Government undertakes to underwrite all domestic financial institutions

mike65

Yep - a 400 billion euro guarantee lasting 2 years, for the Irish system so not including Rabo, Ulster and a few others.

Mike

helimachoptor

mike65 wrote: »

Yep - a 400 billion euro guarantee lasting 2 years, for the Irish system so not including Rabo, Ulster and a few others.

Mike

Does the government even have 400 billion??

is_that_so

The potential cost is about ten times the national debt. But there will be a commercial charge to banks. Briefing @ 9.30 today so we should hear more about the plan by mid-morning. Generally seen as a smart move, as reflected in the ISEQ index - up 3% today.

Hanley

helimachoptor wrote: »

Does the government even have 400 billion??

The 400 billion only comes into play if ALL the banks under the deposit protection scheme fail. And tbh, if that happens, the 400bn's gonna be the last of our worries!!

mike65

Exactly, its entirely a confidence booster. Will it encourage money to enter the system from abroad?

Mike

Économiste Monétaire

Here's a link to the full RTE story.

An out-take:

RTE wrote:

The banks that are covered are: Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Life and Permanent, Irish Nationwide Building Society and the Educational Building Society and specific subsidiaries that may be approved by Government following consultation with the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator.

The safety of deposits of up to €100,000 in all banks operating in this country has already been guaranteed by the Government.

gabigeist

is_that_so wrote: »

Generally seen as a smart move, as reflected in the ISEQ index - up 3% today.

I would read this as meaning: 1) The Irish government will not allow a bank to fail as they would now bear the cost.
2) The banking sector is obliged to the government for improving their trading environment.

If a bank were about to fail, the more likely outcome would therefore be a forced marriage (rather than nationalisation or receivership) as the other banks will be under the govt's thumb.

If that argument holds true then fair play to the govt for a ballsy move. It gives the banking sector as a whole a better chance whilst also seeking to ensure that they bear the costs of any collapse.

is_that_so

Comments from RTE Business chap suggests that all of this may be the start of more effective banking regulation. Fortis had to give up 49% of its equity. Irish banks will have to pay for the guarantee, although they are not releasing the actual charges.

prendy

is_that_so wrote: »

Comments from RTE Business chap suggests that all of this may be the start of more effective banking regulation. Fortis had to give up 49% of its equity. Irish banks will have to pay for the guarantee, although they are not releasing the actual charges.

i think its a very smart move by the Govt. And regulating the banks has to happen, they are totally to blame for all this.

Burial

I'm not an economist, but I'm unsure of this move. I'm aware that companies in the Us are losing faith and transferring their money from banks to Us treasury binds that are guarenteed to gold, and thus reducing how banks make their profit and eventually inflating the dollar. I imagine a similar scenario was happening here, except companies were moving to English banks, where savings are guaranteed. I'd say more European countries will announce the same. Why would you stay with a bank that can't guarantee your savings? Anyway, the announcement of the plan is suspicious. I think the Government were trying to playdown the rejection of the $700 billion plan by the USA, while trying to make the general public have confidence in the banking sector. It's good for the economy. (As seen with the spike in trading) However, it's really a short term solution. I mean imagine IF a bank failed. There wouldn't be an Irish economy to speak of. (As the budget would have to be cut more than it is at now)

Économiste Monétaire

Burial wrote: »

I'm aware that companies in the Us are losing faith and transferring their money from banks to Us treasury binds that are guarenteed to gold, and thus reducing how banks make their profit and eventually inflating the dollar.

Since when are T-Bonds 'guaranteed to gold'? I never heard of that before. The reason T-Securities are widely considered to be the safest is because they're backed by the U.S. government.

eamonnm79

is_that_so wrote: »

Comments from RTE Business chap suggests that all of this may be the start of more effective banking regulation. Fortis had to give up 49% of its equity. Irish banks will have to pay for the guarantee, although they are not releasing the actual charges.

Have you any evidence that the Irish banks are being asked to pay for the guarantee? Both oppisition leaders seem to be coming out against this. Gilmore is calling it a blank cheque.

Burial

UCD_Econ wrote: »

Since when are T-Bonds 'guaranteed to gold'? I never heard of that before. The reason T-Securities are widely considered to be the safest is because they're backed by the U.S. government.

Hmm, yes they are.... My bad.

is_that_so

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Have you any evidence that the Irish banks are being asked to pay for the guarantee? Both oppisition leaders seem to be coming out against this. Gilmore is calling it a blank cheque.

