Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Anglo gonna cost wha? 35 billion now and counting.

«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    hoyanto wrote: »
    Hoyaz lads. Seems Anglo is gonna cost an extra 11+ billion now or wha?

    FRESH doubts have emerged about the taxpayers' final bill for bailing out Anglo Irish Bank after the Department of Finance admitted an €11.5bn loan given to the bank is secured on highly risky property loans.

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/economic-crisis-final-bill-for-anglo-may-be-euro335bn-2254899.html

    Discuss


    I didn't even know the CB had loaned Anglo €11.5bn last year.

    Has this ever been mentioned publically before?

    Indo article says CB figures are expected this week showing how they recorded the loan in their accounts - should be interesting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    noodler wrote: »
    I didn't even know the CB had loaned Anglo €11.5bn last year.

    Has this ever been mentioned publically before?

    Indo article says CB figures are expected this week showing how they recorded the loan in their accounts - should be interesting.

    Yes i mentioned this before

    it was 10 billion exactly then, David McWilliams also had an article on this 10b many months ago from what I remember

    this wasn't hidden or anything, but sure what is 10 billion between friends


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Yes i mentioned this before last autumn

    it was 10 billion exactly then, David McWilliams also had an article on this 10b many months ago from what I remember

    I'll try to dig it up.

    The supposed value of the property in question will be interesting (value at the time). I wonder the were the CB savy enough to order the bank to give it €20bn in collateral in case the loand failed and it was worth nothing like it was reported to.

    I seriously doubt it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Found it.

    http://www.thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/outsiders-pay-for-insider-greed-47921.html

    I actually did read it too - remember the bit about the Father's grave in Shankill. Personally, it got forgotten in the Super Tuesday lark that took place at the end of that month.

    Here's the relevant part:

    In the past year, the Irish Central Bank has lent €10 billion to Anglo, using an instrument that it would prefer you knew nothing about. This instrument, called the ‘‘master loan repurchase agreement’’, is a hangover from when we had our own currency. Evidence of its existence is buried deep in the Central Bank’s balance sheet under the ambiguous title ‘‘other assets’’.

    The reason this is important is that it shows that, since Anglo was nationalised, it has gobbled up another €10 billion of our money. When Enda Kenny says there will be riots if Anglo receives another cent of public money, in away he is behind the times. The money has already been given to Anglo, via this secretive facility.

    Since last March, the Central Bank has lent Anglo €10 billion in return for so called collateral of €14.5 billion. But the only collateral Anglo has are worthless loans like the land for Woodbrook golf course in Shankill, which Davy Stockbrokers now estimates is worth 5 per cent of its 2006 purchase price.

    If we were to apply the same discount to the Central Bank’s loan to Anglo, we would see that the Central Bank - acting in our name - has lent €10 billion in exchange for collateral that is worth just over €750million.SotheCentral Bank has probably already lost over €9 billion. The only way this will ever be recovered is if Nama succeeds in driving the price of this land in Shankill backup.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Disheartening stuff. It's my understanding that Anglo is a pretty small bank when compared to AIB or others. I just dont' get how they can cost 33.5billion to put right.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 63 ✭✭hoyanto


    Where is Scarab80 when you need some balanced Anglo defending?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    hoyanto wrote: »
    Where is Scarab80 when you need some balanced Anglo defending?

    Just noticed these are your first posts.

    I hope you aren't here to grind an axe from a previous account.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    collecting paycheck at NAMA PR dept :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I don't think people who support NAMA or Anglo (or FF for that matter) realise the seriousness of their support. They may think that when quite damning figures or stories emerge that they can just put their hands up and say 'oh well I got it wrong' but this is billions we are talking about and your support enables these 'mistakes'. Apologists are complicity in these escapades


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    I don't think people who support NAMA or Anglo (or FF for that matter) realise the seriousness of their support. They may think that when quite damning figures or stories emerge that they can just put their hands up and say 'oh well I got it wrong' but this is billions we are talking about and your support enables these 'mistakes'. Apologists are complicity in these escapades

    I don't think half the posters on this board could distinguish between the following:

    A) A poster pointing out flaws in some of the nama criticisms (or basic factual errors)

    B) An apologist (which is a buzzword popular around here when some of the more simpl-minded run out of ideas).

    If you can't tell the difference between what myself (or Scarib) post compared to the words of somebody who fully supports then plan then the problem lies squarely with yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 693 ✭✭✭douglashyde


    I don't think people who support NAMA or Anglo (or FF for that matter) realise the seriousness of their support. They may think that when quite damning figures or stories emerge that they can just put their hands up and say 'oh well I got it wrong' but this is billions we are talking about and your support enables these 'mistakes'. Apologists are complicity in these escapades

    Support for NAMA does not necessarily mean support for Anglo or FF.

    You can't assume that just because one was wrong; so is the other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Support for NAMA does not necessarily mean support for Anglo or FF.

    You can't assume that just because one was wrong; so is the other.

    There would be no need for NAMA if Anglo sunk and/or FF werent in power

    one is build on the the actions of others


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Support for NAMA does not necessarily mean support for Anglo or FF.

    You can't assume that just because one was wrong; so is the other.

    Precisely.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    There would be no need for NAMA if Anglo sunk and/or FF werent in power

    one is build on the the actions of others

    So what would AIB and BOI done?

    Sinking Anglo wouldn't have saved us all the money now, have a read of this breakdown of what Anglo owes and what could be allowed to default.

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/04/03/anglo-what-are-the-options/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Firstly while your 'simple minded' quip was a personal attack be reminded that I didn't mention any names - you associated yourself and Scarab with the word apologist.

    Secondly, if you only engage in discussing topics based on defending against criticism rather than critiquing then you look like an apologist. If you want you can list out the problems you see but you seem to prefer poking holes in the problems other people mention. What was your initial response to this story?

    'Oh I don't remember this at the time' followed by 'i'll look into it'

    So could you tell us what you think about it now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Support for NAMA does not necessarily mean support for Anglo or FF.

    You can't assume that just because one was wrong; so is the other.

    I didn't assume anything, I see mutual exclusivity in opinions hence my use of 'or'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Firstly while your 'simple minded' quip was a personal attack be reminded that I didn't mention any names - you associated yourself and Scarab with the word apologist.

    Secondly, if you only engage in discussing topics based on defending against criticism rather than critiquing then you look like an apologist.


    Seriously, did you not just enter a topic on this specific aspect of Anglo and then start ranting and raving about percieved 'apologists' at nobody's behest but your own?

    If you want you can list out the problems you see but you seem to prefer poking holes in the problems other people mention.

    And I will continue to do so if I consider them incorrect.

    Gems like the Irish Central bank's liabilities are not our own or that the Anglo business plans somehow had something to do with the capital injections the bank required.
    What was your initial response to this story?

    'Oh I don't remember this at the time' followed by 'i'll look into it'

    So could you tell us what you think about it now?

    Scroll up. Or are you being selective?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    noodler wrote: »

    So what would AIB and BOI done?

    I'm sure the 35 billion wasted on Anglo would have gone some way in bringing our less diseased banks back to full health


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Comedy gold:D:D:D:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    I'm sure the 35 billion wasted on Anglo would have gone some way in bringing our less diseased banks back to full health

    Surely you can see how a NAMA would still be better than just 'giving' AIB and BOI the money in that situation?

    Also, so far we have given Anglo 4+8.3+2 = 14.3bn that we won't get back.

    I guess it still has to be confirmed that we are putting in the other €8bn promised in March and whether or not the €11.5bn can be paid back over time as Lenihan says (although I guess that implies an implicit assumption on his part that the commission won't force us to close the bank down).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Your opinion on this so far is that you wonder if the CB secured extra collateral in case the deal nosedived as it has done and you conclude that

    'you seriously doubt it'

    So is their behaviour acceptable? Prudent? In the tax layers best interest? What's your actual opinion?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    noodler wrote: »
    Precisely.



    So what would AIB and BOI done?

    Sinking Anglo wouldn't have saved us all the money now, have a read of this breakdown of what Anglo owes and what could be allowed to default.

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/04/03/anglo-what-are-the-options/

    do remember that Anglo only became a huge problem due to a blanket guarantee that also protected the bondholders

    guess who came up with total guarantee? Fianna Fail



    €27 billion are customer deposits (nearly €8 billion of which is payable on demand.)
    €15 billion are debt securities. Most of this debt is due very soon. There’s €1.5 billion in shortish term commercial paper and CDs. Of the €13 billion in medium term notes, at least €7.4 billion is due before the guarantee runs out in September this year and €9.7 billion is due by December this year.
    €12.2 billion is owed to the ECB (not the €24 billion figure mentioned by Brendan Keenan on Thursday.)
    €9.3 billion is deposits from banks.
    €2.3 billion in subordinated bonds, none of which are due before 2014.
    And then there’s the usual odds and ends such as derivatives and other random stuff.

    btw last i checked 27 billion (whats owned to depositors) is a smaller number than 35 or whatever it is now (excluding NAMA ****e of course)

    if we stayed with the 20,000 deposit protection per customer limit how much of that 27 billion would have been insured, since Anglo never released the number of depositors we dont know

    and was that the amount of deposit back when the gurantee came in or is most of this due to aggressive advertising for Anglo savings schemes in last year

    once again we are not provided with any details


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    People are getting unnecessarily heated and a bit personal here.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Your opinion on this so far is that you wonder if the CB secured extra collateral in case the deal nosedived as it has done and you conclude that

    'you seriously doubt it'

    So is their behaviour acceptable? Prudent? In the tax layers best interest? What's your actual opinion?

    Theres not much else I can say until the CB release the balance sheet this week. Is my dismay at the fact we have loaned €11.5bn on (most likely) properties that have fallen in value not fairly self-evident?

    This is supposed to be an economics forum. If all you want to do is make political criticisms then maybe, this isn't the place.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    do remember that Anglo only became a huge problem due to a blanket guarantee that also protected the bondholders

    guess who came up with total guarantee? Fianna Fail

    And I'd say the same to you. Is that all you want on an Irish economy forum? Can we not leave poltics out of any of this when we discuss it?

    Why are you bring up the guarantee for the umpteenth time? Everyone knows the guarantee cause the money to be pumped into Anglo - that is a given.

    On an economics forum we should be discussing the procs and cons and what strategies we can adopt going forward. Simply lamenting the guarantee as a cause for the situation we find ourselves in doesn't really do anything other than politicise the debate.





    btw last i checked 27 billion (whats owned to depositors) is a smaller number than 35 or whatever it is now (excluding NAMA ****e of course)

    No idea where you got 27 from, I saw 35 in the 2009 accounts alright (released in April I think), I don't know what figures you have seen since then.
    if we stayed with the 20,000 deposit protection per customer limit how much of that 27 billion would have been insured, since Anglo never released the number of depositors we dont know

    and was that the amount of deposit back when the gurantee came in or is most of this due to aggressive advertising for Anglo savings schemes in last year

    once again we are not provided with any details

    I am not too sure about any of this. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to let depositors lose out though. Whether they are rich depositors or not, bear in mind you could be including someone with their lifesavings above €20k in that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    do remember that Anglo only became a huge problem due to a blanket guarantee that also protected the bondholders

    guess who came up with total guarantee? Fianna Fail

    btw last i checked 27 billion (whats owned to depositors) is a smaller number than 35 or whatever it is now (excluding NAMA ****e of course)

    if we stayed with the 20,000 deposit protection per customer limit how much of that 27 billion would have been insured, since Anglo never released the number of depositors we dont know

    and was that the amount of deposit back when the gurantee came in or is most of this due to aggressive advertising for Anglo savings schemes in last year

    once again we are not provided with any details

    And this is the issue that frustrates me most. Transparency. I'd hazard a guess that Anglo had very few depositors. It's being touted as a systemic bank and criticism of Anglo is always met with defence of 'the banking system'. On the week in politics last night Minister Power declared that if we'd let Anglo go, the next morning we'd regret it when all ATms were closed. James Reilly asked why BOI and AIB would be affected and got no answer. Powers scaremongering claim is more absurd when Anglo has no real ATMs. We want the figures on Anglo, it's inclusion in NAMA is ruining NAMA itself and FF are responsible for it all so ei.sdraob is right, it's all connected


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    noodler wrote: »
    And I'd say the same to you. Is that all you want on an Irish economy forum? Can we not leave poltics out of any of this when we discuss it?

    Why are you bring up the guarantee for the umpteenth time? Everyone knows the guarantee cause the money to be pumped into Anglo - that is a given.

    On an economics forum we should be discussing the procs and cons and what strategies we can adopt going forward. Simply lamenting the guarantee as a cause for the situation we find ourselves in doesn't really do anything other than politicise the debate.

    hello like :confused:

    you replied
    to
    my post here



    we wouldn't be in the mess we are today if a politician (with no economics background) made a different decision that fateful day :(
    whether you like it or not politics and economics are entwined
    and in case you didnt notice this forum is a subforum of politics
    there is a dedicated economics forum on this site


    On the week in politics last night Minister Power declared that if we'd hamlet Anglo go, the next morning we'd regret it when all ATms were closed.

    thats the worst thing about Anglo, it has no ATMs and until recently was a largely unknown bank with small and crooked customer base (seriously how many "normal" people used this bank before two years ago, and of course no details are provided)
    Anglo became "systematic" because FF made it so


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    hello like :confused:

    you replied
    to
    my post here



    we wouldn't be in the mess we are today if a politician (with no economics background) made a different decision that fateful day :(

    whether you like it or not politics and economics are entwined

    and in case you didnt notice this forum is a subforum of politics

    there is a dedicate economics forum on this site





    thats the worst thing about Anglo, it has no ATMs and until recently was a largely unknown bank with crooked customer base
    Anglo became "systematic" because FF made it so

    God help me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    noodler wrote: »
    No idea where you got 27 from

    the irisheconomy post you linked to earlier

    noodler wrote: »
    God help me.

    keep repeating that for next few decades while you and your children are paying for this via increased taxes and reduced services


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    the irisheconomy post you linked to earlier


    My fault.

    Where'd you get the 35 from was what I should have said.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    noodler wrote: »
    I am not too sure about any of this. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to let depositors lose out though. Whether they are rich depositors or not, bear in mind you could be including someone with their lifesavings above €20k in that.

    So it's OK to charge them and waste €18,000 so that they can get their original €20,000 back ? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,585 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    So it's OK to charge them and waste €18,000 so that they can get their original €20,000 back ? :confused:

    You lost me.


Advertisement