Am I missing something here (re: the

DeVore

They said the "average" interest rate is 5.83%?

But 15 Billion is coming from the state itself... is that included in this calculation?

So, 65Billion from them at X% and then 15 Billion from us at 0% and they took the average of that??

Or is it that the 65B comes from various sources and so is averaged over the 65B...

If its the latter, is it weighted by amount? (Ie: its not 60Bn at 7.8% and 5Bn at 2.8% giving an "average" of 5.8%)?


DeV.

nesf

The 5.8% is the average* of the interest rates. It doesn't include the Irish contributions.

*It's an odd average since the three rates are quite different and the three amounts of funds available are different. That and the real average rate will depend on how much we need to draw down etc. The 5.83% figure is just a working number etc. It is weighted by amount, otherwise it'd be a useless number.

zig

AFAIK its 5.8% interest on what ever is drawn down. Ive no proof of this bar reading other posts here, I don't think even Cowen would take us for that much of a ride, we aint that stupid.

Rubik.

According to the Department of Finance the average interest rate was calculated by the NTMA, who put each of the loans into the same currency (euro), the same time period of 7 1/2 years and at fixed rates. Which, apparently, gives you 5.8%.

zig

zig wrote: »

I don't think even Cowen would take us for that much of a ride, we aint that stupid.

haha..

SkepticOne

As far as I know it is the average of the European contribution of 45 billiion which is made up of EFSM, EFSF and various bilateral loans. The IMF is coming in lower at 3 or 4 per cent. It is debatable as to what the Irish contribution should be charged out at but really it is a bit of spin to include it in the package in the first place.

Anonymous1987

The package consists of the following:

€17.5bn put forward by Ireland, €12.5bn of which from the National Pension Reserve Fund, €5bn of which comes from Irish government cash reserves

€22.5bn @ 5.7% loaned to us from the IMF

€22.5bn @ 5.7% loaned to us by the European Financial Stability Mechanism

€22.5bn @ 6.05% loaned to us by the European Financial Stability Fund, including loans from UK, Sweden and Denmark

This gives a total €85bn of which €67.5bn is loaned to us at 5.82%, the remaining €17.5bn is of course our own reserves and interest free. In essence the "bailout" is €67.5bn not €85bn as I understand it.

Source: http://www.ntma.ie/Publications/2010/TechnicalNoteOnEUIMFProgrammeBorrowingRates.pdf

SkepticOne

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The package consists of the following:

€17.5bn put forward by Ireland, €12.5bn of which from the National Pension Reserve Fund, €5bn of which comes from Irish government cash reserves

€22.5bn @ 5.7% loaned to us from the IMF

€22.5bn @ 5.7% loaned to us by the European Financial Stability Mechanism

€22.5bn @ 6.05% loaned to us by the European Financial Stability Fund, including loans from UK, Sweden and Denmark

This gives a total €85bn of which €67.5bn is loaned to us at 5.82%, the remaining €17.5bn is of course our own reserves and interest free. In essence the "bailout" is €67.5bn not €85bn as I understand it.

Source: http://www.ntma.ie/Publications/2010/TechnicalNoteOnEUIMFProgrammeBorrowingRates.pdf

The NTMA seem to be contradicting the IMF and EU officials. From a press conference after the deal:

QUESTION: Mr. Chopra, your colleagues in Washington have indicated that the interest rate on the lending you're advancing to Ireland is in the region of 3.1 percent.
MR. CHOPRA: Yes.
QUESTION: So, can we then assume that some of the loans which are being provided by your partners in this fund are well in excess of 6 percent?
MR. CHOPRA: I think that's more a question for the partners.


And then later:


MR. Székely (EU): Just clarifying, the 5.8 does not include the IMF contribution. It’s the average of the European contributions. It does not include the IMF contribution.


Then finally:

QUESTION: Yeah, let’s go over this (inaudible). You probably don’t want to come back to it, but if the IMF portion is 3.1 percent, the Irish government’s statement says that the average interest rate is going to be 5.8 percent. I’m assuming that is the --Is a number that is only coming from the European side of the equation, does that bring the overall rate down to sub 5 percent because it appears to?
MR. CHOPRA: On the IMF figures, I just want to make clear that the lowest number that you have over there, it’s linked with how long the funds have been outstanding. To the extent that the fund, any loan has been outstanding for longer than a certain period, the rate goes up a little bit. So I think this is explained quite clearly in the press statement by our Managing Director and there’s more information on that structure on the IMF’s website I’m sure.