There is and will be a charge. It's in that RTE story. They haven't revealed a lot of the details on the deal. Gilmore is rightfully asking for more information but he is also playing politics with it. FG are not against it, they are also asking for more details. Richard Bruton was on the radio this morning about it.

eamonnm79

UCD_Econ wrote: »

Since when are T-Bonds 'guaranteed to gold'? I never heard of that before. The reason T-Securities are widely considered to be the safest is because they're backed by the U.S. government.

Its true that investors are investing in T-Bills and getting out of financials and equities. However there has not been a gold standard since 1971.
The return on t bills also plumitted yesterday but a tiny return is always better than a loss.

Économiste Monétaire

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Its true that investors are investing in T-Bills and getting out of financials and equities. However there has not been a gold standard since 1971.
The return on t bills also plumitted yesterday but a tiny return is always better than a loss.

T-Bills =/= T-Bonds =/= Gold standard exchanged for a fiat currency.

eamonnm79

How can The Irish government make such a move without first getting approval from the dail (if given the choice, would all government TD's vote for this if they knew what was in this massive government underwriting?). In America they are rightly having a debate and amending their bill. The government have certainly been pragmatic in this move but it was not democratic and has been done in a veil of secrecy. What is the small print on this?

Frankie Lee

I think the government is taking a massive gamble, but if it comes off it will be an absolute masterstroke. By doing this foreign money should flood into Irish banks which should improve liquidity of Irish banks, however if the foreign cash isn't enough to keep our banks afloat we are up ****creek.

leninbenjamin

the EU wont be happy with this.

is_that_so

They might but seeing as this malaise extends to the whole EU one would expect them to recognise the reality of the situation. Attempting to undo any of the deals would cause havoc in financial markets.

eamonnm79

David MC Williams last tuesday'sIndo
"However, there is something we can do. By giving a full deposit guarantee now, the State could re-energise creditors' -- both big and small -- confidence in our banks. In fact, given what is happening all over the world, a comprehensive guarantee would prompt foreigners to lodge their money in Irish banks. As a member of EMU with the lowest State-debt-to-GDP ratio, Ireland would be ideally placed to offer itself as a financial port in this international storm."

Has our ginger friend gone from pariah that should be put on suicide watch (according to bertie), to Government chief advisor?
Lets hope he is right.
TBH I think he has good instincts. Id rather go with one of his gambles than anyone elses in this country.

gurramok

I hope the foreign money coming in is not a big green traffic light for Irish banks to engage in unprudent lending like they did in the bubble or the taxpayer will get even more hammered with problems down the line.

cavedave

Thanks eamonnm79 nice point.

What prevents something like Soros' trick on shafting Stirling on Black Wednesday from happening?

Tricity Bendix

I don't know whether to be excited or scared. Although there is little chance of AIB or BOI going belly up, I am nervous that my money is going to secure the deposits in Anglo Irish. However, if that bank were to collapse, the knock-on effect could be devastating, so I can see how it could very quickly become a problem for us all.

I was just saying yesterday that if I had any money at all I would be putting it in AIB and BOI.

cavedave

Although there is little chance of AIB or BOI going belly up, I am nervous that my money is going to secure the deposits in Anglo Iris

That assumes banking failures are independently distributed. Which they are not. Anglo Irish has a small chance of failing but if it does fail that raises the chances that a bigger bank will fail.

Run_to_da_hills

Can the Government trust the bank managers to be handing out future loans to the public without getting involved?.

Dose this mean that from now on that the state is going to have an interest in a customers credit rating for any future loan application to safeguard this huge commitment from the taxpayer?.

In the former days one could apply to one bank if another one turned down a loan, I can see the possible danger of the state getting involved all loan applications irrespective of what bank you approach particularly if there is a downturn. In other words you better keep a clean slate.

Économiste Monétaire

For the fans of Morganomics, Morgan Kelly is on Prime Time at the moment discussing the situation.

Time Magazine

UCD_Econ wrote: »

For the fans of Morganomics, Morgan Kelly is on Prime Time at the moment discussing the situation.

I heard he got burned by a student in class today. How did his morale look?

silverharp

Mish sems to like the plan,


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

This is urgent we must get this to EVERY senator before the Senate takes a vote.

Fax Title: How To Stop A Run On The Banks

Dear senator

Today the Irish government announced a surprise decision to safeguard the Irish banking system for two years, guaranteeing all deposits, covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt of the four main banks.

The Result

Investors welcomed the news. By 0755 GMT, Allied Irish Banks PLC (AIB) rose 14%, Anglo Irish Bank PLC (ANGL.DB) rose 22%, Bank of Ireland PLC (IRE) rose6.7% , and Irish Life & Permanent PLC (IPM.DB) rose 22%.

Why Ireland's Plan Works

What Ireland is fighting is the same thing that the Fed is trying to fight here (outflows from banks and money market funds into short term government debt.)

The problem is NOT mom and pop pulling bank deposits, it is corporate treasurers and state treasurers whose jobs are on the line pulling deposits from weak banks and putting them into stronger ones.

The fastest way for the US and other governments to solve this is to raise deposit insurance ceilings. This is a far better option than ballooning the Fed's balance sheet more.

Furthermore, I would highlight that fully guaranteed deposits would put the US government even more at the top of the capital structure of banks. Existing senior debt is all of a sudden now fully subordinated to a potentially unlimited amount of insured deposit debt.

Why the Paulson Plan Fails

The Paulson plan fails because it does not stop mistrust between banks or mistrust by depositors. All it does is throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a black hole.

The Paulson plan is also unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for the US Government or the Federal Reserve to use public (taxpayer) money for what is definitely a private purpose (bailing out Wall Street).

Finally, the Paulson plan takes time to implement fairly, and there are many holes in the oversight process.

Stop The Run On Banks

Temporarily guarantee all deposits at US Banks. Implement rules to ensure weak banks do not misuse this privilege by adopting risky lending practices. Orderly shut down all undercapitalized banks.

Senator, please scrap the Paulson proposal in entirety and try something that might work, that is constitutional, and does not put taxpayer money at risk.

Your Name
Your Phone Number

auerillo

It seems the government has gone in for an irish "semi-state" type of privitiastion. They have shouldered the risk, and let the banks with the profit.

rrpc

auerillo wrote: »

It seems the government has gone in for an irish "semi-state" type of privitiastion. They have shouldered the risk, and let the banks with the profit.

That's a very simplistic view. The government will never have to pay out on this. The problem was not that banks are about to collapse, but that the banking system had become completely dysfunctional with no long term money being available to Irish banks on the interbank market.

The knock on effects of this were substantial to the Irish economy; no long term money and the credit crunch gets harder and the economy shrinks further and a vicious circle develops.

The government were right to step in and offer a guarantee (at a price we are told) to safeguard our economy.

Or would you prefer to lose your job because your employer can't get access to working capital?

Économiste Monétaire

David McWilliams wrote: »

I heard he got burned by a student in class today. How did his morale look?

I'm guessing he reacted well to criticism from the student I thought he came across quite well on the programme. A bit aggressive, though. I think you guys pepped him up for it :pac:

TheBazman

Everybody is focussing on this 400bn number. I think we should move away from this given that in a doomsday scenario if the govt had to assume these liabilities they would also take on the assets.

Also the more the govt guarantees the more confidence there is in the Irish banking system, the more the banks can dig themselves out of any hole they may be in, and as a result the less likely the govt will have to pay anything.

The alternatives to this plan would be very unpalatable - In theory do they let a bank go under - this would undermine confidence in the other banks and there would be a domino effect. What then? - Thousands unemployed - reduced tax revenue - how would the economy get going again given that there would be no funding available to businesses/individuals?

The best plan that other countries have managed prior to the Irish one was that of Nationalisation or at least partial nationalisation. The Irish plan is being applauded internationally as "getting it right" and other nations are looking at doing the same

andrewdeerpark

It seems from today’s reading that this Vladimir Putin style secret deal was done to save 1 bank in particular.

The one with little or no retail presence, heavily involved in management of the money of the rich and elite in our society, lender to large commercial property interests in Ireland & the UK and backed by some of our richest people in insurance.

Why the government did not choose to nationalise, then leave the other banks pick over the carcass, as has been done everywhere else only they can answer. This is not without risks however we are not betting the whole country on one sector; so much for that famous nugget of financial wisdom a diversified portfolio. Where is the “moral hazard” of bad management?

