show of his last year the result was the implementation of airport type security in every jail in the country - he seems to get things done where others fail....

Are first active covered in this yeah?

jank

Is it only 90% though of 100k?

stepbar

OldRope wrote: »

Will the BoI of Ireland Government guarantee of 100k be honored if Bank of Ireland it is taken over by the Spanish bank Santana Banco Santander. What are the Spanish Bank deposit guarantees for depositors:rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/boi-denies-talks-with-santander-1478903.html


OldRope

Corrected that for you. I couldn't be arsed correcting the rest.

OldRope wrote: »

As you said BufflyBot who knows....governments want to keep the public in the dark because they do not want to cause a run on the Banks

I understand that the UK government is going to increase the deposit scheme for savers when they are back in parliament in October. The rumors are it will be about 100%. But again who can trust what governments say.

Have you been down to the conspiracy forum lately?

Again if you have a problem with the financial system stick your money under the mattress. 100% safe there.

daltonm wrote: »

I find it amusing that Joe Duffy is being blamed on the government putting proper protection in place for savets - surely this "knee jerk" reaction is a good thing? If it wasn't needed then the minister wouldn't have done it? The Joe Duffy show is a conduit for the normal joe soap to air their concerns, this is a shoot the messenger scenario if I ever heard one. On another show of his last year the result was the implementation of airport type security in every jail in the country - he seems to get things done where others fail....

The deposit protection increase is not necessary. Shows like Liveline only go to exacerbate the issue beyond logic and reason. I find it unbelievable that we had a suitation last week where an An Post employee was actively encouraging people (on national radio to an audience of over 250k) to withdraw their deposits from the bank and deposit it with the Post Office because it was 100% guarenteed. It's actions like this that cause suitations like what happened to Northern Rock.

Final point to those who are concerned about the integrity of our financial system - take the time to find out how a bank functions and think about the next time you go for a loan. Ask yourself where the money comes from. Then ask yourself if you would be prepared to carry out this function yourself as an individual.

daltonm

Yes but Brian Lenihan didn't get on the An Post and blame them for this? What he did do was get on to RTE and castigate Joe Duffy? And if the Deposit protection is not neccasary then why would Brian Lenihan increase it? It certainly is neccesary in this climate. We have seen what has happened to Lehman bros in the states and to think that our banks are not at risk is very naive....

OldRope

stepbar wrote: »

Corrected that for you. I couldn't be arsed correcting the rest.

I did not ask you to correct my post?? so why did you do it?

Have you been down to the conspiracy forum lately?

No have you??

Again if you have a problem with the financial system stick your money under the mattress. 100% safe there.

I agree under the matters is the best place for it until the bankers or should I say spivs, are taken to task for the actions ie making money from short selling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7625107.stm

daltonm wrote: »

Yes but Brian Lenihan didn't get on the An Post and blame them for this? What he did do was get on to RTE and castigate Joe Duffy? And if the Deposit protection is not neccasary then why would Brian Lenihan increase it? It certainly is neccesary in this climate. We have seen what has happened to Lehman bros in the states and to think that our banks are not at risk is very naive....

I agree daltonm all banks are at risk.

daltonm

I thin that regardless of the circimstances surrounding the increase that the minister has acted very wisely - even if some people view this measure as unneccasary it will put fears to rest and add to protecting the banks from going to the wall, and that can only be a good thing, it would indeed be a huge step backward for people to stick their money under the mattresses lol - and we laughed at our grandparents for doing this!!

stepbar

daltonm wrote: »

Yes but Brian Lenihan didn't get on the An Post and blame them for this? What he did do was get on to RTE and castigate Joe Duffy? And if the Deposit protection is not neccasary then why would Brian Lenihan increase it? It certainly is neccesary in this climate. We have seen what has happened to Lehman bros in the states and to think that our banks are not at risk is very naive....

And proper right. RTE gave this employee the forum to air his views. RTE has a moral responcibilty to ensure that it is presenting a balanced argument and what went on last week was far from balanced.

Brian Lenihan is increasing the protection scheme to stop a small minority of gob****es from doing a run on the banks because there are quite a number of them who would subscribe to some of the theories that you would find in the conspiracy forum. I have outlined why it is not necessary in my post above. People have nothing to fear.

Compairing what happened to Lehman Brothers is like compairing apples with oranges. Lehman Brothers was an investment bank whose primary goal was to invest client funds in order to maximise wealth. They invested in SIV's, Sub Prime etc and got stung badly.

Now I don't know who you work for but I actually work for a bank and I fully understand the risks involved. I'm actually insulted that you would think I am "nieve" to the risks involved.

stepbar

OldRope wrote: »

I agree daltonm all banks are at risk.

Please outline your logic for this statement with reference to Irish banks. Thank you.

And while you are at it please give me your view on what you understand about hedge funds, investment banks and "bricks and mortar" banks..

daltonm

stepbar wrote: »

And proper right. RTE gave this employee the forum to air his views. RTE has a moral responcibilty to ensure that it is presenting a balanced argument and what went on last week was far from balanced.

Brian Lenihan is increasing the protection scheme to stop a small minority of gob****es from doing a run on the banks because there are quite a number of them who would subscribe to some of the theories that you would find in the conspiracy forum. I have outlined why it is not necessary in my post above. People have nothing to fear.

Compairing what happened to Lehman Brothers is like compairing apples with oranges. Lehman Brothers was an investment bank whose primary goal was to invest client funds in order to maximise wealth. They invested in SIV's, Sub Prime etc and got stung badly.

Now I don't know who you work for but I actually work for a bank and I fully understand the risks involved. I'm actually insulted that you would think I am "nieve" to the risks involved.

And where do you think the BOI or any other bank has its money? In leprechaun shares?? Or do they have a big mattress that they stuff our money into? I didn't say by the way that YOU were naive personally but it would be naive to think that our banks are not vulnerable - if there's a banker here bud it's not me!!!!

stepbar

daltonm wrote: »

I thin that regardless of the circimstances surrounding the increase that the minister has acted very wisely - even if some people view this measure as unneccasary it will put fears to rest and add to protecting the banks from going to the wall, and that can only be a good thing, it would indeed be a huge step backward for people to stick their money under the mattresses lol - and we laughed at our grandparents for doing this!!

Maybe wise but totally unnecessary IMO.

stepbar

daltonm wrote: »

And where do you think the BOI or any other bank has its money? In leprechaun shares?? Or do they have a big mattress that they stuff our money into? I didn't say by the way that YOU were naive personally but it would be naive to think that our banks are not vulnerable - if there's a banker here bud it's not me!!!!

Until the day comes that we can accurately predict risk then everything is at risk. Walk down the road and get hit by a bus. Risk. And so on and so on until infinity (LOL)

Banks actively managed risk everyday. We have a regulation in place to ensure that banks don't go bust at the turn of a hat. Well in Ireland we do. I can't comment for what happens in other countries. Most developed counties do or at least I thought they did (with ref to the US).

And yes it would be a step backwards if people start sticking their money under the mattress. Unless anyone here can come up with a better system than the one we have then I suggest we stick with the one we have.

OldRope

stepbar wrote: »

Please outline your logic for this statement with reference to Irish banks. Thank you.

And while you are at it please give me your view on what you understand about hedge funds, investment banks and "bricks and mortar" banks..

You have stated in an earlier post that you work in the industry therefore please let people why you are confirming that people money is safe in banks and other lending institutions. According to serious daily newspapers as well as the BBC, Banks are at risk....are you going to edit the media as well. Even the UK PM is calling the situation as a global financial crises so why should people believe you. Obviously, as a banker, you want to keep thinks as they were before the increase of the compensations for depositors, more money for the banks.:rolleyes:

daltonm

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it - so are the public and by them moving 50 million into the post office in one 24 hour period speaks volumes about that opinion and their fears. People would rather be looking at their money then looking for it. Lehman wasn't just n investment bank it was one of the largest and oldest. It survived the wall street crash yet couldn't survive this? After the problems of the crash this is what they did - " Triggered by the stock market crash of 1929, the Depression placed tremendous pressure on the availability of capital. Lehman Brothers was one of the pioneers of innovative financing techniques such as private placements, arranging loans between blue-chip borrowers and private lenders. These loans offered strict safeguards and solid returns for lenders, while enabling borrowers to raise much-needed capital" despite this they went to the wall - and we shouldn't be worried??

daltonm

I don't agree that we had enough protection in place - those protections were put up I believe in 1999, just as the country was moving into better times, that it was revisited and changed to meet the new challanges faced within the financial sector waas the correct decision, long before Joe Duffy brought it up it was a concern for people and it's a pity that the minister waited until panic set in before acting. I do agree with you that everything is a risk but when you have normal joe sticking his money into a little low interest savings account then he should be protected...

stepbar

OldRope wrote: »

You have stated in an earlier post that you work in the industry therefore please let people why you are confirming that people money is safe in banks and other lending institutions. According to serious daily newspapers as well as the BBC, Banks are at risk....are you going to edit the media as well. Even the UK PM is calling the situation as a global financial crises so why should people believe you. Obviously, as a banker, you want to keep thinks as they were before the increase of the compensations for depositors, more money for the banks.:rolleyes:

I'll tell you what check out some of my posts. Plenty of ammo there. Then come back to me and make reference to what's happening from an Irish context. I'll happily comment on anything you have to say.

stepbar

daltonm wrote: »

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it - so are the public and by them moving 50 million into the post office in one 24 hour period speaks volumes about that opinion and their fears. People would rather be looking at their money then looking for it. Lehman wasn't just n investment bank it was one of the largest and oldest. It survived the wall street crash yet couldn't survive this? After the problems of the crash this is what they did - " Triggered by the stock market crash of 1929, the Depression placed tremendous pressure on the availability of capital. Lehman Brothers was one of the pioneers of innovative financing techniques such as private placements, arranging loans between blue-chip borrowers and private lenders. These loans offered strict safeguards and solid returns for lenders, while enabling borrowers to raise much-needed capital" despite this they went to the wall - and we shouldn't be worried??

No offence but do you understand the difference between an investment bank and a "bricks and mortar" bank like the BOI?

daltonm

Stepbar no I don't nor do I profess to know - at a guess I would say that its down to the level of risk investments. I know that there is a marked difference, but I think even I can say that there has to be some risk to say the BOI with regards to mortgage lending, where properties that they have loaned mortgages on have taken a hit so this leaves them in this situation vulnerable. When I talk about concerns I am doing so as a hardworking single mother who has built up savings, low risk I might add and when I relasied that only 20k of those were protected, on realising this moved money around to minimise that risk as I am entitled to do, to sit and do nothing in my view would be nothing short of irresponsible on my part. I have looked at your previous posts and can say that you do know what you are talking about form a bankers point of view and if youdon't mind me saying you sound as if you are panicing somewhat....

BuffyBot

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it - so are the public and by them moving 50 million into the post office in one 24 hour period speaks volumes about that opinion and their fears.

People also burnt witches in the past. People once thought flared trousers and cheese and pineapple served on a cocktail stick were the height of fashion and sophistication. History has demonstrated time and time again that humans have an unerring capacity to do stupid things.

And now for a public service announcment about this thread:

If you have a lack of knowledge about it a topic, it might be wise to refrain from commenting on it, or at least hold off until you know sufficent information to make a call on it.

As for the conspiracy theories, they have dedicated forum on boards.ie for them. Use it. They're not welcome here.

Let's bring this thread back on track people.

stepbar

daltonm wrote: »

Stepbar no I don't nor do I profess to know - at a guess I would say that its down to the level of risk investments. I know that there is a marked difference, but I think even I can say that there has to be some risk to say the BOI with regards to mortgage lending, where properties that they have loaned mortgages on have taken a hit so this leaves them in this situation vulnerable. When I talk about concerns I am doing so as a hardworking single mother who has built up savings, low risk I might add and when I relasied that only 20k of those were protected, on realising this moved money around to minimise that risk as I am entitled to do, to sit and do nothing in my view would be nothing short of irresponsible on my part. I have looked at your previous posts and can say that you do know what you are talking about form a bankers point of view and if youdon't mind me saying you sound as if you are panicing somewhat....

Look don't get me wrong I understand where these fears come from and the only thing I can say to you is (If you came to me in my branch), if the BOI went under you may forget about the whole financial system in Ireland. I wouldn't want to bore you with the other detail if you were standing in front of me in the branch.

I could think of countless government organisations who hold bank accounts in my organisation and significant ones as well. There would not be a suitation where the Gov would let the likes of BOI go under because that would put the Government itself at risk.

Finally, I'm not panicing. I sleep very well at night and certainly am not worrying about how safe my money is or lack there of.....

OldRope

stepbar wrote: »

No offence but do you understand the difference between an investment bank and a "bricks and mortar" bank like the BOI?

My understand of what caused the credit crunch is that banks purchased lots of mortgages bundles without knowing what was in the bundle that they purchased

Banks had give lots of mortgages give out to people mainly in US and UK and I am sure BoI must have done the same in Ireland. No checks were done to see if the mortgagees were able to pay back their loan. The mantra for the last 10 years was that property would never fall.

Banks do not trust each other now and will not lead money to each other as well as the public that is what is causing the present crunch.

Regarding going back to check your earlier posting, to quote what you said earlier, 'I couldn't be arsed' as I have no inclination to see what you as a banker has posted.

daltonm

Thank you

stepbar

OldRope wrote: »

My understand of what caused the credit crunch is that banks purchased lots of mortgages bundles without knowing what was in the bundle that they purchased

Banks had give lots of mortgages give out to people mainly in US and UK and I am sure BoI must have done the same in Ireland. No checks were done to see if the mortgagees were able to pay back their loan. The mantra for the last 10 years was that property would never fall.

Banks do not trust each other now and will not lead money to each other as well as the public that is what is causing the present crunch.

Regarding going back to check your earlier posting, to quote what you said earlier, 'I couldn't be arsed' as I have no inclination to see what you as a banker has posted.

Really does not help your argument at all :rolleyes:

"No checks were done to see if the mortgagees were able to pay back their loan"

Wow. Certainly not from an Irish perspective. Do you know that when someone gets a mortgage that there's a procedure in place called "stress testing" which ensures that someone can afford a mortgage in the years after same has been approved. Check it out before making any further rediculus comments.

And and.... that's not all. Actually I won't bore you with the detail but go into your bank, ask them for a mortgage and you will soon find out.

OldRope

stepbar wrote: »

Really does not help your argument at all :rolleyes:

"No checks were done to see if the mortgagees were able to pay back their loan"

Wow. Certainly not from an Irish perspective. Do you know that when someone gets a mortgage that there's a procedure in place called "stress testing" which ensures that someone can afford a mortgage in the years after same has been approved. Check it out before making any further rediculus comments.

And and.... that's not all. Actually I won't bore you with the detail but go into your bank, ask them for a mortgage and you will soon find out.

I should have said 'no check before the credit crunch' and of course you will not get a mortgage now as banks are not even lending to each other.

Also prior the credit crunch the "housing wealth engine" referred to the idea that as housing prices went up, people used homes like ATM's, borrowing against equity to use for consumer spending. When housing prices stopped appreciating and liquidity dried up, this engine slowed considerably, reducing consumer spending and applying downward pressure to GDP. This is the "real" or "main street" economy.

Also please look at the links below:

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/where-youd-stand-if-your-bank-or-insurer-collapsed-1479419.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble#Crash_predictions

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/Irish_2/index.shtml

You are probably concerned about large bonus for next year.. will it be considerably less than last year.

stepbar

OldRope wrote: »

I should have said 'no check before the credit crunch' and of course you will not get a mortgage now as banks are not even lending to each other.

LOL Please. This is Ireland not the US. Irish lenders don't give mortgages to those who have no income. Now, please tell me what specific knowledge have you about how a mortgage is approved? Otherwise, please refrain about commenting about things you have no clue about.

OldRope wrote: »

Also prior the credit crunch the "housing wealth engine" referred to the idea that as housing prices went up, people used homes like ATM's, borrowing against equity to use for consumer spending. When housing prices stopped appreciating and liquidity dried up, this engine slowed considerably, reducing consumer spending and applying downward pressure to GDP. This is the "real" or "main street" economy.

Also please look at the links below:

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/where-youd-stand-if-your-bank-or-insurer-collapsed-1479419.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble#Crash_predictions

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/Irish_2/index.shtml

You are probably concerned about large bonus for next year.. will it be considerably less than last year.

The comment above means SFA to me as it looks fairly random to me.

BTW, I don't get a bonus.

OldRope

Bankers Jargon


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

stepbar

OldRope wrote: »

Bankers Jargon


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

Did you mean to post this on the humour forum?


Buffybot, please do something about this joker.

BendiBus

stepbar wrote: »

People have nothing to fear.

...but fear itself.

And it's this fear that can cause a run on a bank.

If you understand banking as much as you profess then you'll understand how much banking survives on the trust of investors & savers.

Increasing the deposit guarantee will hopefully do much to allay public fear. This is why it was necessary.

The amended Deposit Protection Scheme is working to protect the banks rather than the depositors!

stepbar

BendiBus wrote: »

...but fear itself.

And it's this fear that can cause a run on a bank.

If you understand banking as much as you profess then you'll understand how much banking survives on the trust of investors & savers.

Increasing the deposit guarantee will hopefully do much to allay public fear. This is why it was necessary.

The amended Deposit Protection Scheme is working to protect the banks rather than the depositors!

Well that's where our opinions on risk part. If our banks were in worse shape (in terms of Tier 1 Capital and overall liquity etc) and we hadn't the amount of regulation we have at present then I would have concerns.

And BTW the same can be said of any business not just a bank. If people bothered to investigate the facts and stop basing their opinions on what the media has to say we might have more informed opinions.

dotsman

OldRope wrote: »

I should have said 'no check before the credit crunch' and of course you will not get a mortgage now as banks are not even lending to each other.

Also prior the credit crunch the "housing wealth engine" referred to the idea that as housing prices went up, people used homes like ATM's, borrowing against equity to use for consumer spending. When housing prices stopped appreciating and liquidity dried up, this engine slowed considerably, reducing consumer spending and applying downward pressure to GDP. This is the "real" or "main street" economy.

Also please look at the links below:

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/where-youd-stand-if-your-bank-or-insurer-collapsed-1479419.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble#Crash_predictions

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/Irish_2/index.shtml

You are probably concerned about large bonus for next year.. will it be considerably less than last year.

I honestly think that you have no other understanding of what has happened and is happening. It seems you have read a few things you didn't really understand, put them together, mixed them up and now have a very distorted view of what's going on.

With regards the "no checks" thing, can you please show me just one example of this every happening in Ireland? That was an American phenomenon, not an Irish one. Irish lenders were very strict in their application/customer scoring in comparison.

Irish banks were not involved in sub prime lending. Fortunately, these type of loans had only just started in Ireland (Start, GE etc), all of which were foreign banks who saw the Irish market as very lucrative given the conservative lending of the main Irish banks (especially AIB, followed by BOI).

In very layman terms - In the US (not here) the subprime (high risk) lenders were mixing their debts with prime (safe) loans and selling them on to investment banks (who did not appreciate how risky these bonds actually were). It is these loans that were/are toxic, as with the housing crash in the states (much worse than here), these bonds are worth considerably less than what the investment banks originally thought. Thus there is zero confidence in any of the US banks, because noone actually knows who's holding all these toxic loans (as they were constantly repackaged, sold on and otherwise disguised).

Irish banks had very little dealing with these toxic funds (were talking only millions of euro, not billions).

With regards to your links, Louise McBride doens't have a clue what she is talking about. In her article (published today) she's talking about only 20K being covered, whereas everybody and their dog knows that, since yesterday, it is now 100K (and is the topic of this thread!). If she's so unaware of this news, how can you trust anything else she says!
Wikipedia is not exactly known for it's athenticity! That piece could have been written by a 14-year old!
I'm not sure what you wanted us to read on fin facts.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with the above links, just pointing out why I wouldn't even bother reading them and find that it's best to just stick to the facts and trusted sources when it comes to this kind of thing and not base my opinions on panic mongerors etc.

BendiBus

stepbar wrote: »

If people bothered to investigate the facts and stop basing their opinions on what the media has to say we might have more informed opinions.

But that's the problem. They don't. They never have and they never will. And this has to be taken into account.

stepbar

BendiBus wrote: »

But that's the problem. They don't. They never have and they never will. And this has to be taken into account.

Well there goes the argument. Most people are stupid. End of.

LightningBolt

OldRope wrote: »

I should have said 'no check before the credit crunch' and of course you will not get a mortgage now as banks are not even lending to each other.

Just give up

Cantab.

I still don't see how I'm protected when there's not enough money to insure the depositors of even a small Irish bank.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

stepbar

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dave, there's a big difference between giving someone a mortgage when they have no income and are effectively unemployed.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BuffyBot

This is veering towards an Economics thread - so can we bring this thread on topic, and maybe spin off the other conversation to the appropriate forum?

Thanks

BuffyBot

Posts split off to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055385222

Thanks

derry

ixoy wrote: »

Just saw this on RTE:


Good news and it will allay some fears for those with larger deposits in one bank. Gives me a little comfort as I had too much shoved in with BoI.

Anyfinwer details how solid is the bank garentee for the 100K
I saw last week saterday the regime decide to announce that they would garentee the deposits in banks up from 20K to 100K


I waited and watched for confirming info how this slight of hand can be done

Like apart from its some politcal promise what is the reserves and conditions to back it up

Like if the bank goes wollop do we have to wait 6 months or ten years to get our money back

Apart from the government who else would contribute to the funds to this solution

It just seems to be from what i can see the nanny state has yet again pulled off the magic trick POOF 100k garanteed with hot air and Hush little baby you can go back to sleep

Only got some indictors that all is not so good from this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...5385222&page=2


Appears there is no reserve in the banking system to garentee this funds

So it seems now it is a political promise until the law is changed to increase the reserves

So anybody know if the bank went kapow how long it would take to get the 90K if your 100,000K is in the bank at the time


If for example it took 10 years to get refunded and inflation was 5% over that time the 100,000 K which would be 90K which would after 10 years then only be worth 45,000 K or something like half the value in ten years with a modest inflation rate makes this a dodgy burger investment to me if that was the case

As a investment the the whole idea of the fractional banking system is strictly a good system to fool the population and rip their faces

So long as the investing of money return are less than the inflation rate theat the bank and the banking investment system chose to create then anybody who keeps funds in banks is set to lose the most money for a samll return of a few % on the capital

Any big bank short on funds in this open banking world can buy out a Irish bank and then strip it of all its funds if they so wish

The best way to rob a Bank is to buy it

The last person i would believe that a bank is secure is a bank employee of any sort especialy the underling who count the mioney they know nothing for the stuff upstairs

Thats like listining to the camp comandant in Auswhich "Arbiet maken Frie "the showers and delousing are this way and then they give it to in the neck with gas fumes from the shower unit

Derry

Jimbo

Can anyone tell me does the €100,000 government guarantee on personal deposits cover Rabodirect accounts?


I'm just worried as they don't appear to have a base in Ireland