It seems to me that there's a lot more detail behind what we're being fed.

later12

There is no conspiracy here people.

It is true that the IMF rate is just around 3%

The 5.8% figure makes allowance for the cost of swapping the IMF debt which is denominated in a basket of currencies at a floating rate, into fixed rate euro denominated debt.

Dirk Gently

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

€22.5bn @ 6.05% loaned to us by the European Financial Stability Fund, including loans from UK, Sweden and Denmark


Source: http://www.ntma.ie/Publications/2010/TechnicalNoteOnEUIMFProgrammeBorrowingRates.pdf

was the inclusion of the bilateral loans at over 6% a political decision? I thought we were originally quoted much lower rates for the bilateral loans. I assume it was another revision designed to force us back into the market at some stage for a lower rate?

SkepticOne

later10 wrote: »

There is no conspiracy here people.

It is true that the IMF rate is just around 3%

The 5.8% figure makes allowance for the cost of swapping the IMF debt which is denominated in a basket of currencies at a floating rate, into fixed rate euro denominated debt.

I understand that but it seems amazing that it should double the interest rate available to Ireland. Are the markets pricing in a massive devaluation of the Euro with the Euro interest rate being offered.

later12

was the inclusion of the bilateral loans at over 6% a political decision? I thought we were originally quoted much lower rates for the bilateral loans. I assume it was another revision designed to force us back into the market at some stage for a lower rate?

As far as I am aware, the UK are lending to us through the EFSF, the EFSM and through an independent bilateral loan worth about 6.9 billion total. The money they are channeling through Europe to us is at a different rate to their bilateral loan for us.

Anonymous1987

clown bag wrote: »

was the inclusion of the bilateral loans at over 6% a political decision? I thought we were originally quoted much lower rates for the bilateral loans.

Well I guess the interest charged by the bilateral loans could be lower but the EFSF part of the loan could have driven up the average rate, I haven't seen a more detailed breakdown than the link above so I can't say.

clown bag wrote: »

I assume it was another revision designed to force us back into the market at some stage for a lower rate?

That seems to be the reasoning anyway, we can draw down the lower interest loans first and then maybe the market might be looking better before we draw down the higher interest loans.

Liam Byrne

DeVore wrote: »

They said the "average" interest rate is 5.83%?

But 15 Billion is coming from the state itself... is that included in this calculation?

So, 65Billion from them at X% and then 15 Billion from us at 0% and they took the average of that??

Or is it that the 65B comes from various sources and so is averaged over the 65B...

If its the latter, is it weighted by amount? (Ie: its not 60Bn at 7.8% and 5Bn at 2.8% giving an "average" of 5.8%)?


DeV.

I raised that issue the other day, and came up with an interest rate on the 65 billion, which came out at 7.25%

The odd thing is that I've texted both The Frontline and The Last Word with a question looking for clarification on it, and neither of them raised the question with the politicians who were on at the time.

It sounds VERY strange to me that we're loaning "ourselves" 17billion and working out an average interest rate including that, but I wouldn't put anything past FF at this stage in order to cast a spin on figures and make them look better than they are.

It's also strange that they're claiming that the 17 billion is even part of a "bailout", and quoting 85 billion, considering that that's already our money.

But nothing surprises me any more re FF, so I've just stopped taking notice of the lies and spin and will re-familiarise myself with politics whenever the election is called.

Anonymous1987

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I raised that issue the other day, and came up with an interest rate on the 65 billion, which came out at 7.25%

While initially I thought the same, the interest rate definitely is 5.82% for the €67.5bn under present conditions. This is clearly stated in the NTMA link above.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I raised that issue the other day, and came up with an interest rate on the 65 billion, which came out at 7.25%

How the hell did you come up with 7.25% as the average when the highest portion of the average is barely over 6%?

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

How the hell did you come up with 7.25% as the average when the highest portion of the average is barely over 6%?

65 billion vs 17 billion
Ratio is approx 4:1

So if 5.8% = the percentage on the 85 billion, and one-fifth of that (our NPRF) is at 0%, then the percentage on the 65 billion would be 5.8*1.25, which is 7.25%

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

65 billion vs 17 billion
Ratio is approx 4:1

So if 5.8% = the percentage on the 85 billion, and one-fifth of that (our NPRF) is at 0%, then the percentage on the 65 billion would be 5.8*1.25, which is 7.25%

But eh, what evidence was there that this is how they worked it out? I mean, seriously, the NTMA are a very professional bunch and don't **** around.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

But eh, what evidence was there that this is how they worked it out? I mean, seriously, the NTMA are a very professional bunch and don't **** around.

Fact 1 : We're getting approx 65 billion
Fact 2 : They called it an 85 billion bailout
Fact 3 : They specifically claimed an "average" interest rate of 5.8%
Fact 4 : Our own input into 85 billion is 17 billion, and since that's our own money it would be at 0%

Fact 5 : It was an FF negotiation and announced by Cowen, which means that on track record there's something unpalatable / pull a fast one somewhere.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

...
Fact 5 : It was an FF negotiation and announced by Cowen, which means that on track record there's something unpalatable / pull a fast one somewhere.

It's unhelpful to treat every statement made by, or with the agreement of, the government as being necessarily false.

SkepticOne

One of the scandals is at this point we're forced to speculate as to what interest rate applies to which component of the bailout. Even the official sources don't agree with each other.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's unhelpful to treat every statement made by, or with the agreement of, the government as being necessarily false.

It's even more unhelpful that their track record forces us to assume that as the default position.

Blatter

Can anybody actually confirm that the interest rate is an average of the €68 Billion we borrowed and not of the total €85 Billion ''bailout''.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's even more unhelpful that their track record forces us to assume that as the default position.

If your contributions to this forum are premised on such a view -- apparently to the extent of excluding the possibility that anything said by the government might actually be true -- then your posts become more like barracking than discussion.

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If your contributions to this forum are premised on such a view -- apparently to the extent of excluding the possibility that anything said by the government might actually be true -- then your posts become more like barracking than discussion.

Yes let us forget about your personal opinion about FF and concentrate on Anonymous1987 contribution about source of the figures:

http://www.ntma.ie/Publications/2010/TechnicalNoteOnEUIMFProgrammeBorrowingRates.pdf

It is on page one
The rates are two loans of 22.5 billion at 5.7 % (one fixed for seven and a half years)
And another loan of 22.5 billion at 6.05 %

That's 67.5 billion total. the only important thing about the "average" is that

The average life of the borrowings, which will involve a combination of longer and shorter dated maturities, under each of these sources is 7.5 years

this means about 3.9285 billion a year if it was all drawn down now and not paid off at all for 7.5 years. Assuming we take all the money now and pay off all banks and wipe out our eighteen billion budget deficit.

we still have to cut spending or increase tax so we have enough to pay the public spending requirements. At the moment we are losing about six billion a year. We cant depend on growth to fill this hole. Otherwise we have to cut spending and increase taxes.

Then we will need another 4 billion a year just to stand still over the next seven years and pay the interest. If we put 4 billion a year to it we will have cut this debt from 67 billion to
about 60 billion in seven years time.

Some of the "macro" items:

If the economy grows every per cent is worth roughly about 1.5 billion
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/nationalingp.htm

Say at even one per cent a year we can cut the debt to about 50 billion or we can spend that other 10 billion on Ireland. For every 10,000 people we get off the dole whether going to work, deported or encouraged to leave the country we save roughly 2 to 3 million a week or 125 million a year. 100,000 less on the dole is another 1.25 billion a year similar to about one per cent growth.

Another item might be cutting pension contributions i.e. State pensions anually "bleeding" the coffers. This amounts to several billion a yrear too. This can be don't and is being done for people coming into the system but I don't know if it is legal to do it for people already in.

Vote 7 - 400 million a year for civil servant pensions ( page50)


http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/public%20expenditure/2010/REV2010.pdf
Look at page 15 for a good macro picture per department.

see this is where the real decisions have to be made and where the big numbers stand out.

Look at vote 38 on social and family affairs and you might note areas to shave e.g

Note section W over 1.5 billion a year paid into social insurance


1 billion a year is spent on non -contributory pensions
2.5 billion on child benefit
3 billion job seekers allowance
1 billion supplementary welfare
1 billion disability allowance ( yes I know you will say "but not the disabled" Im just picking the big figures and it could be you are dyslexic and get a full allowance that a person in a wheelchair also gets - I don't know but it might be looked at)


Smaller amount like domestic care ( the carers allowance I assume) cost 100 million a year
or school meals 35 million a year

It is up to the goeernment to say whether thy will go after big things smaller things or whatever.

We will she what they propose in the budget. But the problem is i don't see anything from FG or Lab or anyone else about what they will cut or what they will tax!

We fairly much can see the macro picture - 4.5 billion extra a year to pay before we even begin to run our economy an no option to borrow anything will reduce this debt to about 50-55 billion in seven years. ( 3.5- 4 interest and about 05 to 1 paid of the capital reducing the interest to )


That's foreign debt! and under the Maastrict treaty we cant let that get above 60 per cent or about 100 billion.
We are also tied into ( Maastricht again) a three percent ( i think) current expendature requirement.

So this new foireigh debt constraint is the "straight jacket" people seem to be discussing.


You can add on another 75 billion domestic debt:
http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/historicalData1.php


We need more detail on the micro especially from the opposition!

Dirk Gently

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If your contributions to this forum are premised on such a view -- apparently to the extent of excluding the possibility that anything said by the government might actually be true -- then your posts become more like barracking than discussion.

In all fairness everything the government says does need to be investigated and not taken at face value. You can not simply take the word of an organisation which has proven to be incompetent at best and has a track record of misleading and spin.

critical analysis needs to be applied to every statement they release. It doesn't mean ruling out the possibility that they might tell the truth, it just means that due to their own track record it is likely to be either false or not the whole truth so to speak.

Scepticism needs to be the default setting due to the governments own poor reputation as a trusted source of information.

P. Breathnach

clown bag wrote: »

In all fairness everything the government says does need to be investigated and not taken at face value.

I have no problem with that. What I am objecting to is making a presumption that if the government says it, it must be untrue.

You can not simply take the word of an organisation which has proven to be incompetent at best and has a track record of misleading and spin.

critical analysis needs to be applied to every statement they release. It doesn't mean ruling out the possibility that they might tell the truth, it just means that due to their own track record it is likely to be either false or not the whole truth so to speak.

The bit I have bolded shows where our positions start to diverge. I am open to the possibility that government statements might be wrong, but I believe that they have not told many provable lies. I make my point in a general way, rather than digging into the catalogues of "lies" that some people are concocting. There are many alternative explanations for seemingly incorrect statements in the public domain:

• there have been mistakes, where the mistake was not apparent until later;
• there have been instances of optimistic talking-up of the state of things;
• there possibly have been things that were true at the time when they were said, but where subsequent events have changed the situation;
• there is political spin, which is an effort to show a group in the most flattering light possible, and might involve masking the truth;
• there is dissimulation, where neither truth nor falsehood is uttered, but people are allowed, even implicitly invited, to form their own versions of truth;
• there is the making of very precise distinctions, where the reader does not appreciate the nuance.

Scepticism needs to be the default setting due to the governments own poor reputation as a trusted source of information.

For useful political discussion, scepticism is always a good tool. I apply it in interpreting what both government and opposition politicians say, and to all discussion of politics. But one needs to be open to the possibility that a statement might be true.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If your contributions to this forum are premised on such a view -- apparently to the extent of excluding the possibility that anything said by the government might actually be true -- then your posts become more like barracking than discussion.

So we should ignore the track record when evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of government statements ?

If you read my post I said that that was the "default position", from which - should suitable neutral or verifiable evidence come to light - it is perfectly possible to review the stance and get a pleasant surprise that the government might be truthful the odd time.

But a government that has lied and spun as much as this one deserves absolutely zero benefit of the doubt; given that they created their own track record, it's not my fault that that is the case.

P. Breathnach

ISAW wrote: »

Yes let us forget about your personal opinion about FF ...

How can you forget something that you do not know? I have not expressed a personal opinion about any of the major parties in this forum.

ISAW

clown bag wrote: »

In all fairness everything the government says does need to be investigated and not taken at face value.

which is different to saying everything the government says is a lie!
But mind you, the reference was given - NTMA figures and not "the government"!

snip the other references to "spin" and "the government"
the NTMA document was supplied!
The discussion is about the deal and the percentage and what it implies and not about what may or may not be government spin or your opinions on government spin.

snip

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I believe that they have not told many provable lies. I make my point in a general way, rather than digging into the catalogues of "lies" that some people are concocting. There are many alternative explanations for seemingly incorrect statements in the public domain:

• there have been mistakes, where the mistake was not apparent until later;
• there have been instances of optimistic talking-up of the state of things;
• there possibly have been things that were true at the time when they were said, but where subsequent events have changed the situation;
• there is political spin, which is an effort to show a group in the most flattering light possible, and might involve masking the truth;
• there is dissimulation, where neither truth nor falsehood is uttered, but people are allowed, even implicitly invited, to form their own versions of truth;
• there is the making of very precise distinctions, where the reader does not appreciate the nuance.

I find the last one in particular extremely patronising, and typical of FF in their view of the public. Why stick in a confusing nuance (unless you plan to use it as a get-out-of-jail clause later) ?

Why do they have to be proveable lies ? Why did you yourself throw in a nuance / caveat ?

If I tell you that I'm standing on my hands typing this, you can't prove that or disprove it, but it's probably unlikely; if I have a track record of twisting and have been caught out numerous times, the "benefit of the doubt" decreases each time. That is perfectly normal.

Example : Ahern says he wasn't warned and later apologises for the comment to those who warned him.

I could list pages of those inconsistencies, and whatever about which is the lie, the fact is that if you listen to FF - and listen far more carefully than you seem to want to give people credit for - they contradict themselves. Regularly.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But one needs to be open to the possibility that a statement might be true.

I never said that I wasn't; I just need to hear it - in plain English without nuances and caveats - from a credible source.

OK - so there's a tiny chance that FF always tell the truth but are simply hopelessly incompetent.

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How can you forget something that you do not know? I have not expressed a personal opinion about any of the major parties in this forum.

The "your" is the "your" quoted in the post to which you were replying i.e
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69334763&postcount=24
i.e.

If your contributions to this forum

the
"your" being Liam Byrne in message 22 as used by you.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why do they have to be proveable lies ?

"I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage". is a story told by Carl sagan. The idea is what I have elsewhere termed "Sagan's Dragon"

cutting to the chase - what is the difference between "no evidence of a dragon" and "no dragon"?

You seem to think that people are assumed guilty until proven innocent. The point is that we assume innocence until we can prove guilt. It seems your interlocuter P Breathneach is taking some midway which it is assumed but not proven.

if I have a track record of twisting and have been caught out numerous times, the "benefit of the doubt" decreases each time. That is perfectly normal.

actually it isn't! What is normal is for ecvery case to be judged on its evidence.
Suppose you go to trial for rape. Let us say you were accused of rape or even convicted of it ten times already. Is the jury told this in advance of your trial and their verdict?
NO! If they were you could get a mistrial.

I could list pages of those inconsistencies, and whatever about which is the lie,

Feel free to do so. It still wont affect a different case.

the fact is that if you listen to FF - and listen far more carefully than you seem to want to give people credit for - they contradict themselves. Regularly.

That is an unsupported "sweeping statement" without evidence! But again it is off topic and also a red herring.

snip the rest... off topic attack on FF and not dealing with the issue of NTMA report.

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

actually it isn't! What is normal is for ecvery case to be judged on its evidence.

In a court case, maybe; in real life (such as a guy not trusting his girlfriend because she's been caught out numerous times before) it is perfectly normal to doubt someone with a track record.

Also, the court case includes a specific instruction : "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which negates a lot of the double-speak that P Breathnach listed, and allows people to judge solely on facts, not twisted versions of them.

And what I said is that I will look for info from a credible source in order to determine whether this government are speaking the truth for a change. If you look back I thanked the person who explained what the "average interest rate" was all about, and you did mention that it came from the NTMA - again because the Government announcements were obfuscated and unclear.

Mind you, if the NTMA is credible, then there's even a question there, because the NTMA recognised that Anglo was a cesspit, while FF chose to go right ahead and - without any discussion with us - throw our money into it and say they weren't warned and couldn't have known.

So even within the Government / NTMA setup, someone's telling porkies!

Dirk Gently

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The bit I have bolded shows where our positions start to diverge. I am open to the possibility that government statements might be wrong, but I believe that they have not told many provable lies. I make my point in a general way, rather than digging into the catalogues of "lies" that some people are concocting. There are many alternative explanations for seemingly incorrect statements in the public domain:

• there have been mistakes, where the mistake was not apparent until later;
• there have been instances of optimistic talking-up of the state of things;
• there possibly have been things that were true at the time when they were said, but where subsequent events have changed the situation;
• there is political spin, which is an effort to show a group in the most flattering light possible, and might involve masking the truth;
• there is dissimulation, where neither truth nor falsehood is uttered, but people are allowed, even implicitly invited, to form their own versions of truth;
• there is the making of very precise distinctions, where the reader does not appreciate the nuance.

I dont really see a divergence of our positions there tbh, just a confirmation of the reasons why critical analysis needs to be applied and any statement not accepted on face value. An outright lie is very difficult to prove but spin is in essence deliberate misleading. Just because a statement is a mistake, an untruth, or a positive spin it doesnt change the fact that it shouldn't be just accepted as the full truth.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I find the last one in particular extremely patronising, and typical of FF in their view of the public. Why stick in a confusing nuance (unless you plan to use it as a get-out-of-jail clause later) ? ...

You are expending a great deal of energy trying to justify a position that I see as being intemperate, and I am not minded to chase things all around the house. But the point I have quoted above merits a response.

Putting together our rescue package involved (among other thing) politics, government, law, diplomacy, and finance. These are areas of life that are often complicated. Yes, many things can be expressed in a simple and direct fashion, but there are many others that can not. It is preposterous to suggest that our government (politicians and establishment together) should not carefully and precisely nuance just about everything to do with such a big commitment. If people who are not directly involved in the process do not immediately understand everything, that's not a big deal; if, in the fullness of time, things remain incomprehensible, then it possibly is a big deal.

That brings us neatly back to the OP in this thread: DeVore asked a question because something was not clear to him. It was unclear because it was not spelt out in early communications on the package. He got his answer from Anonymous1987. In other words, things are not continuing to be incomprehensible.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fact 1 : We're getting approx 65 billion
Fact 2 : They called it an 85 billion bailout
Fact 3 : They specifically claimed an "average" interest rate of 5.8%
Fact 4 : Our own input into 85 billion is 17 billion, and since that's our own money it would be at 0%

Fact 5 : It was an FF negotiation and announced by Cowen, which means that on track record there's something unpalatable / pull a fast one somewhere.

That still makes absolutely no sense. This is the NTMA and Central Bank we're talking about here, financial professionals. They're not going to be party to bull**** like counting our contribution as 0% to make the average rate look lower. Patrick Honrohan would be out in a shot to the media to correct such bull**** and the Government would know this. Also the international financial media and markets would never forgive such bull**** statements. Also the 5.8% was stated by the European Commission iirc, which again have no incentive to lie.

Honestly, again, your position makes no sense given the broad range of groups involved here.

Scofflaw

Possibly a little too much interpersonal stuff going on here, by people who really should know better. Don't let it slide over from attacking the posts to attacking the poster!

moderately,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In a court case, maybe; in real life (such as a guy not trusting his girlfriend because she's been caught out numerous times before) it is perfectly normal to doubt someone with a track record.

So the country should be run by "real life" whims and not by laws?
In fact if you go to a priest for confession for "real life" sins he assumes you are sorry and does not begin by asking you to list every sin you ever committed.

Also, the court case includes a specific instruction : "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which negates a lot of the double-speak that P Breathnach listed, and allows people to judge solely on facts, not twisted versions of them.

Only on behalf of witnessess. The ACCUSED isnt forced to say anything! That is called "right to silence" something you seem toi want to do away with as well now?

It would seem your "real life" is tantamount to a kangaroo court.

And what I said is that I will look for info from a credible source in order to determine whether this government are speaking the truth for a change.

But you are already creating your own spin since you already deemed FF as not ever credible! Your own bias in this regard means you will assume they are not telling the truth in advance oif hearing their case.

Second you have been pointed to an independent source! NTMA.

If you look back I thanked the person who explained what the "average interest rate" was all about, and you did mention that it came from the NTMA - again because the Government announcements were obfuscated and unclear.

Blame their press office then. Don't just assume they are all liars.

Mind you, if the NTMA is credible, then there's even a question there, because the NTMA recognised that Anglo was a cesspit, while FF chose to go right ahead and - without any discussion with us - throw our money into it and say they weren't warned and couldn't have known.

Different topic and another off topic chance to sling mud at FF. Stick with the issue. what is the so called "bailout"?

So even within the Government / NTMA setup, someone's telling porkies!

And you are back to calling people liars again! And as far as you are concerned in advance of knowing it must be FF.

Anonymous1987

It seems even some respected sources are questioning the interest rate now. See the Irish Economy Blog for the post.

Scofflaw

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

It seems even some respected sources are questioning the interest rate now. See the Irish Economy Blog for the post.

A bit of back-calculation suggests that the 6.05% is based on using the 3-year swap rate, not the 7-year swap rate. That's the same sort of basis as Greece, and I'm not sure why he assumes the 7.5 year term noted as applying to the IMF EFF loan applies also to the EFSF loan.

The EFSF Q&A documentation states “The Framework Agreement does not contain any maturity limitations for the loans nor for the funding instruments. However, in line with the experience under the Greek program, loans and bonds are envisaged to have an average maturity of three to five years.”

cordially,
Scofflaw

Anonymous1987

NTMA Technical Note wrote:

"The average life of the borrowings, which will involve a combination of longer and shorter dated maturities, under each of these sources [in reference to the IMF/EFSM/EFSF] is 7.5 years"

Wouldn't this suggest the seven year swap rate is appropriate given a 7.5 year maturity for the loan.

Scofflaw

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Wouldn't this suggest the seven year swap rate is appropriate given a 7.5 year maturity for the loan.

I stand corrected. The mystery remains, so. The long period is interesting in itself:

The NTMA note and Karl’s and Eoin’s expositions above make clear that part of the high headline interest cost of 5.8 percent reflects, given the yield curve, the long maturity of the loans under this package. The cost would have been lower if the package was on SBA terms (repayment 3 1/4 to 5 years after each disbursement instead of 4 1/2 to 10), and I wonder therefore why the government opted for the longer EFF maturity given that drawings under an SBA could also have been structured over 3 years. Suggests a very cautious approach to Ireland’s prospects for regaining market access over the medium term.

Warranted, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Anonymous1987

Scofflaw wrote: »

I stand corrected. The mystery remains, so.

So we are paying 3 year maturity prices for a 7.5 year maturity... bargain!

Scofflaw wrote: »

The long period is interesting in itself:
Warranted, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The way I see it the more cautious the more credible to the markets so yes I would think it is warranted.

Scofflaw

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

So we are paying 3 year maturity prices for a 7.5 year maturity... bargain!

The way I see it the more cautious the more credible to the markets so yes I would think it is warranted.

The three-year thing interests me, though. I'm obviously very much speculating here, but I can't help but notice that it takes us to 2013, which is an interesting date, because that's when the EU wants to bring in new rules that would allow for 'burden-sharing' with bondholders as part of the replacement of the EFSF.

Probably just coincidence...

speculatively,
Scofflaw

Anonymous1987

Scofflaw wrote: »

The three-year thing interests me, though. I'm obviously very much speculating here, but I can't help but notice that it takes us to 2013, which is an interesting date, because that's when the EU wants to bring in new rules that would allow for 'burden-sharing' with bondholders as part of the replacement of the EFSF.

Probably just coincidence...

speculatively,
Scofflaw

The plot thickens. I don't know what to think, hopefully there will be some clarification now that it is being brought to attention.

Scofflaw

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The plot thickens. I don't know what to think, hopefully there will be some clarification now that it is being brought to attention.

Or further, better, mystification, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw