So, my fellow unfortunate Anglo investors...

hatrickpatrick

How much d'you reckon we'll get?

Time Magazine

I don't mean to be callous. I don't mean to be "told you so!" I don't mean to be unsympathetic. But I really hope you don't get anything. Our deficit looks like it's going to be €19bn. Hospitals are cancelling surgeries because they're overwhelmed. Schools are asking parents for donations to refurbish prefabs. Public transport fares are increasing. Tens of thousands of people will be needing dole over the year. We have better things to spend our money on.

I will be very disappointed in this government if you get more than 10c a share.

silverharp

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How much d'you reckon we'll get?

Do some maths

Assets - Liabilities= Capital and accumulated profits

There is no business , there is no capital , the life lessons you have leared are far more valuable then any token gesture by the gov.

Hanley

Investors.... lol.

ixus

It's really hard not to say "I told you so", but I won't.

I'm nice like that.

Oh, and you'll get 0.

Baird

The Economist wrote: »

I will be very disappointed in this government if you get more than 10c a share.

10c?
For crying out loud they should get absolutely nothing.
Why on earth should the tax payer give investors anything

PDelux

Check if your pension funds have exposure to Anglo!

Time Magazine

Baird wrote: »

10c?
For crying out loud they should get absolutely nothing.
Why on earth should the tax payer give investors anything

I agree entirely, but we're dealing with Fianna Fáil here. A certain level of incompetence is factored in.

As far as I can see they've already hinted that there will be some sop. About half-way down here: "The Government statement said shareholders' rights would be respected, and the legislation will outline plans for compensation."

Bytheway

So what happens now, Its nationalized
1) Government may offer some compensation, they may not.
2) Is there an option to keep shares until the time when it is floated again ?
3) Is there an option for the government to put all the bad debts from all the banks into Anglo and sink it ? Apparently there was a program on this but i missed it.

Blackjack

The Economist wrote: »

I agree entirely, but we're dealing with Fianna Fáil here. A certain level of incompetence is factored in.

As far as I can see they've already hinted that there will be some sop. About half-way down here: "The Government statement said shareholders' rights would be respected, and the legislation will outline plans for compensation."

Not a fan if Fianna Fáil, but if I recall correctly it was either FG (or maybeLabour) that were suggesting Eircom shareholders had some sort of compensation as part of there election campaign in 2002?.

In all honesty, neither the current Government nor do any of the opposition parties have a baldy on how this issue should be dealt with. It's hard to define any specific party as being more incompetent than the other, they're all fairly useless, and the lack of credible and coherent Government within the Dáil along with equally competent opposition as an alternative is why this country is in the state it's in.

Complacency, and perhaps voter apathy has an awful lot to answer for here as regards who represents us.

I've had a bit supped so I may be ranting here, but I'll risk it and hit submit reply for what it's worth.

TJJP

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How much d'you reckon we'll get?

On the basis of Northern Rock, it looks like euro 0.22c

'Transfer of Northern Rock shares
3.—(1) The amount of any compensation payable by the Treasury to persons who held shares in Northern Rock immediately before they were transferred by the Transfer Order shall be determined in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) The amount of compensation payable to a person shall be an amount equal to the value immediately before the transfer time of all shares in Northern Rock held immediately before the transfer time by that person.'

Mind you a few got in time (shares in issue = 749.585 M; Market Cap €162.66 M):

http://www.angloirishbank.com/Investors/Share_Information/Delayed_Trades/

and a few take a hit on their ownership:

Janus Capital Management LLC 5.44%
Lehman Brothers International (Europe) 4.81%
Invesco Perpetual 4.81%
Barclays Global Investors 3.02%
Other Dirs NaN%

(http://www.angloirishbank.com/Investors/Share_Information/Major_Shareholders/)

- Source Hemscott

Blackjack

TJJP wrote: »

and a few take a hit on their ownership:

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) 4.81%

I reckon this particular shareholder has other issues of concern.

TJJP

yup...

dragonbet

To reiterate a point made already, it is essential that Anglo shareholders do get some compensation, from the way I see it, this would actually be in the governments long term interest.

As much and all as I would like to see the greedy fat cats get there just deserves there is other elements at play here.

If the govt. dont compensate the likes of Quinn, this will inevitably effect his financial standing and have a knock on effect on the whole Quinn Group. Even at a mere 22c, Quinn will persumably come out with only a few million relative to his massive initial investment. Now this isnt for Sean Quinns interest but for the interest of the thousands of people he employs. If the govt shaft Quinn he will have to outlay the lose somewhere else and that will eventually lead to losses in jobs or shelfing of his other investments thereby snubbing employment. This issue is not about the tax payer and the National Debt nor is it about playing a violin for the pensioners or working class who invested in Anglo, the major issue at play here is protecting the tax payer and jobs, and a compensation package at Anglo, however weak or strong it may be, might be the only solution.

