Anglo reports loss of 12.7 billion for last 15 months

IrishTonyO

Anglo has just announced it's figures. 12.7 billion loss for the last 15 months. That's a loss of

€27,835,616.00 per day
€ 1,159,817.00 per hour
€ 19,930.00 per minute
€ 322.17 per second

Fentdog84

This is just beyond disgusting :mad:. I dont see why the taxpayer should put another cent into this disaster. That money would be better spent improving services & creating jobs.

Ebonhoof

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Anglo has just announced it's figures. 12.7 billion loss for the last 15 months. That's a loss of €27,835,616.00 per day or €1,159,817 per hour!!!

Thats a lot of golf balls!

gurramok

Anyone know how much is left in the NPRF after all these bank topups?

I've sworn I heard on RTE news yesterday that they 'ran out of money from the NPRF' and will have to borrow any further topups to Anglo.

Fentdog84

Its time to shut this dead fish down. So a certain group of people would lose their savings & investments, thats unfortunate, but why should the taxpayer have to sort out this mess and cripple the economy? Time to move on. Come on mr Cowen, do whats right.

ART6

Fentdog84 wrote: »

Its time to shut this dead fish down. So a certain group of people would lose their savings & investments, thats unfortunate, but why should the taxpayer have to sort out this mess and cripple the economy? Time to move on. Come on mr Cowen, do whats right.

I wonder, does the average man in the street invest in bank shares? I would guess that most of us invest in pension funds etc where the money is reasonably secure rather than in corporate equity. Pension funds, I am told, don't generally invest much in banks. So perhaps it's only the wealthy guys who can afford a stockbroker that buy into banks, and the old rule of investing in any corporate entity, banks or businesses, is only invest what you can afford to lose. Meanwhile the bank guarantee scheme would ensure that the common man didn't lose his savings even if any of them have an Anglo account. That suggests to me (knowing nothing much about it I admit) that if the bank was allowed to go to the wall the government guarantee scheme would cost a lot less than the bail out and the only people that would lose are those who could afford it and major international bond buyers who knew they were taking a flier.

The alternative, of course, is to keep on stuffing hay into dead horses until there is none left to feed the people, which is what FF seem intent upon doing.:(

Laminations

ART6 wrote: »

I wonder, does the average man in the street invest in bank shares? I would guess that most of us invest in pension funds etc where the money is reasonably secure rather than in corporate equity. Pension funds, I am told, don't generally invest much in banks. So perhaps it's only the wealthy guys who can afford a stockbroker that buy into banks, and the old rule of investing in any corporate entity, banks or businesses, is only invest what you can afford to lose. Meanwhile the bank guarantee scheme would ensure that the common man didn't lose his savings even if any of them have an Anglo account. That suggests to me (knowing nothing much about it I admit) that if the bank was allowed to go to the wall the government guarantee scheme would cost a lot less than the bail out and the only people that would lose are those who could afford it and major international bond buyers who knew they were taking a flier.

The alternative, of course, is to keep on stuffing hay into dead horses until there is none left to feed the people, which is what FF seem intent upon doing.:(

And this is why it is so important for us to get transparency. Who are these bondholders and what is the average deposit, what does the average deposit holder look like? If they are very wealthy businessmen and developers (which I suspect they are) who have bankrupt and indebted companies running to NAMA then I say let them lose their deposits.

Ebonhoof

ART6 wrote: »

Pension funds, I am told, don't generally invest much in banks. So perhaps it's only the wealthy guys who can afford a stockbroker that buy into banks, and the old rule of investing in any corporate entity, banks or businesses, is only invest what you can afford to lose. Meanwhile the bank guarantee scheme would ensure that the common man didn't lose his savings even if any of them have an Anglo account.

You were told wrong. Pensions funds have huge amounts invested in Banks. Also traditionally pension funds re-vote in the Board of Directors each year despite them just giving themselves payrises and running the banks into the ground.

What worse, the pensions run by Bank of Ireland/Irish Life & PSTB/Random bank that has a pension company, all buy their parent banks shares to prop up their share price. I wish the Regulator would do something about this but even if they did, the banks would probably just play swapsies buying each others shares.

woodseb

ART6 wrote: »

I wonder, does the average man in the street invest in bank shares? I would guess that most of us invest in pension funds etc where the money is reasonably secure rather than in corporate equity. Pension funds, I am told, don't generally invest much in banks. So perhaps it's only the wealthy guys who can afford a stockbroker that buy into banks, and the old rule of investing in any corporate entity, banks or businesses, is only invest what you can afford to lose.

the average man does invest in banks as we can see here , while you only have to look at the angry elderly at the bank's AGMs to see where a lot of their investors came from - while the rich guys may have also invested in them alot of regular people would have lost proportionately much more

Pension funds do regulary gamble/invest in banks as typically, these funds would track the big indices such as the DAX, CAC FTSE, ISEQ (lol) where the banks historically had large weightings

....couldn't agree more with the statement in bold