Should the Department of Finance be questioned about their conduct over last 10years?

Water14

What questions would you like to ask the Department of Finance about their conduct over last 10years?
What did they do wrong?
What could they have done to avoid todays's financial problems?

later12

This happened. It is called the Wright Report.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2011/deptreview.pdf

Nolanger

You can't blame them really when most there have no quality finance/economics qualifications?

later12

Nolanger wrote: »

You can't blame them really when most there have no quality finance/economics qualifications?

I think that is the most disgraceful (and least reported adverse) finding of the Wright report. People with non technical and non specialst qualifications giving fiscal advice or holding influential risk or advisory positions within the Department.

Nolanger

True, but that's the Civil Service. If you have an economics degree they'll put you working somewhere like the Department of Tourism!

Bullseye1

You have Town Clerks and Senior Executive Officers in Local Authorities with only leaving certificates. These people are instructing chartered Engineers. It's madness.

eigrod

later10 wrote: »

I think that is the most disgraceful (and least reported adverse) finding of the Wright report. People with non technical and non specialst qualifications giving fiscal advice or holding influential risk or advisory positions within the Department.

And yet the banks were full of people with proper financial qualifications and experience and look at the decisions they took over the last 10 years !

waster81

later10 wrote: »

I think that is the most disgraceful (and least reported adverse) finding of the Wright report. People with non technical and non specialst qualifications giving fiscal advice or holding influential risk or advisory positions within the Department.

Yeah maybe we should have asked Sean Ftzpatrick and his ilk to come in and give them some advise plenty of specialist knowledge there

Idbatterim

if were questioning DoF, we should call in Ahern, McCreevey, Lenihan and Cowen too, call in the unions while your at it!

waster81

yeah and all those who voted bertie etc in year after year

oh oh and and Ibec oh and and ...

ANYONE BUT ME!!

The_Honeybadger

The report also shows that the DoF made it very clear that they were nervous about FF's low tax - high spend economy but that their advice was consistently ignored by ministers. Even without economics degrees they saw the dangers. Perhaps they didn't shout loud enough but in fairness their careers probably depended on them towing the line, rightly or wrongly. I lay far more blame at FF's door, even though it is fair to say they were only giving the electorate what the electorate asked for, had the pursued different policies they would have been voted out in 2007, I just hope we learn from the whole fiasco.

Sand

They did ask the DoF about their conduct over the past ten years. They said everything was fine. If anything wasnt fine, then it was the Ministers fault. And they asked to get more money.

later12

eigrod wrote: »

And yet the banks were full of people with proper financial qualifications and experience and look at the decisions they took over the last 10 years !

But investment and to some extent retail banks, prior to the latter end of the last decade, were almost by definition, risktakers. Financial professional were hired as risktakers, even risk assessors were hired like risk takers! There was a large element of greed for risk because a large risk, if you weren't completely stupid, mean large return. If you want evidence for this, or you want to understand the logic behind this further, just regard the bonus culture that prevailed in banking to begin with.

In Ireland this situation was no so clean cut, but it still existed. The point is that civil servants are not supposed to be hired as risk takers. Central Bankers are not supposed to be hired as risk takers. And for Goodness sake, the financial regulator is not supposed to be hired as a risk taker.

These government employees also, I might add, perhaps ought not to be employed as geologists, linguists, basket weavers, engineers, painters and decorators, or whatever other economically irrelevant, or non technical, qualifications they might have.

Sleepy

A very good tweet on this from Nick Leeson recently:

@TheNickLeeson wrote:

Whilst an imbalance of expertise exists between regulator and the markets/organisations being regulated, there is unnecessary risk

O/T: I can actually see a lot of sense in employing someone like Leeson in the regulator's office (I'm guessing he'd be cheap to employ if Galway United were able to afford him and afaik, most of his salary is still on lien to Barings creditors).

While, he's discussing regulation of the markets rather than the DOF here, the point is valid. Whilst those in the DOF don't have the same skillset as those playing it, it's always going to come up short.

We should be looking at a scheme whereby say the top 100 Leaving Cert students in Mathematics, Accounting and Economics (judged by an aggregation of these subjects) are offered a full scholorship through a B. Comm and Masters in Finance / Economics (approx 5 years of education) in exchange for a minimum of 10 years service with the DOF.

This could, perhaps be funded in part, by reducing the number of army cadets we put through college to study Arts, Commerce, Law etc. (I understand an Army needing qualified Engineers as officers, however, I'm sure civilian staff can be employed for the payroll, marketing and legal depts.?).

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

While, he's discussing regulation of the markets rather than the DOF here, the point is valid. Whilst those in the DOF don't have the same skillset as those playing it, it's always going to come up short.

Yes, this is a problem that all countries face, even the Eurozone itself and goes all the way up to board level. Probably the most valid criticism of the former shoo-in to be the next head of the ECB, Axel Weber was that he was an academic economist. Indeed any proposition that he might go to Deutsche Bank was flat out rejected on the basis that he is an academic central banker with no commercial experience. When a commercial bank like Deutsche, refuses to even entertain the idea that it might hire the then ECB's automatic consensus chief executive candidate, then we have a big problem.

At mid level, this is not a problem that is easy to solve. Talented financial and economic graduates, in a method akin to survival of the fittest, are not going to entertain the idea of languishing in dreary old buildings on Merrion street on a dreary old salary with a dreary old lifestyle, taking minimum risks, and answering to a former schoolteacher. The same may often apply for academic economists. Generally, there is a certain type of financial professional who will be keen to 'get along' in the City and only too enthusiastic to adapt the pinstripes and the umbrella, as well as the commercial dexterity and (at least formerly) generous salaries compared to those on offer in academia or public administration. Universities and central banks just cannot become as attractive places to work for bright, intelligent and ambitious individuals as private commercial banks and stockbrokers.

We should be looking at a scheme whereby say the top 100 Leaving Cert students in Mathematics, Accounting and Economics (judged by an aggregation of these subjects) are offered a full scholorship through a B. Comm and Masters in Finance / Economics (approx 5 years of education) in exchange for a minimum of 10 years service with the DOF.

I think that's a good idea, but ultimately I wonder if they would not just be stunted in their outlook and their efficiency, complying as they would have to with all of the tedious and often inconsequential tasks of civil service administration beginning at graduate entry level.

sollar

I would ask them was anyone from their dept at the meeting on 29th Sep 08 when the bank guarantee was decided. Was there minutes taken and if so could they release them.

Jaysoose

So the general concensus is nobody did anything wrong as the DOF is full of people that cant do basic maths and anybody that could see the issues sat on their hands and said nothing.

So its nobodies fault then? Move along nothing to see here lets make the same mistakes over and over and at least we can blame FF now they are out of power.

Jaysoose

sollar wrote: »

I would ask them was anyone from their dept at the meeting on 29th Sep 08 when the bank guarantee was decided. Was there minutes taken and if so could they release them.

The person that takes the minutes was out on "stress leave" that day.

danbohan

Jaysoose wrote: »

So the general concensus is nobody did anything wrong as the DOF is full of people that cant do basic maths and anybody that could see the issues sat on their hands and said nothing.

So its nobodies fault then?

they are public /civil servants in Ireland after all , what do you expect ?.

Jaysoose

danbohan wrote: »

they are public /civil servants in Ireland after all , what do you expect ?.

Certainly not accountability.

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

if were questioning DoF, we should call in Ahern, McCreevey, Lenihan and Cowen too, call in the unions while your at it!

the unions work in the DOF?????????????????

cut everybody else but me comes to mind.....

Gumbo

danbohan wrote: »

they are public /civil servants in Ireland after all , what do you expect ?.

Jaysoose wrote: »

Certainly not accountability.

typical student comments..........get back to class..

Comments removed due to ban - kc

danbohan

kceire wrote: »

typical student comments..........get back to class..

cant handle the truth can you ?. dont get stressed now you might have take another day off

[MOD]Banned 24 hours for fighting and personalising the discussion.[/MOD]

Gumbo

danbohan wrote: »

cant handle the truth can you ?. dont get stressed now you might have take another day off

what day off? my dad wont give me the day off until next week

judging by your posts, you really need to calm down and relax, ALL those angered posts cannot be good for your blood pressure :mad:

P. Breathnach

There seems to be little point in questioning the Department of Finance about anything when the commentators here have already made their minds up.

Idbatterim

the unions work in the DOF?????????????????

cut everybody else but me comes to mind.....

Im prepared to pay more tax, but there are some sectors (long term welfarers, middle and particularly upper PS, CS & Semi states, probably pensioners too) where the piss is being taken far more than others! If your pay is to be cut again its only to facilitate the waste in Ps and overpayment of alot of your colleagues! I doubt AIB staff would have much good to say about upper management and directors, why do PS workers have to defend the indefensible?! I am pretty sure that the PS workers posting on here, are not the fat cats that non PS workers posting here are slating!

Water14

So, basically the Department of Finance story is that they did not know about how business or banking works. If you are a small business and say to Revenue that you did not know about some tiny part of tax law, you get punished. Why should DoF be any different? They have not even apologised. Then, they expect everyone else to pay for their mistakes.

How can we be sure the top people in the Department of Finance were convinced they were acting in the interest of ordinary people? Could corruption in DoF at top level be playing a part?

Scofflaw

Bit too much of the personal here. Also, if a post is nothing more than a useless expostulation, don't post it.

moderately,
Scofflaw