Furthermore, if this indepent assessor values Anglo at nil then be prepared to watch the financial crisis get worse...!! Does anyone here really believe that the govt. can come back with a share value of 0c and actual maintain the publics confidence in the other financial institutions. This is not about the fat cats or compensating the Fianna Failers or builders, this is more about restoring confidence and financial stability.

silverharp

dragonbet wrote: »

To reiterate a point made already, it is essential that Anglo shareholders do get some compensation, from the way I see it, this would actually be in the governments long term interest.

As much and all as I would like to see the greedy fat cats get there just deserves there is other elements at play here.

If the govt. dont compensate the likes of Quinn, this will inevitably effect his financial standing and have a knock on effect on the whole Quinn Group. Even at a mere 22c, Quinn will persumably come out with only a few million relative to his massive initial investment. Now this isnt for Sean Quinns interest but for the interest of the thousands of people he employs. If the govt shaft Quinn he will have to outlay the lose somewhere else and that will eventually lead to losses in jobs or shelfing of his other investments thereby snubbing employment. This issue is not about the tax payer and the National Debt nor is it about playing a violin for the pensioners or working class who invested in Anglo, the major issue at play here is protecting the tax payer and jobs, and a compensation package at Anglo, however weak or strong it may be, might be the only solution.

Furthermore, if this indepent assessor values Anglo at nil then be prepared to watch the financial crisis get worse...!! Does anyone here really believe that the govt. can come back with a share value of 0c and actual maintain the publics confidence in the other financial institutions. This is not about the fat cats or compensating the Fianna Failers or builders, this is more about restoring confidence and financial stability.

Your post does not make sense to me , the shares either have value or they dont. assuming Anglo is closed down completely and their assets etc sold off at market prices then whatrever is leftover can be distributed to shareholders. Either way it will probably take years to figure out what the assets are worth. The idea that the taxpayer should compesate shareholders to save face or instill confidence would be dead wrong.
Although this is a unique enough situation it would set a precedent that shareholders should be bailed out in future, more moral hazzard.
Seriously if anyone has the "intellegence" to be invested in individual company shares they should know how to diversify and or accept the risk. Somehow wanting your "marbles" back when youve lost them playing the game is childish.

Baird

dragonbet wrote: »

To reiterate a point made already, it is essential that Anglo shareholders do get some compensation, from the way I see it, this would actually be in the governments long term interest.

As much and all as I would like to see the greedy fat cats get there just deserves there is other elements at play here.

If the govt. dont compensate the likes of Quinn, this will inevitably effect his financial standing and have a knock on effect on the whole Quinn Group. Even at a mere 22c, Quinn will persumably come out with only a few million relative to his massive initial investment. Now this isnt for Sean Quinns interest but for the interest of the thousands of people he employs. If the govt shaft Quinn he will have to outlay the lose somewhere else and that will eventually lead to losses in jobs or shelfing of his other investments thereby snubbing employment. This issue is not about the tax payer and the National Debt nor is it about playing a violin for the pensioners or working class who invested in Anglo, the major issue at play here is protecting the tax payer and jobs, and a compensation package at Anglo, however weak or strong it may be, might be the only solution.

Furthermore, if this indepent assessor values Anglo at nil then be prepared to watch the financial crisis get worse...!! Does anyone here really believe that the govt. can come back with a share value of 0c and actual maintain the publics confidence in the other financial institutions. This is not about the fat cats or compensating the Fianna Failers or builders, this is more about restoring confidence and financial stability.

So basically you are looking for the government to bail out sean quinn because he employs lot of people...
Am i reading this right?
Anglo shareholders should get flip all if you ask me.
Shares are not a guaranteed moneymaker, they deserve nothing in my opinion

dragonbet

silverharp wrote: »

Your post does not make sense to me , the shares either have value or they dont. assuming Anglo is closed down completely and their assets etc sold off at market prices then whatrever is leftover can be distributed to shareholders. Either way it will probably take years to figure out what the assets are worth. The idea that the taxpayer should compesate shareholders to save face or instill confidence would be dead wrong.
Although this is a unique enough situation it would set a precedent that shareholders should be bailed out in future, more moral hazzard.
Seriously if anyone has the "intellegence" to be invested in individual company shares they should know how to diversify and or accept the risk. Somehow wanting your "marbles" back when youve lost them playing the game is childish.

I agree with you 100%, but it is important that this is done appropriately and this bull**** of people stating that Anglo shareholders get 0c is very dangerous for the broader picture, I find it hard to see that Anglo with all thier asset and securities they hold, would actually be worth nothing. The govt. can not just seize this company and shaft the shareholders, when Anglo could potential trade out of this recession. But nobody will know this until the true extent of Anglos books are examined.

But in saying this, Anglo shareholders, and all other shareholders should be aware of the potential to loose all their investment, and if this truely is the case then so be it, but its just not as clear as saying Anglo shareholders deserve nothing.

I hope this clears up my point of view.

dragonbet

Baird wrote: »

So basically you are looking for the government to bail out sean quinn because he employs lot of people...
Am i reading this right?
Anglo shareholders should get flip all if you ask me.
Shares are not a guaranteed moneymaker, they deserve nothing in my opinion

Any chance you could back up your opinion would some actual facts...!! Like your basically huffing and puffing and saying shareholders should get nothing 'in your opinion', is there any facts to back up these opinions of yours.

