Anglo to put €700m into Quinn

caesarthechimp

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Elderfield is doing what was sadly lacking for the last 10 years; i.e. his job.

Rule 1 : Rules are there for a reason - apply them

How do you proposed to "gradually" enforce that ?

By signalling 6-12 months in advance that certain requirements will have to be met, gradually on a phased basis.
What if the Gardai suddenly arrested every motorist 1km/hr over the speed limit? Half the country would be caught out, especially in built up urban areas.

There are two ways for government to facilitate business activity; the laissez-faire approach is one, and the carefully planned intelligently designed regulatory approach is the other. What we have is neither, its a series of U-turns as we lurch from one firefighting crisis to the next.

Liam Byrne

Enrate wrote: »

By signalling 6-12 months in advance that certain requirements will have to be met, gradually on a phased basis.
What if the Gardai suddenly arrested every motorist 1km/hr over the speed limit? Half the country would be caught out, especially in built up urban areas.

We are not talking about a minor issue here, so comparing it to 1km over the limit is disingenuous.

It's more in line with a few motorists who don't believe the law applies to them doing 100kmph over the limit.

And so I would 100% support what the regulator is doing.

Why were they flouting regulations so blatantly in the first place ?

If they were even remotely trying to abide by the rules, then I'd say fair enough, but the likes of Fitzpatrick and Quinn gave the rules the two-fingers, apparently with the full support of the previous regulator.

Just because that regulator was ****e and landed us in a mess doesn't mean that the new one should abdicate responsibility and say "ye have a year to sort out all the stuff that ye should never have been doing in the first place".

The law is the law, in particular when it comes to serious crimes (of which we are finally realising that white-collar crap is one).

Should a murderer be given a year to stop murdering ?

caesarthechimp

But murder was never tolerated.
I'm just saying that if you are going to stop tolerating something that was previously tolerated, natural justice requires you to give fair notice of that so that people can adjust their behaviour.

Liam Byrne

Enrate wrote: »

But murder was never tolerated.
I'm just saying that if you are going to stop tolerating something that was previously tolerated, natural justice requires you to give fair notice of that so that people can adjust their behaviour.

Interesting that you only took that part of the post, and didn't comment on the 100kmph over the limit parallel.

Let's run with your objection for a sec, and change the question to one which doesn't offer the same objection; the church's child abuse was tolerated - would you still be saying that "fair notice" was required ?

The fact is that it should never have been tolerated, and decent people don't do things that are wrong.

flynnlives

Anglo lent Sean Fitzpatrick's son 50k after the bank bailout!
In tomorrows sindo

thebaldsoprano

Lemlin wrote: »

The maths of it is that we are looking at 110 million per year, not just a once off figure of 110 million.

Okay, so 700 million given at 110 million/year means taxpayers are supporting Quinn for 6.36 years.

Lemlin wrote: »

I understand your point about 700 million to save 5500 jobs but how many jobs did putting 22 billion into Anglo save??

I think what most people are hoping is that we don't make more decisions like the Anglo one, so that's a fairly useless comparison. Those figures work out at taxpayers giving Quinn 127,272 per job. Giving the same people 204 per week over the 6.36 years works out at 67,466 per job, so that's a difference of 59,806 per employee, or 328 million in total going to Quinn.

If the company is viable, they can find a private investor to sort out their short term difficulties, but I as a taxpayer am getting a bit tired of being a lender of last resort for Anglo insiders.

GSF

Enrate wrote: »

By signalling 6-12 months in advance that certain requirements will have to be met, gradually on a phased basis.

This will most likely be what the administrators will achieve. The difference being that there will be NEW maanagement and TRANSPARANCEY to ensure that it does indeed happen. Sean Quinn for whatever reason had a big problem with transparency. I dont see how shining the light on the management of Quinn can possibly be bad. The more information that is put in the public domain, the better.

Locke

Questions the Indo put to Quinn.



Do you accept that your decision to gamble billions of euro on Anglo Irish Bank shares has been a key factor in jeopardising the future of Quinn Insurance, the future of the Quinn Group and the future of 5,500 Irish jobs?

Given that, do you think you owe workers at the Quinn Group an apology for your role in the way events have unfolded over the past 10 days?
Why have you spent the past 10 days criticising the Financial Regulator's motives and methods instead of constructively addressing his many concerns about Quinn Insurance's financial position and the way the company is being run?

Would you be happy for all the country's insurance companies to maintain the same solvency position as Quinn Insurance, given that they would then be in a far better position to compete with Quinn on premium?

Do you think Quinn Insurance should be exempt from normal financial regulation because the Quinn Group employs 5,500 people in the country? Or is there some other reason you think the usual market rules shouldn't apply to Quinn?

If the Government ministers had intervened, as you demanded last week, do you think such a blatant political attempt to influence financial regulation would have been good for Ireland's international reputation?
Would you be prepared to give up any role in the ownership and control of the Quinn Group and Quinn Insurance if such a step was necessary for the group's survival and for the maintenance of those 5,500 jobs?

Why do you insist Quinn Insurance needs no money when the insurance company does need to come up with another €100m to €150m to satisfy the Financial Regulator's solvency requirements?
If you're so keen to keep Irish jobs, why did you outsource Quinn's entire actuarial function, some of the most skilled jobs in any insurance company, to a consultancy based in Britain?

Why did you say the €1.2bn in guarantees was "fully disclosed" to the Financial Regulator when in fact the disclosures made absolutely no reference to how much the guarantees were for?

jmayo

Lemlin wrote: »

The Group as a whole is running at a profit because of the major money making divisions - wind farms, the bottle marking factory and, believe it or not, the cement factory was still making a profit. Other parts of the business were struggling but there was enough there to support the jobs form other parts of the Group.

Who says all this ?
Are you trying to tell us the cement arm is able to keep the same level of staff that it did during the construction bubble ?
What about Quinns radiator manufacturing arm, are they selling the same amount of rads that they did during the construction bubble ?
You can't drag money out of one arm of the group if it needs to maintain required funds according to the regulatory rules for that industry.
Thta is what they have been doing and thus endangering the insurance policies that thousands of customers hold with the company.

Lemlin wrote: »

The problem though is that the Insurance company is the biggets profit maker and was supporting other areas so, if it falls, the whole lot could go and that's the point people are making. That is why the threat is to the 5500 jobs and not just the 2800.

If the company was running at a loss etc. then why isn't it in liquidation, receivership or why aren't payments being defaulted on? All payments to service providers, staff, on loans etc. are being made.

There were no redundancies in the whole group in 37 years of business and that's some achievement.

What about the 2.8 billion owed to Anglo ?
Has any of that being called in and if it is then how safe would the group be ?

So do you not see any problem with tying the insaurance company to non viable companies and using it's required funds to guarantee loans to other companies that may be in trouble ?

There was an operations officer from Quinn group on with marian finuncane this morning.
For once I admire her because she got him to basically state that the reason they want Anglo to come in together with getting the insurance company back is so that the quinn family have a better chance to pay the huge amounts THEY owe to Anglo.
It's not to save all those jobs lads, it;'s to save their own ar**es.
He started lauding quinn for how much tax they have contributed to the state FFS.
Just shows they consider being tax compliant an achievement to be congratulated.

It's about time all the ones out marching for their jobs or the ones from Cavan, Fermanagh, etc putting on the pressued copped on they are being used as pawns to keep the quinn family in charge.

Split the insurance company off and keep it going as it is systemic to lots of policy holders.
Then see if the rest can survive which I doubt.
Either way I think it is best that the quinn family is removed totally from anything that is going to cost the taxpayers of the state any more money.

I believe the regulator has no choice but to resign if quinn manage to get insurance company back.

markpb

jmayo wrote: »

Are you trying to tell us the cement arm is able to keep the same level of staff that it did during the construction bubble? What about Quinns radiator manufacturing arm, are they selling the same amount of rads that they did during the construction bubble ?

Do you know of any redundancies in the Quinn Group? Have you seen it on the news, read it on the papers? No. There hasn't been any. Hours were reduced, unpaid leave was taken but no-one was made unemployed. The unprofitable arms of the Group are being subsidised by the profitable arms including QI.

What about the 2.8 billion owed to Anglo ?
Has any of that being called in and if it is then how safe would the group be ?

What exactly is your point? Lots of companies have large loans. As long as they continue to pay interest and repay the capital at an agreed rate, there's no problem. Most companies would collapse if their loans were called in ahead of schedule.

the reason they want Anglo to come in together with getting the insurance company back is so that the quinn family have a better chance to pay the huge amounts THEY owe to Anglo. It's not to save all those jobs lads, it;'s to save their own ar**es.

You don't think the two are related? If he loses his money, they lose their jobs. So far, Quinn has done a lot to keep his employees in work. It might have been cheaper to shut down unprofitable companies and make them unemployed but he never did that. You can accuse him of greed if you'd like but you can't argue with that point.

jmayo wrote: »

Either way I think it is best that the quinn family is removed totally from anything that is going to cost the taxpayers of the state any more money.

What specific cost has Quinn had on taxpayers so far? Not a rant please, not future predictions, just name one thing.


You have some good, irrefutable points on this thread but you come across as if you're foaming at the mouth. Yes he made serious mistakes, yes he needs to be punished again for making those but extracting the insurance company and causing the collapse of the unprofitable companies and the loss of thousands of jobs is not what anyone should want. If he is happy to cross-subsidise his companies and keep people in work while still managing to achieve the required solvency rations, that is exactly the outcome we should be looking for. Not making thousands of people unemployed because of your rabid hated for the man and his mistakes.

patnor1011

jimmysull wrote: »

Yes to Jersey or Bermuda. That means more dole payments, less tax etc. That means an even tougher budget next December. Your point?

Point is that instead of pouring another billions to insolvent insurance company throught insolvent bank state can afford to use this money to keep those people on dole for long time. Or invest them to create new jobs or lure more manufacturers or investment here. Sean did gamble and lose. Why on earth we have to save his empire?

patnor1011

To quote markpb : Most companies would collapse if their loans were called in ahead of schedule.

Why not quinn? What is so different why to save him and not thousands other bussiness who went to wall in last few years?

jimmysull

patnor1011 wrote: »

Point is that instead of pouring another billions to insolvent insurance company through insolvent bank state can afford to use this money to keep those people on dole for long time. Or invest them to create new jobs or lure more manufacturers or investment here. Sean did gamble and lose. Why on earth we have to save his empire?

We have already ascertained that Quinn Insurance is not insolvent. It does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator. There is a difference

K-9

jimmysull wrote: »

We have already ascertained that Quinn Insurance is not insolvent. It does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator. There is a difference

I'm not sure if that is the case, debts where not disclosed previously apparently, so that may have affected that.

Seán Quinn's risky business

The Regulator seems more worried about the way the company has been run in the last few years, more than anything.

jmayo

markpb wrote: »

Do you know of any redundancies in the Quinn Group? Have you seen it on the news, read it on the papers? No. There hasn't been any. Hours were reduced, unpaid leave was taken but no-one was made unemployed. The unprofitable arms of the Group are being subsidised by the profitable arms including QI.

That is the problem FFS.
He is tying in loans to other group companies to the assets of the insurance company.

Do you not get that ?
If those companies go then the insurance company's reserves are put at serious risk.

Also some of the assets of the insurance company is property related, meaning their assets are decreasing in value every single day.
Keep taking out the profits of the insurance company to keep the cement factory afloat rather than put the money aside to compensate for the decreasing property related assets and you are endanegring the insurance company.

markpb wrote: »

What exactly is your point? Lots of companies have large loans. As long as they continue to pay interest and repay the capital at an agreed rate, there's no problem. Most companies would collapse if their loans were called in ahead of schedule.

Yes the Zoe group was all well and healthy, just so long as their bankers didn't come a calling.
Then watch what happened when one of the bankers did start looking for their repayments.
The big thing here is that some of these outstanding loans are owed by the quinn family, not the actual companies but becuase they own the companies they used them as security.

markpb wrote: »

You don't think the two are related? If he loses his money, they lose their jobs. So far, Quinn has done a lot to keep his employees in work. It might have been cheaper to shut down unprofitable companies and make them unemployed but he never did that. You can accuse him of greed if you'd like but you can't argue with that point.

So shoudl we just let him carry on, tie some of those unprofitable enterprises into the insurance arm, and possibly bring it crashing down.
Then not alone do lots of people lose their jobs, insurance policy holders could be left high and dry, with the taxpayer having to come in to rescue their policies.
Ever heard of PMPA ?
How long were we paying a levy on insurance to pay back for it's rescue because it's owner decided he like banking ?

markpb wrote: »

What specific cost has Quinn had on taxpayers so far? Not a rant please, not future predictions, just name one thing.

Well lets see.
Did his little deal with Anglo CFDs not result in Anglo having to give a loan to some well heeled connected developers to buy those CFDs ?
Now those loans were partially secured by the actual shares of the bank.
Now AFAIK some of these loans have been written off meaning us the taxpayers had to cough up even more moeny in recapitalisation for the bank.
Now to me that is quinn costing me and other taxpayers money.

quinn, his family and companies owe 2.8 billion ot Anglo, the bank that WE now own.
If any of these loans are written off then that costs me and all the other taxpayers money.

markpb wrote: »

You have some good, irrefutable points on this thread but you come across as if you're foaming at the mouth. Yes he made serious mistakes, yes he needs to be punished again for making those but extracting the insurance company and causing the collapse of the unprofitable companies and the loss of thousands of jobs is not what anyone should want. If he is happy to cross-subsidise his companies and keep people in work while still managing to achieve the required solvency rations, that is exactly the outcome we should be looking for. Not making thousands of people unemployed because of your rabid hated for the man and his mistakes.

He just don't get it do you ?

An insurance company much like a bank has to keep reserves, when it doesn't you are sailing close to the wind, one run of claims can have serious reprecussions leading to failure.

If it does fail then customers can be seriously affected and because of it's size the government has to step in to protect the customers with guess what, taxpayers money.

ICI failed in 1985 because the eejit running the London office took some big risks and made some big unlucky decisions.
AFAIK he had insured a lot of telephone polls in NSW/Victoria in Australia that all burned down in a bush fire.
They were under reserved and went bust loosing over £200 million which ended up costing us nearly £400 million.

patnor1011

jimmysull wrote: »

We have already ascertained that Quinn Insurance is not insolvent. It does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator. There is a difference

No. Quinn Insurance is insolvent becouse they do not meet solvency criteria required by Financial Regulator.

soden12

Quinn is yet another example of the cosy deals between the banks and their buddies.

Will it ever end ? Will we ever be at a stage where the banks will be told - despite your so-called experts you made the loss so deal with it ?

Why are Quinn and his ilk so anti-government, so anti risk equalisation but then when things get bad they want us to bail them out ?

The Green

After the investigations are concluded into Anglo's past, could Sean Quinn take action regarding losses against them and subsequently their owners i.e the state regarding false accounting or what ever else is discovered. Now that Anglo has been refinanced through NAMA there will be plenty in the pot.

jimmysull

patnor1011 wrote: »

No. Quinn Insurance is insolvent becouse they do not meet solvency criteria required by Financial Regulator.

Definition of Insolvency is the inability to pay one's debts as they fall due.

The surplus solvency required by the regulator is a different matter and (quite rightly) applies only to insurance companies to cover unforeseen 'worst case scenarios'.

Quinn Insurance is not insolvent but it does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator.