Anglo- depositors and bondholders?

meditraitor

I have been a confused about something of late(not surprising some of you may say) but can someone tell me why are FF harping on about the cost of letting Anglo go?

They say that depositors and bondholders need to be protected- thats fine with me. But the figures FF are quoting are enormous.

Does Anglo actually have much in deposits or is it just a case of a few hundred million and the rest Bondholders?

I cant see Anglo having any more than 1-2bn in real deposits...... it was a lending/developers bank for the most part..... If there is more then it is more than likely developers deposits so we should just wipe it of the loans they owe.

Is it all international bonds we are paying for? Are some of these bonds not local owned by developers/insurance companies who used Anglo loans to buy them anyway? ()please explain bonds to me if this is incorrect,()

Are we being hoodwinked again by a criminaly incompetant government trying to cover their tracks and that of their cronies

Please tell me Im being paranoid!

SeaFields

Sorry I cant answer your question.

However, as an aside, I was reading about the banking mess in the Irish Independent online awhile ago. On the side of the page was an interactive advertisement by Anglo looking for people to save with them....

eh...how about no :mad:


Sorry cant find it now to link it.

Laminations

Just from memory the figures i've heard are 34billion in deposits and 32billion in senior bonds. The figure for deposits is very difficult to believe. And i dont understand how bondholders can mistake a private risky institution default as a sovereign default. If they get a return from lending to the irish government which is in no risk of default they'll not stop this lending out of spite over anglo letting them down.
I dont think you are being paranoid. I think we are being rightly hoodwinked again.

KerranJast

From another thread

nesf wrote:

35 odd billion owed to depositors
35 odd billion owed to senior debt holders
2 billion owed to subordinated debt holders

meditraitor

35 Billion in deposits, holy jebus thats a hell of a lot of money...... who are these depositors?

I know I wont get an answer, it just seems like a lot of money for that particular bank to have taken in from people.

Laminations

meditraitor wrote: »

35 Billion in deposits, holy jebus thats a hell of a lot of money...... who are these depositors?

I know I wont get an answer, it just seems like a lot of money for that particular bank to have taken in from people.

Yeah seems unbelievable right? Definely suits their story of not letting the bank go because no one advocates letting depositors swing for their money. I too would love to see evidence of who has money on deposit here as the bank was a lending bank and only lent to a certain sector of the economy, not retail or regular business. Is it people like Quinn and Carroll that have their riches in the bank, protected by limited liability?

ardmacha

Anglo have long had good interest rates for Regular Savings accounts and the like, so with people trying to save more there are quite a few ordinary PAYE taxpayers with a few grand on deposit. I wouldn't say this amounts to €35 billion though.

Is it people like Quinn and Carroll that have their riches in the bank, protected by limited liability?

Limited liability protects the shareholders, not the depositors.

Laminations

ardmacha wrote: »

Limited liability protects the shareholders, not the depositors.

I meant the limited liability that their companies have. Their personal finances are protected from this. Their companies owe the banks billions while they keep their personal monies on deposit at these favourable interest rates, all at the expense of the taxpayer
Its a lovely little run around. Anglo should fall because developers companies owe them money but we cant let it fall because of the developers personal money on deposit.