Anglo Irish Bank : EU rejects Anglo's business plan

hinault

Even when this bank is dead, it's still causing problems.











The EU Commission approved the Government’s €8.3 billion recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank, despite having grave reservations about the survival plan put forward for the nationalised lender.
.
It felt the survival plan was still excessively exposed to the property market and was based on assumptions that could not be supported.
In March, competition commissioner Joaquin Almunia raised fundamental questions about the viability of the original plan to separate Anglo into “good” and “bad” banks to manage its performing and non-performing businesses respectively. He called for revised restructuring proposals.
In private correspondence with Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin, Mr Almunia noted the Government believed the “good” bank – known as New Bank – could generate equivalent profits to those Anglo had at the height of the property boom.
The commissioner doubted that assumption, going on to say that New Bank could potentially accumulate excessive risk and would remain very exposed to the property market.

Anglo, a prime participant in the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) scheme, has so far received more than €14 billion from the State and may require at least another €8 billion. Most of the money will never be recouped.
The partial publication yesterday of Mr Almunia’s letter on his website comes as he examines a revised plan, submitted in May. The new plan also relies on the same separation between New Bank and Old Anglo, as the bad bank would be known.

The letter was sent to Mr Martin as the commission approved an €8.3 billion recapitalisation of the bank at the end of March, which followed a €4 billion cash injection last year.
Anglo received a further €2 billion from the Government in June, under the same authorisation. However, Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan has warned the bank may need a further €8 billion.

In his letter, Mr Almunia noted that no detailed business plan was submitted for New Bank or Old Anglo. He questioned the broad assumptions of the plan in respect of income, loan impairments, legal and accounting issues, risk profile, and funding and liquidity issues.

The letter says the total profits of Old Anglo/New Bank together would be the same as the profit generated by Anglo at the top of the commercial real-estate cycle.
“Considering the level of impairments in Anglo, the projected reduced size of New Bank, and taking into account that it intends to develop activities in areas in which it has no previous experience, the Commission doubts that such an objective is achievable under prudent assumptions and with reasonable risks.” Assumptions on economic growth and house prices were “incomplete” and the letter called for “sensitivity analyses with regard to the relevant macroeconomic parameters” and regulatory change.

“The Commission also observes that the plan depends on the rating of Irish State bonds being maintained at a current level. Moreover, the potential impact of a broader restructuring of the Irish banking sector or individual Irish banks has not been considered in the plan, thus casting doubts on the scope covered by the adverse scenario.”
“The Commission has doubts regarding the New Bank’s capacity to penetrate different market segments without undercutting price and without accumulating excessive risks. Further information will thus be needed to provide evidence that the new businesses targeted by New Bank will positively contribute to its viability,” he wrote.

Mr Almunia said it was unclear whether the New Bank’s high exposure to the property market was acceptable in terms of risk. “At the moment, the Commission doubts whether further large exposure to a sector which is experiencing severe difficulties and which is volatile by nature will contribute to the viability of New Bank,’’ he said.
Furthermore, the funding strategy of New Bank did not seem sufficiently developed, he added.

The Government last night declined to comment. “We are in discussions with the commission on the second restructuring plan,” said a spokesman for Mr Lenihan.



Anglo are trying to tell the govt and the commission that under it's new business plan that it would make the same level of profits as it did during the height of the property bubble?:D:D:D
Throughout guys like Dukes were making excuses for hiring all these hotshots and they come up with business plan figures which have been ridiculed by the Commission.
And the dear old tax payer still has to carry the burden of this edifice.

jock101

Ah sure what the hell, we'll pump another 50 billion into Anglo, better idea let the EU pump it in instead! yeepee:D:D:D:D:D:D

hinault

jock101 wrote: »

Ah sure what the hell, we'll pump another 50 billion into Anglo, better idea let the EU pump it in instead! yeepee:D:D:D:D:D:D

They can't even get their business plans correct.

We've had Dukes and Lenihan saying that probity and sober management and analysis is taking place at Anglo.
yet they tried to tell the EU that Anglo, under it's new business plan, would make as much profit as it did under the Seanie property boom staewardship!

It's beyond a joke.
Gob****tery more like.

noodler

Can I just point out something here.

Isn't this article based on the old business plan from March?

And has nothing to do with the one submitted in May?

I think the Irish Times had their print headline as "EXPRESSES" but this was swiftly changed to "EXPRESSED" in the online version.

hinault

noodler wrote: »

Can I just point out something here.

Isn't this article based on the old business plan from March?

And has nothing to do with the one submitted in May?

I think the Irish Times had their print headline as "EXPRESSES" but this was swiftly changed to "EXPRESSED" in the online version.

You make a point, I suppose.

Whether the plan was the March 2010 version and/or May 2010 version, which fcukwith at Anglo presumed their business plan would realise profits
of the levels enjoyed during the largest property bubble in living memory?

noodler

hinault wrote: »

You make a point, I suppose.

Whether the plan was the March 2010 version and/or May 2010 version, which fcukwith at Anglo presumed their business plan would realise profits
of the levels enjoyed during the largest property bubble in living memory?

I think the Times have just made an awful article and put it on the front page because they were the only ones to have the story this morning.

You could argue, as the article goes on, that they start talking about the 2nd plan but that was only submitted last month and the first opinions we hear from the Commission on it are hardly going to be on some letter he 'leaks' on his own website in correspondence with a member of our Government.

Can anyone find this letter online? I had a try this morning but to absolutely no avail.

It is such a badly written / deceptive / whatever article.

hinault

The salient point which you appear to keep (deliberately) missing is who in Anglo Irish Bank is responsible for divining a plan suggesting that Anglo - if rescued - would be able to make profits equal to the profits made during Seanie's tenure in 2006 at the height of the property boom?

Whether the plan was divined in March 2010 and/or May 2010 is immaterial.

Who divined this pie in the sky business plan?

noodler

I think my point was you have misrepresented the article in your OP.

Don't get tetchy with me for pointing that out please - also, next time you post something like this it would be advisable to focus less on smilies and more on posting a link or source.

George Orwell 1982

Hilarious!

hinault

noodler wrote: »

I think my point was you have misrepresented the article in your OP.

Don't get tetchy with me for pointing that out please - also, next time you post something like this it would be advisable to focus less on smilies and more on posting a link or source.

The article is crystal clear pal.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0706/breaking1.html

Anglo's plan proposed that good bank would deliver profits equivalent to those profits delivered at the height of the property boom.
:D:D:D:D

noodler

hinault wrote: »

The article is crystal clear pal.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0706/breaking1.html

Anglo's plan proposed that good bank would deliver profits equivalent to those profits delivered at the height of the property boom.
:D:D:D:D

Jesus Christ.

Look at your Topic title.

The comission hasn't given a ruling on the Anglo's revised plan yet. So, unless you are announcing to boards the news that the commission asked Anglo to redo its plan (which was announced around 4 months ago) then please just admit the article title decieved you.

Again, like I said. It was poorly written by the paper but it is incorrect to say Anglo's plan, currently being looked at by the commission, has been rejected.

hinault

noodler wrote: »

The comission hasn't given a ruling on the Anglo's revised plan yet. So, unless you are announcing to boards the news that the commission asked Anglo to redo its plan (which was announced around 4 months ago) then please just admit the article title decieved you.

There's nothing to admit.

The EU commission did not accept Anglo Irish's business plan which said that a good bank would deliver profits equivalent to those delivered during the property/asset bubble.

By not accepting Anglo's business plan - they de facto rejected the business plan.
Which makes sense.

Think about a business plan presented by a bank which is a basketcase, that says it will realise "profits" delivered in previous years.

We now know that the "profits" delivered were not in fact profits - given the fact that practically all of Anglo's loans were bull****.

noodler wrote: »

Again, like I said. It was poorly written by the paper but it is incorrect to say Anglo's plan, currently being looked at by the commission, has been rejected.

Poorly conceived business plan, more like.

noodler

Haha, fair play.

Doing your best to skirt around the issue of you making a thread about Anglo's plan being rejected when the article in question is talking about the old plan. Like I said, its cool, it was a confusing article.

hinault

noodler wrote: »

Haha, fair play.

Doing your best to skirt around the issue of you making a thread about Anglo's plan being rejected when the article in question is talking about the old plan. Like I said, its cool, it was a confusing article.

If something is not accepted, de facto it is rejected.

pljudge321

hinault wrote: »

If something is not accepted, de facto it is rejected.

That's pretty poor logic.

hinault

The "logic" behind Anglo's business plan is a lot more worrysome.

noodler

hinault wrote: »

The "logic" behind Anglo's business plan is a lot more worrysome.

Fine, agreed. The logic behind the initial plan was.

We have no idea what the particulars of the revised plan are - we know they stuck with the Good / Bad bank plan but no idea what their assumptions regarding growth, profit etc are this time around.

Sand

Noodler, what aspects of the "old" bussiness plan reassure you that the people behind it have any idea what theyre doing?

I mean, was there just some typos in the old plan?

hinault

Sand wrote: »

Noodler, what aspects of the "old" bussiness plan reassure you that the people behind it have any idea what theyre doing?

I mean, was there just some typos in the old plan?

Preposterous that any organisation which has been through what Anglo have been through would have the temerity to suggest that it could try to match the "profits" made under the regime of Seanie.

We know for a fact that "profits" earned in those years were not profits.
They were bull****.
Anglo wasn't making a profit back then it was making losses.
It's bull****.
Bull**** which the hardpressed taxpayer is being made to clean up.


It's the sort of fcukwittery which got this country in to difficulty in the first place.

noodler

Sand wrote: »

Noodler, what aspects of the "old" bussiness plan reassure you that the people behind it have any idea what theyre doing?

I mean, was there just some typos in the old plan?

Again, where are you coming from? All I have said is the thread title was incorrect as the OP thought the poorly-written Times article was about the recent plan.

I never said anything about being reassured about the new plan - I mean, if you just scroll up I just said we don't know the details of the new plan bar the fact it sticks with a good / bank bad bank scheme.

Sand

Again, where are you coming from? All I have said is the thread title was incorrect as the OP thought the poorly-written Times article was about the recent plan.

I never said anything about being reassured about the new plan - I mean, if you just scroll up I just said we don't know the details of the new plan bar the fact it sticks with a good / bank bad bank scheme.

For a man whose good on the details, Id thought youd have read my post - I didnt ask you about the new plan - I asked you what aspects of the old plan reassured you that the minds behind knew what they were doing.

So, were the errors a few typos or gaping errors in common sense?

noodler

Sand wrote: »

For a man whose good on the details, Id thought youd have read my post - I didnt ask you about the new plan - I asked you what aspects of the old plan reassured you that the minds behind knew what they were doing.

So, were the errors a few typos or gaping errors in common sense?

Wow okay, I didn't say anything reassured me about the old plan.

noodler

Much better analysis and criticism of the letter related contents here

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/while-we%E2%80%99re-waiting-for-the-nama-business-plan-%E2%80%A6/

Chimichangas

pljudge321 wrote: »

That's pretty poor logic.

It is, isnt it.
If you take it in reverse (what hinault said), then what is rejected is not accepted?
..and I think we all know that kind of logic doesnt stand in todays world.

hinault

noodler wrote: »

Much better analysis and criticism of the letter related contents here

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/while-we%E2%80%99re-waiting-for-the-nama-business-plan-%E2%80%A6/

Interesting link - and an interesting title Namawinelake!

I'll read the content tomorrow,

noodler

I knew the Times' misleading headine the other day would cause trouble.

Chairman of Anglo, Alan Dukes wrote into the paper today to complain about the fact the headline (which was changed in the online version from expresses to expressed) gave the impression the new restructuring plan was at the subject rather than the old one.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0709/1224274347981.html

Madam, – The heading on Arthur Beesley’s article (Front page, July 6th) was seriously misleading. “EU expresses grave doubts over State’s survival plan for Anglo” loses its punch when it is made clear that the headline relates to comments made last March about a restructuring plan which has been replaced by one submitted at the end of May and which comprehensively addresses the Commission’s March comments.
Most of the body of the article concerned the March comments and not the current position. The presentation as current news of comments made in March and subsequently overtaken by events is hardly leading-edge journalism. The fact that Mr Beesley returned to the issue (“EU casts a cold eye on Government’s plans to save Anglo”, Business, July 7th) is a tacit admission of the failings of the previous article. Once again, however, the “cold eye” referred to in this heading relates to comments made last March and not to the discussions currently under way on the existing restructuring plan.
“Cantillon” (Business, July 6th) blithely ignored the facts in commenting on the bank’s dealings with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) and on its submission on the Financial Regulator’s recent consultation paper on corporate governance.
The bank’s claim to privilege in relation to certain documents was described as “prudent” by the court when it was first raised and again on Friday of last week. The bank’s proposal on that day of a limited disclosure of privileged documentation to the ODCE was seen by the court as a considered and responsible approach, a fact which “Cantillon” ignores.
His interpretation of the bank’s submission to the Financial Regulator is almost childishly mischievous, particularly in view of the fact that the bank’s board held 59 meetings in the 15-month period to the end of December 2009. – Yours, etc,
ALAN DUKES,
Chairman,
Anglo Irish Bank,
Stephen Court,
St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

Liam Byrne

noodler wrote: »

Chairman of Anglo, Alan Dukes wrote into the paper today to complain

The same Dukes who - despite the fact that we own the cesspit company in which he's supposed to act in the public interest - told a representative of ours that it was "none of our business" ?

Forgive me if I ignore anything that comes out of his mouth, because it's not worth listening to.

noodler

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The same Dukes who - despite the fact that we own the cesspit company in which he's supposed to act in the public interest - told a representative of ours that it was "none of our business" ?

Forgive me if I ignore anything that comes out of his mouth, because it's not worth listening to.

?????

Liam Byrne

noodler wrote: »

?????

Dukes - who was installed in Anglo to supposedly represent the public interest - refused to answer valid questions from Shane Ross and told him it was "none of his business".

Surely you didn't miss that fiasco ?

And as a result, Alan Dukes can go take a running jump if he expects us to listen to what he says.....if he can't be arsed telling us stuff that we want and deserve to know, then he can sod off issuing complaints and propaganda.

noodler

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Dukes - who was installed in Anglo to supposedly represent the public interest - refused to answer valid questions from Shane Ross and told him it was "none of his business".

Surely you didn't miss that fiasco ?

And as a result, Alan Dukes can go take a running jump if he expects us to listen to what he says.....if he can't be arsed telling us stuff that we want and deserve to know, then he can sod off issuing complaints and propaganda.

?
Okay then, if it makes you feel better replace the name at the end of that letter with an imaginary one.

Honestly, what one thing has to do with the other her is beyond me. The issue highlighted, which I brought up the day this thread was posted, is just a misleading headline article by the Times.

Liam Byrne

noodler wrote: »

?
Okay then, if it makes you feel better replace the name at the end of that letter with an imaginary one.

Honestly, what one thing has to do with the other her is beyond me. The issue highlighted, which I brought up the day this thread was posted, is just a misleading headline article by the Times.

You posted a link to a letter by someone who refused to say what he's asked about and prefers to whinge about stuff no-one asked him about.

His opinion is irrelevant as he's refusing to do his job.

noodler

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You posted a link to a letter by someone who refused to say what he's asked about and prefers to whinge about stuff no-one asked him about.

His opinion is irrelevant as he's refusing to do his job.

This is whats wrong with this forum.

Liam Byrne

noodler wrote: »

This is whats wrong with this forum.

No, it's what's wrong with this government and its political appointees.

Dukes REFUSED POINT BLANK to answer questions from the one decent elected representative that we have, telling him it was "none of his business".

Dukes told a REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYERS - US - to butt out.

So it's perfectly valid to ignore what he chooses to say; he won't answer what we want to hear, so he can piss off.

Laminations

Noodler, I agree the article was misleading as it used the present instead of the past tense. However, the main point I take from that article is that the plan with which the Anglo bailout was sold to the public has been found to be terribly flawed and they now submitted a new plan. But the billions pumped into the bank were done so on the rationale of the heavily criticised and unrealistic old plan. Its not good enough to just say 'the criticism is for the old plan and hence outdated'. It was the old plan that was used to hoodwink us into saving Anglo.

I'm having a similarly frustrating debate on this thread related to NAMA. NAMA is turning out to be nothing like what it was sold as, revised estimates here are there, more recapitalisation here and there, no increased lending, not much hope of a profit in 10 years (a profit that was peddled as a selling point). If you lay out your table to try and convince people to go with your plan (not that the governments plan ever convinced me) then its understandable when people call bullsh*t when suddenly a new plan comes on the scene. Why? cos the old plan was a fariy tale. Apparantly a mod thinks we have no right getting frustrated by this as we should cautiously reserve all our 'outrage' for the mammoth budget deficit this government has accumulated. I have enough 'outrage' to go around.

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Apparantly a mod thinks we have no right getting frustrated by this as we should cautiously reserve all our 'outrage' for the mammoth budget deficit this government has accumulated. I have enough 'outrage' to go around.

Not to mention the fact that we should expect politicians to lie through their teeth and that it's acceptable to vote confidence in con-men.

Basically, expect the worst and don't expect any ethics, and then you shouldn't be outraged or disappointed.

God help us, is it no wonder TDs are so ****e if we pay them a few hundred thousand a year plus massive pensions plus another €81,000 expenses and then expect that they'll be corrupt and useless.

noodler

Laminations wrote: »

It was the old plan that was used to hoodwink us into saving Anglo.

Its not really a hoodwink. I don't agree with the scale of the guarantee or the backing of senior / subordinated debt in Anglo but I am still fairly confident the decision was taken on fears over the potential negative effects on the country as a whole of allowing a major bank to default on its senior debt.

Stupidity rather than corruption. Still though, nobody really knows what would have happened if a euro area country had bank default like that.

I just think we should have taken the risk obviously.

Anyway, the guarantee tied our hands and now we are in the situation we are in.

A future must be decided by Anglo (new managerment and board by the way, not the ones who destroyed the place) and the people in charge have been asked to consider the least costly way (to the taxpayer) of continuing with the whole operation (or closing it down which obviously they judged the more expensive option).

Fair enough the first plan had its flaws, but the redone plan is still, in essence, a good bank / bad bank framework. If they think that is the cheapest method from here onwards (again, no point in looking to them and complaining about the €14.3bn so far - they didn't write the guarantee) then they are obliged to report that to the EU.

The money pumped into the place so far is gone, the plan now has to be to find the cheapest plan going forward. Not saying they are 100% correct or not but Karl Whelan surprised a few people with a breakdown of what it would likely cost to close Anglo on Irisheconomy a while back - can't find the link at the moment (means it was well before the end of May)- will try and get it later

Laminations

noodler wrote: »

Its not really a hoodwink. I don't agree with the scale of the guarantee or the backing of senior / subordinated debt in Anglo but I am still fairly confident the decision was taken on fears over the potential negative effects on the country as a whole of allowing a major bank to default on its senior debt.

Did Lehmans affect the American sovereign credit rating? Did Icesave affect Icelands sovereign credit rating? Didnt Moodys increase Icelands rating recently? If there is some evidence that would support guaranteeing Anglo and bailing out risk-taking bondholders to protect the state then I'd like to see it.

Anyway, the guarantee tied our hands and now we are in the situation we are in.

That is true but I wouldnt phrase it like that.The passive voice sentence is used often when the speaker wants to hide the agent or obscure what occurs. I prefer 'FF tied our hands with the guarantee'. Its leaves no one in any doubt.

Fair enough the first plan had its flaws, but the redone plan is still, in essence, a good bank / bad bank framework. If they think that is the cheapest method from here onwards (again, no point in looking to them and complaining about the €14.3bn so far - they didn't write the guarantee) then they are obliged to report that to the EU.

If I remember correctly the idea of a good bank/bad bank was not FFs original plan - it sounds more like FGs?

The money pumped into the place so far is gone, the plan now has to be to find the cheapest plan going forward.

Shouldn't that have been the plan from the start?

noodler

Laminations wrote: »

Did Lehmans affect the American sovereign credit rating? Did Icesave affect Icelands sovereign credit rating? Didnt Moodys increase Icelands rating recently? If there is some evidence that would support guaranteeing Anglo and bailing out risk-taking bondholders to protect the state then I'd like to see it.

I am not sure about your initial questions there, I assume you are being rhetorical. I'll say what I said again though, I don't believe anyone at Anglo is trying to Hoodwink you - they simply calculate (correctly or otherwise) the cheapest scenario for the future. You are ranting on about a different point now which is the guarantee rather than the Anglo Plan. One thing at a time please.

Laminations wrote: »

That is true but I wouldnt phrase it like that.The passive voice sentence is used often when the speaker wants to hide the agent or obscure what occurs. I prefer 'FF tied our hands with the guarantee'. Its leaves no one in any doubt.

? It doesn't matter if FF issued the guarantee or if De Valera did as far as the Anglo producing a business plan is concerned. Again, different point and not one which changes the variables the Anglo management have to consider.

Laminations wrote: »

If I remember correctly the idea of a good bank/bad bank was not FFs original plan - it sounds more like FGs?

So? Shouldn't we be happy that there seem to be intelligent people now in control in Anglo then? Or are you implying that FF robbed FG's plan and are now forcing it upon Anglo?

If you are not then I don't see why which political party's idea it is matters. Anglo are the ones who submitted the plan.

Another issue with this forum it is used more for political gains than actual logic sometimes.

Laminations wrote: »

Shouldn't that have been the plan from the start?

Again, how does the lamenting the past change anything in March (and then June) for Anlgo's staff in 2010.

Laminations

noodler wrote: »

I am not sure about your initial questions there, I assume you are being rhetorical. I'll say what I said again though, I don't believe anyone at Anglo is trying to Hoodwink you - they simply calculate (correctly or otherwise) the cheapest scenario for the future. You are ranting on about a different point now which is the guarantee rather than the Anglo Plan. One thing at a time please.

Nice one. I was responding to YOU bringing up the 'negative effects' of the guarantee. Keep tack of your own posts. And the questions are not rhethorical. This one is not rhethorical - why was Anglo saved?

? It doesn't matter if FF issued the guarantee or if De Valera did as far as the Anglo producing a business plan is concerned. Again, different point and not one which changes the variables the Anglo management have to consider.

I just took umbradge to your convenient use of the passive voice. Its disingenuous to state it the way you did. And after the guarantee what was the basis of us pumping billions into Anglo? Well moneyt has already gone in so I'm guessing this was based on plan 1 and not the new plan? Plan 1 has been shown to be a fairy tale. You may be happy with people calculating (otherwise) but I prefer correctly when we are dealing with billions, if if its otherwise then there should be repercussions for the plan makers.

Another issue with this forum it is used more for political gains than actual logic sometimes.

Heres the logic you seem to be ignoring. Money was put into Anglo on the basis on an unrealistic and flawed plan? So the plan has been revised. Still we were sold the bailout based on Plan 1, just like we were sold NAMA based on a 10-year profit and almost immediate lending returning. Lies or incompetence, either way it shouldnt be tolerated. And yes, politics underlies a lot of this. You going to vote for FF by any chance? (you dont need to answer that)

Again, how does the lamenting the past change anything in March (and then June) for Anlgo's staff in 2010.

Ah yes, look to the future to learn, what were people thinking when they thought up the saying 'learn from the past'

noodler

Laminations wrote: »

Nice one. I was responding to YOU bringing up the 'negative effects' of the guarantee. Keep tack of your own posts. And the questions are not rhethorical. This one is not rhethorical - why was Anglo saved?

If your issue is with the guarantee then make a thread about it. I have already told why I think Anglo was saved though.

I referenced the guarantee as it was the reason the money was pumped into Anglo, the current management inherited that situation and it has nothing to do with discussing the merits or otherwise of Anglo's current business plans.

Why can't you see this? If all you want to do is knock the guarantee, which I already said I disagreed with, then why not just make a thread elsewhere rather than pretend you want to discuss Anglo's plan?

Laminations wrote: »

I just took umbradge to your convenient use of the passive voice. Its disingenuous to state it the way you did. And after the guarantee what was the basis of us pumping billions into Anglo? Well moneyt has already gone in so I'm guessing this was based on plan 1 and not the new plan? Plan 1 has been shown to be a fairy tale. You may be happy with people calculating (otherwise) but I prefer correctly when we are dealing with billions, if if its otherwise then there should be repercussions for the plan makers.

Money went in, and this is crucial for you to understand, because the guarantee said the Government would pay Anglo's maturing debts as they come up. Nothing to do with the current management. If this is the source of your confusion then I hope that is it solved but the money pumped into Anglo so far is not as a result of the first business plan.

Laminations wrote: »

Heres the logic you seem to be ignoring. Money was put into Anglo on the basis on an unrealistic and flawed plan? So the plan has been revised. Still we were sold the bailout based on Plan 1, just like we were sold NAMA based on a 10-year profit and almost immediate lending returning. Lies or incompetence, either way it shouldnt be tolerated. And yes, politics underlies a lot of this. You going to vote for FF by any chance? (you dont need to answer that)

Again, I should just rinse and repeat my comment above re: your misunderstanding that the initial Anglo business plan (from March now) somehow caused the billions we pumped in.

I will say I have no political allegiance - I just dont like lies (or incompetence - whichever you prefer!)

Laminations wrote: »

Ah yes, look to the future to learn, what were people thinking when they thought up the saying 'learn from the past'

Not really a point here, is there?

Laminations

noodler wrote: »

Money went in, and this is crucial for you to understand, because the guarantee said the Government would pay Anglo's maturing debts as they come up. Nothing to do with the current management. If this is the source of your confusion then I hope that is it solved but the money pumped into Anglo so far is not as a result of the first business plan.

The guarantee said? Still using the passive voice or does 'the guarantee' work somewhere in Leinster house?

Again, I should just rinse and repeat my comment above re: your misunderstanding that the initial Anglo business plan (from March now) somehow caused the billions we pumped in.

Ok so I get it, 'the guarantee' caused the billions to be pumped in. So nothing was based on the original business plan, no decisions were made based on it? No decisions in Anglo from March til the revised plan in June were made based on those flawed assumptions of the first plan? The management who revised the plan, were they responsible for the atrocious miscalculations of the first plan? What consequences do they face because of that error? And would you call that incompetence? Cos I know you dont like incompetence

I just dont like lies (or incompetence - whichever you prefer!)

noodler

Laminations wrote: »

The guarantee said? Still using the passive voice or does 'the guarantee' work somewhere in Leinster house?

? Everytime I say "the guarantee", do you want me to say the guarantee those "FF backstards brought in" instead? Grow up. "The guarantee" is perfectly sufficient for the sake of discussion.

Laminations wrote: »

Ok so I get it, 'the guarantee' caused the billions to be pumped in.

Exactly!

Laminations wrote: »

So nothing was based on the original business plan, no decisions were made based on it? No decisions in Anglo from March til the revised plan in June were made based on those flawed assumptions of the first plan?

Nothing out of the ordinary. The guarantee and subsequent recaps were to pay of creditors as the debt matured. Did you think that someone in Anglo in March had a business plan that gave them a €1bn salary or something?

Laminations wrote: »

The management who revised the plan, were they responsible for the atrocious miscalculations of the first plan? What consequences do they face because of that error? And would you call that incompetence? Cos I know you dont like incompetence

I am glad the first plan was rejected because I have some faith in the commission and they didn't like it.

It could well have been incompetence, also being over optimistic as well. I will very much look forward to the commission's verdict on the new plan. I think it will be very interesting to see if they agree with the Good / Bank scenario as a whole but want to see some ammedments or will they order the bank to be closed down over a set period (if they opt for this option I really hope they provide figures on the breakdown of the relevant costs though).

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, it's what's wrong with this government and its political appointees.

Dukes REFUSED POINT BLANK to answer questions from the one decent elected representative that we have, telling him it was "none of his business".

Dukes told a REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYERS - US - to butt out.

So it's perfectly valid to ignore what he chooses to say; he won't answer what we want to hear, so he can piss off.

Enough snarling and swearing, thanks, Liam. It's getting very wearing. If you really can't express yourself without vituperation, perhaps you ought to reconsider whether you should post at all. If you can, please do, for the sake of all other posters.

moderately,
Scofflaw