I have clearly made my point about the assets and securities held by Anglo and if there is a fair assessment of these made then shareholders should be compensated and sooner rather than later, if there really is nothing there then likewise they should get nothing but merely stated that 'you think' they deserve nothing holds no merit or no foundation.

If you 'read' my post again you will see that its not about compensating shareholders, out of taxpayers money, I AM A TAXPAYER.......... its about the knock on effects that compensation or a lack of compensation will have. Its not about Quinn employing people or any other shareholder, anyone with an education and insight into the financial situation of the country should see this.

Climate Expert

dragonbet wrote: »

Any chance you could back up your opinion would some actual facts...!! Like your basically huffing and puffing and saying shareholders should get nothing 'in your opinion', is there any facts to back up these opinions of yours.

I have clearly made my point about the assets and securities held by Anglo and if there is a fair assessment of these made then shareholders should be compensated and sooner rather than later, if there really is nothing there then likewise they should get nothing but merely stated that 'you think' they deserve nothing holds no merit or no foundation.

If you 'read' my post again you will see that its not about compensating shareholders, out of taxpayers money, I AM A TAXPAYER.......... its about the knock on effects that compensation or a lack of compensation will have. Its not about Quinn employing people or any other shareholder, anyone with an education and insight into the financial situation of the country should see this.

Bizarre. Why compensation?
If the shares have zero value then you get nothing .You don't get some charitable comepensation because some investors employ people.

Anonymous1987

Anglo Irish bank is not completely worthless simply because it has failed to balance its assets and liabilities, it still has some money making assets on its balance sheet. The government could try to sell these money making assets and pass on some of the sale to the investors or it could hold on to these assets and benefit from the return.

The government could also use Anglo Irish Bank as tool for buying bad loans from the other banks to help their balance sheet along. This is expensive from the government point of view but it would help the banks enourmously and is a whole lot cheaper than bailing out an entire bank. This worked in the 1980's in the US during the savings and loan crisis there with the creation of a Resolution Trust Corporation that cleaned up bad loans.

As regards to moral hazard the alternative could be a whole lot worse if the banking industry continues to struggle and liquidity does not return to the market. The introduction of tighter legislation could help to deal with the moral hazard issue.

dragonbet

Climate Expert wrote: »

Bizarre. Why compensation?
If the shares have zero value then you get nothing .You don't get some charitable comepensation because some investors employ people.

Can you read????

dragonbet

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Anglo Irish bank is not completely worthless simply because it has failed to balance its assets and liabilities, it still has some money making assets on its balance sheet. The government could try to sell these money making assets and pass on some of the sale to the investors or it could hold on to these assets and benefit from the return.

The government could also use Anglo Irish Bank as tool for buying bad loans from the other banks to help their balance sheet along. This is expensive from the government point of view but it would help the banks enourmously and is a whole lot cheaper than bailing out an entire bank. This worked in the 1980's in the US during the savings and loan crisis there with the creation of a Resolution Trust Corporation that cleaned up bad loans.

As regards to moral hazard the alternative could be a whole lot worse if the banking industry continues to struggle and liquidity does not return to the market. The introduction of tighter legislation could help to deal with the moral hazard issue.

Very good post, using Anglo as a skip might be an option but if they do that they have to compensate shareholders (if anything at all) sooner rather than later??? How exactly did they do this in the 1980's?

Baird

dragonbet wrote: »

I agree with you 100%, but it is important that this is done appropriately and this bull**** of people stating that Anglo shareholders get 0c is very dangerous for the broader picture, I find it hard to see that Anglo with all thier asset and securities they hold, would actually be worth nothing. The govt. can not just seize this company and shaft the shareholders, when Anglo could potential trade out of this recession. But nobody will know this until the true extent of Anglos books are examined.

But in saying this, Anglo shareholders, and all other shareholders should be aware of the potential to loose all their investment, and if this truely is the case then so be it, but its just not as clear as saying Anglo shareholders deserve nothing.

I hope this clears up my point of view.

True but the rumour doing the rounds is that there was a run on corporate
deposits in the UK and that would mean the government had no choice but
to nationalise the bank, otherwise its blanket guarantee would have to be
used which would have crippled the country.

dragonbet wrote: »

Any chance you could back up your opinion would some actual facts...!! Like your basically huffing and puffing and saying shareholders should get nothing 'in your opinion', is there any facts to back up these opinions of yours.

Facts? What facts do you want, the company collapsed and its shares went
to zero, your point is that some shareholders employ lots of people and
"deserve" some of their money back as they will put it to good use. I think
this is a shocking idea to be honest. Every idiot knew Anglo was a bad investment once property prices started to collapse but Quinn increased his
stake instead. He more than deserves to lose his reported 1bn of an investment.

I have clearly made my point about the assets and securities held by Anglo and if there is a fair assessment of these made then shareholders should be compensated and sooner rather than later, if there really is nothing there then likewise they should get nothing but merely stated that 'you think' they deserve nothing holds no merit or no foundation.

In fairness the argument that you put forward about Quinn employing people
has got nothing to do with the discussion either.

If you 'read' my post again you will see that its not about compensating shareholders, out of taxpayers money, I AM A TAXPAYER.......... its about the knock on effects that compensation or a lack of compensation will have. Its not about Quinn employing people or any other shareholder,

The knockon effects of a lack of compensation for sean quinn should
definitely not be a factor in the discussion as to whether shareholders get
compensation. Didnt lenihan not come out and say that any large debtors who
are also shareholders in Anglo would not even be considered for
compensation.

If Anglo turns out to make the government a lot of money in 3-5 years then i
still dont agree that the original shareholders deserve a slice of this. The
reason for this is simple, Irelands cds spreads have hit record levels because
of this nationalisation and will continue to rise. It will cost this country a small
fortune to raise debt in the short/medium term as a result of owning anglo.
For this reason any profits gotten from owning anglo should be kept to
balance the cost of having to have its crap loan book on the governments
balance sheet.

anyone with an education and insight into the financial situation of the country should see this.

Im sorry my little mind obviously doesst function on the same level as you! :rolleyes:
Careful you dont fall off that high horse of yours mate, could injure yourself

dragonbet

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055463128&page=4

this is my view on Anglos assets...!! Its quite a good thread aswell. I never said they should be compensated if its not there but you stated very very clearly that they should get nothing... backed up by no facts.!!! You obviously dont know anything about Anglos securities cos if you ever dealt with Anglo you would know that although they used to make quick and speedy decisions on investments they always looked for massive security and thats why I feel Anglo still has value. Fair enough, if there is nothing there and this can be provided then they should rightfully get nothing, and by no means should taxpayers dole out money for investors in Anglo.

The fact that Anglo and all companies in the ISEQ have a **** value has absolutely nothing to do with their real value..... get a grip, look at Aer Lingus with 800million in the bank only valued at 5-6 hundred million or companies like Datalex completely undervalued??? Anglo never went to zero or collapsed? You must get your eyes tested, or ears???

Good point about the government taken over Anglo though, so they wouldnt have to use the blanket gaurantee...!! Thats a very valid point.


P.S: I dont have a high horse anymore, I had to sell it for a small donkey........... due to the recession of course.!!!

Time Magazine

Climate Expert banned for personal abuse (since deleted).

The_Conductor

Aside from Sean Quinn's shareholding in Anglo Irish- it now looks like the Quinn group of companies owe Anglo Irish possibly as much as 1.8 to 2 billion in loans secured on the Quinn Group itself. So you have a perfect catch 22 there...... Looks like the government may very well end up nationalising the Quinn Group of companies, on top of everything else....... That would be interesting- the government would then own the 2 largest suppliers of private health care in the country- along with being the providor of public health care (allegedly)- and have an insurance company, a hotel chain and a massive construction materials business on the side........ Stranger things have happened......

What would be a fair price to offer to to investors who have lost the shirts off their backs- the nominal 10c value on the shares, or the 22c they last traded at? Either are plausible figures- but from the perspective of the liabilities attached to the company- its entirely possible that liabilities may vastly offset any assets that might be liquidated to satisfy those losses- which could mean a nil or even a negative value attached to those shares.......

The government seem to have the approach- whats a few billion among friends........?

silverharp

smccarrick wrote: »

The Quinn family is understood to have lost close to €1 billion on so-called “contracts for difference” in Anglo Irish Bank shares. Loans advanced to the family by the group in relation to the investment have now been written off.

What exactly happened here, does written off mean they are not pursuing Quinn for the money? and the CFD's they are derivitive products, was Quinn an actual shareholder or not?
Who the hell was advising the family , the idea of tying up a large % of their wealth in a bank at the front end of a property bust was madness.
The PV Doyle family are looking pretty smart now, I dont know what they did with the money but if its in gold bars in a swiss vault, they are among the smartest people on the planet:pac:

Cantoris

If it gets to the stage where the Quinn Group are struggling to service or repay their debt, they will have to sell some of their businesses to finance it......just like the UK housebuilders etc are doing in order to reduce debt levels. Even the banks are selling off subsidiaries to provide capital.

The_Conductor

Cantoris wrote: »

If it gets to the stage where the Quinn Group are struggling to service or repay their debt, they will have to sell some of their businesses to finance it......just like the UK housebuilders etc are doing in order to reduce debt levels. Even the banks are selling off subsidiaries to provide capital.

They can't if the shares are being used as collatoral on the loans themselves....... which they are........

Hmmmm- what should we do with our new insurance company? Should we merge Quinn Healthcare with the VHI and float the enlarged group? Perhaps the construction materials end of the business might knock a big chunk out of the 8billion per annum that they are still planning on spending on the NDP....... So many possibilities....... Foreclose, foreclose, I tell you!!!!

uberwolf

Baird wrote: »

True but the rumour doing the rounds is that there was a run on corporate
deposits in the UK and that would mean the government had no choice but
to nationalise the bank, otherwise its blanket guarantee would have to be
used which would have crippled the country.

from todays indo http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/downgrade-led-to-shock-anglo-nationalisation-1605888.html

Anglo's rating was to be downgraded, which would have seen deposits flowing out even quicker than they had been, leading to a further downgrade and another run on the shares.

All in all, it's not like the Government have done this to screw the shareholders. The share price was returning to zero, and for the economies sake they needed to intervene. I do feel that on point of principle that the suspended share price should be honoured, and that investors should expect that back - but certainly no more.

dragonbet

What exactly is the story with Quinns loans being written off???? I read this in a few places, would this not imply that Quinns shares were already valued and loans written off against this...!!! How exactly were these loans 'written off'.

Nermal

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Anglo Irish bank is not completely worthless simply because it has failed to balance its assets and liabilities, it still has some money making assets on its balance sheet.

If assets do not exceed liabilities according to this 'independent' examination you're entitled to nothing.

Of course I doubt he will be independent. Quinn has powerful friends - you'll end up with something in the end I think.

The_Conductor

uberwolf wrote: »

from todays indo http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/downgrade-led-to-shock-anglo-nationalisation-1605888.html

Anglo's rating was to be downgraded, which would have seen deposits flowing out even quicker than they had been, leading to a further downgrade and another run on the shares.

All in all, it's not like the Government have done this to screw the shareholders. The share price was returning to zero, and for the economies sake they needed to intervene. I do feel that on point of principle that the suspended share price should be honoured, and that investors should expect that back - but certainly no more.

The deal when the main banks were capitalised was that the banks would raise one euro of private equity for each two euro of equity the government invested in preference shares. Now that Anglo Irish has been bailed out- it looks increasingly likely that BOI and AIB will *not* under any circumstances be able to raise the private equity to match the government's stake. At a current market valuation of 740m for BOI and 1.1billion for AIB- the were the government forced to buy the ordinary shares on offer along with their preference shares- both banks would also effectively for all purposes be nationalised.

The nationalisation of Anglo Irish has scared any potential investors in the two main banks- to the extent that they are pretty much floating at the mercy of the markets- a situation which is highly dangerous and likely to be explosive. Whatever damage the failure of Anglo Irish might have done- the failure of BOI or AIB would be on a scale of magnitude more damaging to the Irish economy as a whole- but in particular to the Irish consumer and small retailors.

Would it be a more favourable position to freeze trading in the shares of the two main banks and nationalise them, possibly in the same bill as Anglo Irish, and try to build something out of the mess.

Ps- the moritorium on shorting of bank shares expired in the UK on Friday. Both BOI and AIB are traded primarily on the London Exchange, their Dublin listing being viewed as a secondary listing........

PPs- the spread on Irish sovereign debt widened by 80 basis points on the announcement of the Anglo Irish bailout- if we are to borrow 19.5 billion and refinance a further 6 billion in 2009- this additional spread is worth an 204million in additional annual interest payments on our national debt (aside from the additional 400 million which arises from the spread associated with the initial banking guarantee). 3 times the additional interest payments alone are sufficient to cover the entire market capitalisation value of the entire Irish banking sector.......

We're playing very very dangerous games here........

The_Conductor

dragonbet wrote: »

What exactly is the story with Quinns loans being written off???? I read this in a few places, would this not imply that Quinns shares were already valued and loans written off against this...!!! How exactly were these loans 'written off'.

My understanding (from the Irish Times) is that the loans were underwritten by shares in the three Quinn group holding companies. The loans themselves were subsequently used to purchase Anglo Irish shares. How or why the loans would be written off in these circumstances does not make any sense though- as there are solid assets backing the loans. The fact that the loans were used to finance the purchase of shares is wholly irrelevant- unfortunate for the Quinns- but thats life.

Kinetic^

Compensation......LOL!!! Get a grip OP. If I make an investment in something and lose money, should I seek compensation?? :rolleyes: We're in a crisis atm and you're looking for compensation from the taxpayer.

uberwolf

dragonbet wrote: »

What exactly is the story with Quinns loans being written off???? I read this in a few places, would this not imply that Quinns shares were already valued and loans written off against this...!!! How exactly were these loans 'written off'.

Were the Quinn loans secured on shares in the Quinn group, or on share in Anglo? or some combination?

Writing off a loan means you remove it as an asset from your balance sheet as you are saying for prudence sake that the recoverable value is zero. You will still pursue those debts, you haven't forgiven them

Baird

dragonbet wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055463128&page=4

this is my view on Anglos assets...!! Its quite a good thread aswell. I never said they should be compensated if its not there but you stated very very clearly that they should get nothing... backed up by no facts.!!! You obviously dont know anything about Anglos securities cos if you ever dealt with Anglo you would know that although they used to make quick and speedy decisions on investments they always looked for massive security and thats why I feel Anglo still has value. Fair enough, if there is nothing there and this can be provided then they should rightfully get nothing, and by no means should taxpayers dole out money for investors in Anglo.

The fact that Anglo and all companies in the ISEQ have a **** value has absolutely nothing to do with their real value..... get a grip, look at Aer Lingus with 800million in the bank only valued at 5-6 hundred million or companies like Datalex completely undervalued??? Anglo never went to zero or collapsed? You must get your eyes tested, or ears???

Good point about the government taken over Anglo though, so they wouldnt have to use the blanket gaurantee...!! Thats a very valid point.


P.S: I dont have a high horse anymore, I had to sell it for a small donkey........... due to the recession of course.!!!

First off i read that thread and have stopped replying as it is full of complete
conjecture about the status of bad loans and whether the likes of sean quinn
will default on his loans. I think he definitely will but i will be berated for not
providing facts so im not going to bother


As for the rest of the post its another mess but ill reply anyway.
You are looking for facts as to why Anglo shareholders dont deserve to be
compensated, they are blatently obvious. I spelled it out in pretty simple
language but ill break it down even more because you keep using the word
facts even though i have given them to you.
Are you Rafa Benetiz in disguise ?

Anglo has/had 750m shares in issue
At the banks peak it was worth over E12bn, when it was nationalised at
around 20c a share it had a market cap of just E150m. The reason it had a
market cap of E12bn wasnt that it had assets worth E12bn, it was that the
market saw continued future profitability in its model and overvalued this
potential relative to its true NAV.
Similiarly when it had a market cap of just E150m it was not that it had a NAV
of just E150m it was that the market foresaw a situation whereby bad debts
of the bank were more or less going to equal the value of all the assets of
the bank.
It is pointless to say that Anglo has xy or z in assets when there is no market
to sell these assets and at firesale value they are worth maybe 10 or 20% of
the value that would have been realised just 18 months ago.
These assets are going to take years to appreciate and may never see the
values they once held. Meanwhile with Ireland Inc's huge budget defecit we
are now paying 80bps extra to insure our national debt in 3 days solely
because we nationalised Anglo.
Nationalising the bank has put our cds spreads to almost 250bps and it is still
climbing. In other words it is costing E250,000 for every E10m to ensure any
debt our government raises against default. Considering we will need to raise
at least 10bn this year alone it wont take long for the asset value of Anglo
to be eroded by spiraling debt insurance.

Anglo despite its asset values will not make the government money in my
view for a long long time. Property asset values are not going up any time
soon and bad debts are balooning. All this at a time when we have a huge
budget defecit means this is the last thing the government needed. For these
reasons and for the reason that pure capitalism means that the shareholders
deserve absolutly nothing as Anglo effectively collapsed, are my reasons
that no compensation should be paid IMHO. Fact

Baird

smccarrick wrote: »

The deal when the main banks were capitalised was that the banks would raise one euro of private equity for each two euro of equity the government invested in preference shares. Now that Anglo Irish has been bailed out- it looks increasingly likely that BOI and AIB will *not* under any circumstances be able to raise the private equity to match the government's stake. At a current market valuation of 740m for BOI and 1.1billion for AIB- the were the government forced to buy the ordinary shares on offer along with their preference shares- both banks would also effectively for all purposes be nationalised.

The nationalisation of Anglo Irish has scared any potential investors in the two main banks- to the extent that they are pretty much floating at the mercy of the markets- a situation which is highly dangerous and likely to be explosive. Whatever damage the failure of Anglo Irish might have done- the failure of BOI or AIB would be on a scale of magnitude more damaging to the Irish economy as a whole- but in particular to the Irish consumer and small retailors.

Would it be a more favourable position to freeze trading in the shares of the two main banks and nationalise them, possibly in the same bill as Anglo Irish, and try to build something out of the mess.

Ps- the moritorium on shorting of bank shares expired in the UK on Friday. Both BOI and AIB are traded primarily on the London Exchange, their Dublin listing being viewed as a secondary listing........

PPs- the spread on Irish sovereign debt widened by 80 basis points on the announcement of the Anglo Irish bailout- if we are to borrow 19.5 billion and refinance a further 6 billion in 2009- this additional spread is worth an 204million in additional annual interest payments on our national debt (aside from the additional 400 million which arises from the spread associated with the initial banking guarantee). 3 times the additional interest payments alone are sufficient to cover the entire market capitalisation value of the entire Irish banking sector.......

We're playing very very dangerous games here........

Finally someone that actually knows what they are talking about.
Great post smccarrick

dragonbet

Baird wrote: »

First off i read that thread and have stopped replying as it is full of complete conjecture about the status of bad loans and whether the likes of sean quinn will default on his loans. I think he definitely will but i will be berated for not €€€providing facts so im not going to bother

Why would he default on those loans? I cant see any reason, ANY reason what so ever why he would.

I do understand why shareholders could possibly get nothing but either way its all a load of jibber jabber based on 'opinion'

Baird wrote: »

It is pointless to say that Anglo has xy or z in assets when there is no market to sell these assets and at firesale value they are worth maybe 10 or 20% of the value that would have been realised just 18 months ago.

Now thats just daft... 10% - 20% of values 18months ago, come on, I am actively seeking properties at firesale prices and although they are yet in short supply there is a large number of cash rich investors buying at even 50% - 70% of values 18months ago, your just throwing your toys out of the pram now.

I'd take a bet your were burned by Anglo at 2007 prices and now your bitter, but can we please base our arguments on some sort of reason, 10% of values 18months ago........ daft.

Baird wrote: »

Anglo despite its asset values will not make the government money in my view for a long long time. Property asset values are not going up any time soon and bad debts are balooning. All this at a time when we have a huge budget defecit means this is the last thing the government needed. For these reasons and for the reason that pure capitalism means that the shareholders deserve absolutly nothing as Anglo effectively collapsed, are my reasons that no compensation should be paid IMHO. Fact

If I could get a company tomorrow morning that was capped at 160m for 0c then I'd take it. We could both take over Anglo, what do ya say, I'll ring Brian Lenihan and ask him.

dragonbet

uberwolf wrote: »

Were the Quinn loans secured on shares in the Quinn group, or on share in Anglo? or some combination?

Writing off a loan means you remove it as an asset from your balance sheet as you are saying for prudence sake that the recoverable value is zero. You will still pursue those debts, you haven't forgiven them

I think I read somewhere that its a combination of both along with some other security. I would feel though that most of his businesses, with the exception of Quinn Cement and Quinn Therm Insulation, are still preforming very well. What do you feel happened in relation to some of Quinns loans being written off??

heno55

The Economist wrote: »

I don't mean to be callous. I don't mean to be "told you so!" I don't mean to be unsympathetic. But I really hope you don't get anything. Our deficit looks like it's going to be €19bn. Hospitals are cancelling surgeries because they're overwhelmed. Schools are asking parents for donations to refurbish prefabs. Public transport fares are increasing. Tens of thousands of people will be needing dole over the year. We have better things to spend our money on.

I will be very disappointed in this government if you get more than 10c a share.

10c a share sounds good to me, as i expected to loose everything if the bank was nationalised.it was a gamble not an investment

Baird

dragonbet wrote: »

Why would he default on those loans? I cant see any reason, ANY reason what so ever why he would.

The mans entire net worth was tied up in the bank.
He was "only" worth 2bn, his exposure to Anglo was well over 1bn in cfds
alone. Not too far of a stretch to see him going under in fairness

I do understand why shareholders could possibly get nothing but either way its all a load of jibber jabber based on 'opinion'

Why then are you discrediting everyones opinion except your own because
they do not have facts to back them up?

Now thats just daft... 10% - 20% of values 18months ago, come on, I am actively seeking properties at firesale prices and although they are yet in short supply there is a large number of cash rich investors buying at even 50% - 70% of values 18months ago, your just throwing your toys out of the pram now.

Large number of cash rich investors actively buying at 70% of peak property
prices. That is just laughable to say the least. Property prices have fallen on
average 20%+ at this stage with commercial down a lot more. Even at these
values the property market is completely dead. What investors are you
talking about as no one else is seeing them

I'd take a bet your were burned by Anglo at 2007 prices and now your bitter, but can we please base our arguments on some sort of reason, 10% of values 18months ago........ daft.

I was never burned by any bank, Irish or otherwise so keep your foundation less accusations to yourself, thanks.
Morgan Kelly was quoted in the paper last week saying property prices will fall at
least 80% from peak to trough. Whether you believe it or not, that alone is
more factual a comment than anything i have ever seen you write in this
thread.

If I could get a company tomorrow morning that was capped at 160m for 0c then I'd take it. We could both take over Anglo, what do ya say, I'll ring Brian Lenihan and ask him.

It wasnt capped at 160m, its share price would have been 0 if it was allowed
to trade Friday morning. There was a run on deposits and the bank had
collapsed. It is worth exactly what the government paid for it, nothing.

Cantoris

Baird wrote: »

Large number of cash rich investors actively buying at 70% of peak property
prices. That is just laughable to say the least. Property prices have fallen on
average 20%+ at this stage with commercial down a lot more. Even at these
values the property market is completely dead. What investors are you
talking about as no one else is seeing them

For info purposes only, there was £500 million of investment property transactions in London City in Q4 2008 and £200 million in London West End in that period. The volume was down substantially from the previous year but shows tht transactions are still happening if you have the cash. Yields have slipped out 2-3% from say 6% to 9%. So the building that had rental income of £10m was worth about £170m and is now worth closer to £110m. That's a drop of about 33%. Obviously this is dependent on location, tenant etc and I wouldn't like to be selling a logistics property anywhere!!

Some of the German funds are still investing and a lot of those hoarding cash are waiting for the swing upwards before investing. There will be plenty of time to benefit and most wealthy organisations are looking at the soveriegn wealth funds that invested (got burnt) in the banks and property in early 2008 and thinking "I'm not going to get in too early". Prices will rebound when transaction flow increases but this is dependent on banks loosening their credit so it couldbe 6-12 months.

gamer

Could the shareholders take a legal case against the chairman and board members for deception /fraud since many of the loans were hidden from the auditors and shareholders ,a director of a company should be liable if he hides such large transactions from shareholders and auditors.There must be alot of employees that knew of the loans,ie every 11 months loans were transfered to another bank or refinanced .THE whole area of banking regulation needs to be overhauled,and a new strict auditing system put in place ,ie any loan over 500k must be shown to auditors by any bank ,all loans to employees /board members should be reported to the revenue commisioners and the central bank and the regulator within 7days.I dont understand anyone who invested all the savings in one bank ,especially since anglo was primarily lending to builders /commercial property developers,since 3 years ago it was evident the housing market was due for a downturn.

The_Conductor

gamer wrote: »

Could the shareholders take a legal case against the chairman and board members for deception /fraud since many of the loans were hidden from the auditors and shareholders ,a director of a company should be liable if he hides such large transactions from shareholders and auditors.There must be alot of employees that knew of the loans,ie every 11 months loans were transfered to another bank or refinanced .THE whole area of banking regulation needs to be overhauled,and a new strict auditing system put in place ,ie any loan over 500k must be shown to auditors by any bank ,all loans to employees /board members should be reported to the revenue commisioners and the central bank and the regulator within 7days.

I understand what you're saying- going down that road though the only people who win are the barristers and legal teams- the chairperson has already lost everything and his liabilities possibly exceed his assets by a sum of over EUR60m- he has nothing to loose, apart from being proscribed under the companies act, and even that is very much shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

A far more interesting proposition would be an investigation of the loans which have been written off to-date- how and why- and can any of the assets on which they were backed be recouped?

I can understand people's anger and frustration- the logical course of action is to try to minimise the bad debts and chase anyone who might possibly have assets which might be purloined- not spend vast amounts of money, time and emotional effort, trying to bring assholes like Fitzpatrick to justice.

uberwolf

smccarrick wrote: »

A far more interesting proposition would be an investigation of the loans which have been written off to-date- how and why- and can any of the assets on which they were backed be recouped?

my understanding is that writing off a debt doesn't preclude you from exhausting every avenue for repayment allowed for by the loan documentation. The rationale for a write off is more to remove it from the balance sheet, kind of forgotten not forgiven if you get me.

Cantoris

gamer wrote: »

Could the shareholders take a legal case against the chairman and board members for deception /fraud since many of the loans were hidden from the auditors and shareholders ,a director of a company should be liable if he hides such large transactions from shareholders and auditors.There must be alot of employees that knew of the loans,ie every 11 months loans were transfered to another bank or refinanced .THE whole area of banking regulation needs to be overhauled,and a new strict auditing system put in place ,ie any loan over 500k must be shown to auditors by any bank ,all loans to employees /board members should be reported to the revenue commisioners and the central bank and the regulator within 7days.I dont understand anyone who invested all the savings in one bank ,especially since anglo was primarily lending to builders /commercial property developers,since 3 years ago it was evident the housing market was due for a downturn.

Did anyone else spot the Ad on the back page of the Irish Times yesterday. It asked a simply question "Are you a shareholder in Anglo Irish Bank. If so it might be in your interest to contact......". It gives the name and address of a solicitor so I reckon they are going to club shareholders together to launch a legal offensive.

Hanley

Cantoris wrote: »

Did anyone else spot the Ad on the back page of the Irish Times yesterday. It asked a simply question "Are you a shareholder in Anglo Irish Bank. If so it might be in your interest to contact......". It gives the name and address of a solicitor so I reckon they are going to club shareholders together to launch a legal offensive.

Fcuking ambulance chasing for the financial services sector.

People are so bloody unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

DJDC

Fcuking ambulance chasing for the financial services sector.

People are so bloody unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

You are a beancounter who admires Sean Fitzpatrick i.e your opinion in regards financial matters is entirely worthless. People will always try get their money back, even if there is no chance of that happening.

dragonbet

Baird wrote: »

The mans entire net worth was tied up in the bank. He was "only" worth 2bn, his exposure to Anglo was well over 1bn in cfds alone. Not too far of a stretch to see him going under in fairness.

His estimated net worth was 4-5bn not 2bn, I dont know where you got that from, furthermore the Irish Times or Forbes estimate is always way off.

Baird wrote: »

Large number of cash rich investors actively buying at 70% of peak property prices. That is just laughable to say the least. Property prices have fallen on average 20%+ at this stage with commercial down a lot more. Even at these values the property market is completely dead. What investors are you talking about as no one else is seeing them.

www.johnmacmahon.ie FACT

Baird wrote: »

Morgan Kelly was quoted in the paper last week saying property prices will fall at least 80% from peak to trough. Whether you believe it or not, that alone is more factual a comment than anything i have ever seen you write in this thread. .

As much and all as I respect Morgan Kelly, his remarks in this case are merely headline grabbers, designed to entertain ill informed readers, such as you.

But to sum up our little quarl, I will state this: if house prices fall to even 30% of peak prices and we get 0c for Anglo shares, I will delete my borads account after I have publicly praised your never ending vast excess of knowledge and admit defeat stating that you were right and I was very, very wrong.

Lets just wait and see, shall we.

P.S: My money is where my mouth is :rolleyes:

woodseb

dragonbet wrote: »

www.johnmacmahon.ie FACT

maybe i'm missing something, but is that not just a website of some bloke blowing his own trumpet for doing well in a property boom

can't see any proof there of activity in the market