Instead we have adopted the approach of one pupil behaving badly in class and we will give sweets to the whole class as a reward! Just look at today’s bank share price rises while other stocks in the market get no assistance; C&C bad summer cider sales down, tough similar Waterford Crystal; recession luxury goods market down, dollar killing Competitiveness, tough, I could go on and on

As of this morning we have what they call “primary legislation” which basically gives our minister of finance full powers of use as he sees fit behind closed doors with his pals in the central bank & financial regulator to do what he likes, no dail supervision, no reporting to any dail subcommittee, no public disclosure until after the event.

This is like what Paulson originally asked for in the US, he did not get it. But or lame democracy will just toe the line run with this media wave that it has to be done for the good of the country without quibble. This is too much power and money for 1 man.

This should not be voted into legislation until every tiny detail is trashed out to the last sentence, regulations doubled and every bank CEO reporting to the bi-partisan dail finance committee every 4 months with up to date details of their current balance sheets and loans books provided, then this committee reports to the minister for finance where a decision can be made; I would have no issue with this being kept secret however the committee has to be across all parties.

The simple problem I have is we do not have any real facts; this bill was not published on the Internet like the US so us ordinary peasants we just have to do as our leaders instruct, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor the new mantra.

I assume worst case scenario would be its addition to our national debt where we would have to try and sell government bonds and borrow to finance?!

Does anyone not see these issues with our new secret society?

leninbenjamin

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

It seems from today’s reading that this Vladimir Putin style secret deal was done to save 1 bank in particular.

Does anyone not see these issues with our new secret society?

so in the interests of transparency you would rather have let that bank go under and the knock on effects filter throughout the economy? do you have any ideas of the woes it would cause to the economy should one of the big Irish banks go under?

cavedave

rrpc
The government will never have to pay out on this. The problem was not that banks are about to collapse, but that the banking system had become completely dysfunctional with no long term money being available to Irish banks on the interbank market.

If the government will never have to pay what are they offering? There must be some probability they will have to pay.

So if banks do not trust each other enough to lend money why should we trust them? Surely they know lending better then us.

andrewdeerpark

In short Yes.

We either have a true free market or socialism. We could then cleanup the residue with nationalisation of the one failed bank.

Where did this myth come from that ONE bank failing in Ireland would collapse the entire system, banks have failed in countries worldwide however the banking system remained, are we so different?

Remember at the height of the property boom the central bank was pleading with the banks not to give large multiple of earnings loans, 100% mortgages and stupid lending however the banks just ignored these guidelines and turned in huge profits

No in times of banking hardship they are running for cover to the central bank and minister.

I stand corrected on the legislation it is at
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=10023

Only 10 pages and all powers to the minister, what a sham.

rrpc

cavedave wrote: »

If the government will never have to pay what are they offering? There must be some probability they will have to pay.

Security. Banks operate on trust and confidence. Without these, the system fails and the economy with it. It's a simple stark reality.

So if banks do not trust each other enough to lend money why should we trust them? Surely they know lending better then us.

It's not just trust in the banks, but trust in the Irish economy that's at stake here. The banks are at the frontline of that trust equation because they have invested their funds in the economy through business loans. If other banks don't trust the viability of those loans and by extension the Irish economy, the first thing to shut down will be the banks swiftly followed by the economy.

TheBazman

leninbenjamin wrote: »

so in the interests of transparency you would rather have let that bank go under and the knock on effects filter throughout the economy? do you have any ideas of the woes it would cause to the economy should one of the big Irish banks go under?

I agree. If we were in normal times with no international credit crisis this may have been the correct approach. The reality is that if one bank (let's just say the one with no Retail presence that was suggested) was allowed to go there would be huge impacts on the others and they too would fall like dominos (See Fortis/Dexis, Northern Rock/HBOS/Bradford and Bingley, Lehmans/Washington Mutual/Wachovia...)

asdasd

do you have any ideas of the woes it would cause to the economy should one of the big Irish banks go under?

He suggested nationalising that particular bank, not letting it fail.

rrpc

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

In short Yes.

We either have a true free market or socialism. We could then cleanup the residue with nationalisation of the one failed bank.

Where did this myth come from that ONE bank failing in Ireland would collapse the entire system, banks have failed in countries worldwide however the banking system remained, are we so different?

Banks failing in isolation are not new or cause for concern. The collapse of the entire banking system for no good reason other than lack of trust should be worrying.

Remember at the height of the property boom the central bank was pleading with the banks not to give large multiple of earnings loans, 100% mortgages and stupid lending however the banks just ignored these guidelines and turned in huge profits

And who was at the forefront of these 100%+ mortgages? Irish arms of UK banks were the first to start that ball rolling and other banks had to jump in or lose business. I'd say if you went through these forums you'd find plenty of poeple complaining that some Irish banks were not following suit.

Eaten bread is indeed soon forgotten.

andrewdeerpark

TheBazman wrote: »

I agree. If we were in normal times with no international credit crisis this may have been the correct approach. The reality is that if one bank (let's just say the one with no Retail presence that was suggested) was allowed to go there would be huge impacts on the others and they too would fall like dominos (See Fortis/Dexis, Northern Rock/HBOS/Bradford and Bingley, Lehmans/Washington Mutual/Wachovia...)

[FONT=&quot]Sorry the banking system in Belgium, UK, US and Holland is still working last time I heard. Ok the governments have a bit of work to do cleaning up the system (US in particular), however the domino failure theory has not been proven with any substantial argument so what makes it likely in Ireland right now?

How do you reconcile keeping bad business standing in a free market? Are we going down the Japanese banking model of the 90's with defunct banks propped up by the government? [/FONT]

rrpc

asdasd wrote: »

He suggested nationalising that particular bank, not letting it fail.

And how much would that cost? Why wait for disaster when you can head it off quickly?

I think the Minister has done a fine job here. In one move he has restored faith in the Irish economy (and that's what this is about, make no mistake) which could create a 'bubble' of economic stability within an unstable world market.

If people want to run from their own banking systems for fear of collapse, then we have provided somewhere for them to go safely.

asdasd

And who was at the forefront of these 100%+ mortgages? Irish arms of UK banks were the first to start that ball rolling and other banks had to jump in or lose business. I'd say if you went through these forums you'd find plenty of poeple complaining that some Irish banks were not following suit.

Eaten bread is indeed soon forgotten.

so the peasants should be glad that irresponsible lending by the banks - who are the experts in this situation - pushed up housing prices, and forced the increasing necessity of 100*+ mortgages. Now the peasants pay up.

There is a case here for massive criminal negligence. I am paid less than bankers, have more intelligent work to do, but am held to account if things fail. Doctors can be sued. A banker who puts the system at risk, and his own bank at risk ( sending shareholder value to zero if it fails, or get nationalised) needs to be subject either to criminal charges of negligence, or at the very least civil damages ( shareholders should get the bonuses back, dont you think?)

leninbenjamin

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

In short Yes.

We either have a true free market or socialism. We could then cleanup the residue with nationalisation of the one failed bank.

Where did this myth come from that ONE bank failing in Ireland would collapse the entire system, banks have failed in countries worldwide however the banking system remained, are we so different?

Myth? do you have any idea how large the Irish banks market share are? are you completely ignorant to how dependent this economy is on the large banks here? if one goes under there simply will be no one big enough to be able to clean up the mess.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Remember at the height of the property boom the central bank was pleading with the banks not to give large multiple of earnings loans, 100% mortgages and stupid lending however the banks just ignored these guidelines and turned in huge profits

No in times of banking hardship they are running for cover to the central bank and minister.

your understanding of the current situation for Irish banks is very poor (mine isn't fantastic either but i'll give it a stab nonetheless)

so far the toxic debt situation has yet to really hit us like it has the U.S. The current situation is that Irish Banks cannot get money on the international financial markets (hence the 'credit crises') as banks have lost confidence in each other, and Ireland looks particularly bad due to the dependency on the construction sector. as an example; this means they cannot fund their day to day activities. that means small to medium sized businesses cannot get access to an overdraft which means they cannot meet their payroll and the company goes under. The governments move restores confidence in the Irish banking system and now, hopefully, normal trade will resume with the Irish Financial system. letting one bank go under simply isn't an option, as no bank would be in a position to take over if the current market conditions remained the same. instead it would just drag down a large proportion of the economy with it. would you like to see that then?

andrewdeerpark

[FONT=&quot]asdasd point is bang on, where is the moral hazard for these CEO and banking boards. All they have to do now is turn up at a few meetings sign some documents have a few rounds of golf and enjoy the good life.

With fear of failure removed I believed I am qualified to run a bank. Knowing my business cannot fail, I won't go to jail and I will have the minister of finance’s mobile number in my phone when any problems arise.

How many distressed homeowners & small businesses can call the minister of finance late at night with their problems and get a bailout?

[/FONT]

Hanley

rrpc wrote: »

And how much would that cost? Why wait for disaster when you can head it off quickly?

I think the Minister has done a fine job here. In one move he has restored faith in the Irish economy (and that's what this is about, make no mistake) which could create a 'bubble' of economic stability within an unstable world market.

If people want to run from their own banking systems for fear of collapse, then we have provided somewhere for them to go safely.

+1

And it hasn't cost a cent.

asdasd wrote: »

so the peasants should be glad that irresponsible lending by the banks - who are the experts in this situation - pushed up housing prices, and forced the increasing necessity of 100*+ mortgages. Now the peasants pay up.

There is a case here for massive criminal negligence. I am paid less than bankers, have more intelligent work to do, but am held to account if things fail. Doctors can be sued. A banker who puts the system at risk, and his own bank at risk ( sending shareholder value to zero if it fails, or get nationalised) needs to be subject either to criminal charges of negligence, or at the very least civil damages ( shareholders should get the bonuses back, dont you think?)

I believe the point was it was the UK banks Irish operations that started the ball rolling, and they aren't being covered by the guarantee, so they hardly being rewarded for it. The Irish banks were playing catch up and as a result they managed to make a bad problem worse.

It's a sh!t storm that was caused by lack of specific legislation, or at the very least, more central bank oversight. Everyone fcuked up, the banks, the regulators, the government.... I don't think anyone is going to debate that.

But it's done now. There's no point in letting things get even worse to prove a point. We fcuked up. All of us. Everyone here knows it. All we can HOPE to do is learn from those mistakes. The thing is tho, letting a bank fail isn't going to make us any less likely to change our behaviour in future, imo. I reckon all it'll do is create public resentment towards the banking sector in general. Which we don't want.

rrpc

asdasd wrote: »

so the peasants should be glad that irresponsible lending by the banks - who are the experts in this situation - pushed up housing prices, and forced the increasing necessity of 100*+ mortgages. Now the peasants pay up.

The number of 100%+ mortgages in the Irish system are so small in the overall scheme of things as to be meaningless in the current discussion. If every second mortgage held by - for example: AIB were to default, it still wouldn't impact on their viability as a going concern although it would hurt their bottom line for a while. That's not what this is about, most banks here are highly diversified and not completely exposed to one particular market as is the case in the US.

There is a case here for massive criminal negligence. I am paid less than bankers, have more intelligent work to do, but am held to account if things fail. Doctors can be sued. A banker who puts the system at risk, and his own bank at risk ( sending shareholder value to zero if it fails, or get nationalised) needs to be subject either to criminal charges of negligence, or at the very least civil damages ( shareholders should get the bonuses back, dont you think?)

What issues of negligence? No bank here is saying they have to be bailed out. What they are looking for is government backing for the Irish economy which is in need of cash, which at the moment is not forthcoming because of serious problems in other jursidictions.

leninbenjamin

asdasd wrote: »

He suggested nationalising that particular bank, not letting it fail.

makes no difference, the effects would be the same. Confidence would pretty much lost in the Irish financial system and the rest of the economy would follow.

Hanley

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]asdasd point is bang on, where is the moral hazard for these CEO and banking boards. All they have to do now is turn up at a few meetings sign some documents have a few rounds of golf and enjoy the good life.

With fear of failure removed I believed I am qualified to run a bank. Knowing my business cannot fail, I won't go to jail and I will have the minister of finance’s mobile number in my phone when any problems arise.

How many distressed homeowners & small businesses can call the minister of finance late at night with their problems and get a bailout?

[/FONT]

So tell us, how much has this "bail out" cost so far??

Because I'd be personally willing to put my hand into my pocket and give the exact same amount to any homeowners or SME's who are in trouble.

andrewdeerpark

Hanley wrote: »

So tell us, how much has this "bail out" cost so far??

Because I'd be personally willing to put my hand into my pocket and give the exact same amount to any homeowners or SME's who are in trouble.

Another major point in my argument we simply do not know? We are sewing 2 year seeds in the dail right now with uncapped powers being given to the minister for finance.

I would love some solid details as I asked in my original post with serious regulation.

It seems to me we are giving the guarantee before the regulation. Bad and all as the banks were they at least checked people out some bit before handing over money.

We are giving a blank cheque book to the banking system with no amount filled in and no name just fully signed. Kinda like the olde FF days!

Madness