The Irish bankers who have all but ruined us

pog it

There was an article in one the Sunday papers a while back about all the key bankers involved in the crisis containing their names, photographs, and relevant information about their specific role.

Does anyone have a link to this at all? It was all succinctly put together and I really would like to access it again.

Thanks a mil

ei.sdraob

Maybe we could put their names and photos on playing cards :P

pog it

Better still, maybe we can pay them a visit

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

At least the lads on those cards mostly ended up on trial.

femur61

But also i think the unions had a hand in the ruination as well. all PS workers, I know I hear some of you say public sector bashing again but it is a reality. PS wages in ireland with our tineey wineey population has some of the highest PS workers in the EU. How much do consultants, GP, teachers, nurses, gaurds get compared to other countries. Even before this crisis they were a burden on their own for every €3 we take in taxes we have to spend €5.

Dob74

femur61 wrote: »

But also i think the unions had a hand in the ruination as well. all PS workers, I know I hear some of you say public sector bashing again but it is a reality. PS wages in ireland with our tineey wineey population has some of the highest PS workers in the EU. How much do consultants, GP, teachers, nurses, gaurds get compared to other countries. Even before this crisis they were a burden on their own for every €3 we take in taxes we have to spend €5.

Give us a break. Unions did exactly what they are there to do get decent pay and conditions for there members.
Bankers scamed there shareholders and everyone else into believeing they where making huge profits. In fact they where just loaning money that was never going to be paid back, causing the inflation in wages, house prices etc that has ruined the country.

Bankers and there political cronies are to blame not the unions.

later12

Dob74 wrote: »

Give us a break. Unions did exactly what they are there to do get decent pay and conditions for there members.

While I disagree with the rest of your statement, this is undeniably true.

It is the job of a union to push for better conditions for workers, to achieve whatever they can. Ultimately, when it comes to civil and public service wages and conditions, the decision lies with the Government of the day. I do not see how unions can legitimately be criticised for doing their job, it is the governments job to face them down where appropriate (and it would have been highly appropriate).

Bankers scamed there shareholders and everyone else into believeing they where making huge profits.

They were making huge profits.

In fact they where just loaning money that was never going to be paid back, causing the inflation in wages, house prices etc that has ruined the country.

Bankers and there political cronies are to blame not the unions.

You need to apply the same logic to banks as you have generously applied to unions. It is not the role of a bank to manage the economy, all that is asked is that a bank complies with the wishes of the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator. You cannot expect a bank to do the work of the Government of the day or the FR anymore than you can expect the unions to lie awake at night worrying about wages that are too high and conditions that are too generous.

Each man to his own job.

Dob74

later10 wrote: »

While I disagree with the rest of your statement, this is undeniably true.

It is the job of a union to push for better conditions for workers, to achieve whatever they can. Ultimately, when it comes to civil and public service wages and conditions, the decision lies with the Government of the day. I do not see how unions can legitimately be criticised for doing their job, it is the governments job to face them down where appropriate (and it would have been highly appropriate).


They were making huge profits.
You need to apply the same logic to banks as you have generously applied to unions. It is not the role of a bank to manage the economy, all that is asked is that a bank complies with the wishes of the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator. You cannot expect a bank to do the work of the Government of the day or the FR anymore than you can expect the unions to lie awake at night worrying about wages that are too high and conditions that are too generous.

Each man to his own job.

On paper maybe but in reality the assets they where putting on there balance where garbage.
Massive loans that if where paid back in full and on time would have seen huge profits.
In reality these loans would only be able to be paid back if the economy kept growing at a impossible rate. Incompatience being rewarded.

later12

Dob74 wrote: »

On paper maybe but in reality the assets they where putting on there balance where garbage.

No dispute there, I was merely responding to the point about profits.

At the end of the day, it is the job of the FR to regulate the banking industry. Outside of its legal obligations, a banks responsibility is to its shareholders. It is not the job of any bank to do the work of the Department of Finance or the CB.

ardmacha

I do not see how unions can legitimately be criticised for doing their job, it is the governments job to face them down where appropriate

Not only did the government not face them down, but the government declared that there was prosperity which was not only going to continue for all time, but was going to increase.

Outside of its legal obligations, a banks responsibility is to its shareholders.

The managers robbed the banks, destroying billions of shareholders capital for a few million in plush pensions.

later12

ardmacha wrote: »

The managers robbed the banks, destroying billions of shareholders capital for a few million in plush pensions.

I would not deny that necessarily, but it is not very relevant. The management do have responsibility to shareholders, and they did fail in their responsibilities.

But people here are talking about things like inflation and the surge in house prices which, to be honest, is the responsibility of the Government, not the banking industry. It is also the responsibility of the government to regulate the banks as a collective group. Anglo were not responsible for what was happening at AIB, and AIB in turn were not responsible for (nor necessarily clued into) Bank of Ireland. The guy who was responsible for the behaviour of these entities, and who had oversight into their activities, was the Financial Regulator.

As far as I am concerned the only people who have reason to be pissed at the banks are the shareholders and the original creditors. The decision to take on the banks initially and to continue support for the banks, and to mishandle the financial crisis was a Government decision, with added European responsibilties too, as was the failure to regulate the banks a domestic Government failure.

ardmacha

The bank grandees lied to the government and those lies certainly contributed to the guarantee and so to the ruin of the country.

Peanut

I think it's risky to apportion the ultimate responsibility for oversight to the Financial Regulator.

Yes, banks were just doing what the system allowed them to do, but wider society does, in my opinion, have a right to expect that businesses are run in an honest fashion. In this respect, the banks themselves must carry a portion of blame.

I'm reminded of Bertie's claim of "No-one told me what was going to happen", i.e. passing the buck. When each entity can feign lack of responsibility because of "the system", then the buck can be passed indefinitely.

Noreen1

ardmacha wrote: »

The bank grandees lied to the government and those lies certainly contributed to the guarantee and so to the ruin of the country.

A fair point, though it doesn't excuse the blanket guarantee. That was buying "a pig in a poke" - and paying for it with "our" money............

Amhran Nua

later10 wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the only people who have reason to be pissed at the banks are the shareholders and the original creditors. The decision to take on the banks initially and to continue support for the banks, and to mishandle the financial crisis was a Government decision, with added European responsibilties too, as was the failure to regulate the banks a domestic Government failure.

True enough, but at the same time these are not children cycling down a steep hill faster and faster, relying on their parents to tell them to stop. These are meant to be financial professionals as well as grown adults.

In any transaction where 90-120% of the purchase price is supplied by a third party, that third party decides the price. So why were the banks pumping as much cash into the property market as they could get their hands on, even selling and leasing back their own high street premises to get more liquidity, when no foreign property investor would touch Irish property with a long pole? Were these foreign property investors privy to some information that the mightiest financial institutions in the country were not?

There was regulatory capture, completed by the banks. There was a deliberate effort by the banks to fan the flames of an overheated economy, in the name of short term profit. There may very well have been a specific strategy to offload losses from this clearly doomed trajectory onto Irish citizens, which is chronically unethical if not outright illegal. I mean, its not like they hadn't done it before.

Yes, the government is very much to blame, but I wouldn't discount the actions of the banks as just serving their purpose. To my mind the banks are not fit for their purpose, and haven't been for quite some time.

Of course at this point, you could very justifiably say the same about the unions. It's gone way beyond decent pay and working conditions into a strongarmed smash and grab on the coffers of the state.

waster81

Banks have a huge influence on the economy and the direction it is focused.

The banks focused on the building sector, lent money to developers to pay for development land.

Developers then needed large number of employees to building the ghost estates, hotels etc. To this end they offered huge wages to employees

The employees had more money then started to outbid each other for houses creating the bubble

Then when it all crashed we had huge unemployment, reducing our tax intake, an overburdened social welfare payment due to job losses.

This all occured because the banks were the driving force behind the construction bubble, they took risks and have faced no consequences.

Would we have had such a number of people employed in the construction industry were it not for the banks

Our deficit is €18 billion, how much of this is down to the increase in social welfare payments, and the reduction in tax take due unemployed as well from inxome tax and indirect taxes.

Banks have faced no consequences, if an ordinary company had failed to such an extent they would have had major job losses, reduced wages.
The only people who have suffered have been the bank shareholders and greater society

But the banks have done a good media job, on focusing the blame for our crisis on the public sector. They have more influence in this country than they should, but its much easier to rant and rave about the public sector wages, payments to social welfare etc

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Amhran Nua wrote: »

.
Of course at this point, you could very justifiably say the same about the unions. It's gone way beyond decent pay and working conditions into a strongarmed smash and grab on the coffers of the state.

The main problem I have with the public sector unions is that they care about their own members and have no solidarity with the many thousands of unemployed former private-sector workers in the country. A genuine union would be trying to unite workers and not just protect its own members interests.

Drumpot

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The main problem I have with the public sector unions is that they care about their own members and have no solidarity with the many thousands of unemployed former private-sector workers in the country. A genuine union would be trying to unite workers and not just protect its own members interests.

I think you confuse unions with the what a real Irish government should represent. .

People forget that Unions only purpose is to get what they can for their members at the expense of anybody who isnt paying their subscriptions .

I keep saying it to a friend who works within the public service that he will end up paying dearly because the Unions are protecting the inneficiencies within the public service (croke park agreement didnt go far enough and this isnt even being properly implemented) and upper level incompetent management unable/unwilling to bring in the reforms needed to make the cuts required. I actually think an efficiently run public service (by people with an entrepeneurial backround) would seriously reduce the need for many paycuts to the majority.

While everybody within the public service are happy to defend EVERYTHING (that includes the wastage, overpaid, unjustified perks), they will ironically end up paying for these very failings. .

Drumpot

waster81 wrote: »

Our deficit is €18 billion, how much of this is down to the increase in social welfare payments, and the reduction in tax take due unemployed as well from inxome tax and indirect taxes.

Banks have faced no consequences, if an ordinary company had failed to such an extent they would have had major job losses, reduced wages.
The only people who have suffered have been the bank shareholders and greater society

But the banks have done a good media job, on focusing the blame for our crisis on the public sector. They have more influence in this country than they should, but its much easier to rant and rave about the public sector wages, payments to social welfare etc

Ok. Firstly I agree completely about your point on banks not facing any consequences but everything else is wrong. .

Banks havent had to do "a media job" on the public service that has done a good job on its own, painting itself as some sort of victim in everything that has happened. The Unions have created great resentment publically by constantly speaking of their members pain, ignoring the fact that most people in Ireland have felt as much and in many cases even worse then their members. Accountability shouldnt just matter in the private sector. What about the department of finance that has given awful advice to our governments ? What about the wastages within the public service and complete lack of accountability for poor decision making ? What about the publically elected officials within the councels who rezoned too much land for building ? What about the financial regulator ? What about benchmarking that is and was a part of the problem despite the self vested interests defending it ?

The public service has ignored wastage within itself and it continues to defend old perks that are simply unjustifiable and then it crys foul when everybody has to take a hit to meet the required cuts. Sure benchmarking that was all about "being part of the boom", that was another failed policy of FF that is a huge part of the reason this country has such a deficit each year. Why not benchmarking downwards all about "being part of the depression" ? Dont hear the unions suggest this!! For people who condemn the way bankers flooded the country with money and jobs, they were very happy to get pay increases on the back of the tiger created . . Its just a completely hypocritical stance and is consistant with the constant views shown by the Public service unions - Throw out populist rhetoric and ignore anything that highlights its falacy.

As for the 18Bil being down to increase in social welfare . . Well yes, over 350,000 private sector workers lost their jobs and are now having to claim it. What is funny is that money that goes to welfare recipients goes right back into the economy within a month of it being received then money that could potentially be cut back in the public service paybill. Yet once again, the unions ignore this when they talk about how reducing the public sector paybill will take so much out of the economy (in truth it means the majority of public servants will simply save less). The simple point on this is that reducing social welfare payments take money out the economy much quicker then making the required cuts in the public service costs . . Neither the Unions or lilly livered government will publically admit this . .

Public sector bashing is as ridiculous a statement as "burning the bondholders". Burning bondholders is investors taking a hit on their investments that is simply part and parcel of investment, yet its made sound so barbaric! Public sector bashing is a statement used by those who are incapable of discussing cuts required within the public service. We cant get loans from the markets, so we have to cut our costs. The biggest costs are our welfare and public service costs. . Its funny how its not attacking the social welfare when cuts are made, but its sacroligious to cut our other big expense . .:rolleyes:

Dont expect too many thanks for this post, the truth isnt usually popular in this forum . .

waster81

Did i say banks did a media job on the public service? No
You seem to want to bring the argument around to public service, really shocking!!

Did i say the 18 billion was all down to social welfare? NO

You really should read the post.

Yeah private sector workers were really happy to take the money and jobs and pay increases on the back of the celtic, remember it wasnt public sector workers that just received increases

Banks have done a good job within media of not taking their share of the blame, just compare this to the media attention banks receive in the UK.

Have you seen any bankers, developers within the banks been held accountable?

what about wastages in the private sector, its easier to see wastages in the public sector, its easy to get information on the public sector much harder to find out whats going on in private companies, what we have all bank employees doing these days od only knows

Private sector workers were more than happy to take and accept the huge bonuses received on the back of ludicrous decisions taken

The point is if banks hadnt poured money into construction industry we wouldnt have faced such large job losses

Sure isnt hindsight a wonderful thin, you were complainging about benchmarking at the time, NO because private sector workers were doing extremely well at the time

Or did you think, you know ill give up my job, ill join the public service contribute something to my country rather than money, maybe try and influence a child's education, make someone better in hospital, i have looked at their pay, safe contracts etc.
Or will i stay in my private sector job and take the money, ill pay my taxes etc but thats it.
Yeah you had a choice and now that you feel someone is doing better than you, you simply complain

If we had have only half of the job losses we would have had extra taxes coming in and less costs, making our defcicit much lower

You actually seem to be suggesting that the amount we are paying on social welfare is a good thing because we are getting the money back!

So what do you want do you want, is it to cut the public service bill by the €18 billion? Cut their wages to the minimum wage?

Drumpot

waster81 wrote: »

Did i say banks did a media job on the public service? No
You seem to want to bring the argument around to public service, really shocking!!

Did i say the 18 billion was all down to social welfare? NO

You really should read the post.

Yeah private sector workers were really happy to take the money and jobs and pay increases on the back of the celtic, remember it wasnt public sector workers that just received increases

Banks have done a good job within media of not taking their share of the blame, just compare this to the media attention banks receive in the UK.

Have you seen any bankers, developers within the banks been held accountable?

what about wastages in the private sector, its easier to see wastages in the public sector, its easy to get information on the public sector much harder to find out whats going on in private companies, what we have all bank employees doing these days od only knows

Private sector workers were more than happy to take and accept the huge bonuses received on the back of ludicrous decisions taken

The point is if banks hadnt poured money into construction industry we wouldnt have faced such large job losses

Sure isnt hindsight a wonderful thin, you were complainging about benchmarking at the time, NO because private sector workers were doing extremely well at the time

Or did you think, you know ill give up my job, ill join the public service contribute something to my country rather than money, maybe try and influence a child's education, make someone better in hospital, i have looked at their pay, safe contracts etc.
Or will i stay in my private sector job and take the money, ill pay my taxes etc but thats it.
Yeah you had a choice and now that you feel someone is doing better than you, you simply complain

If we had have only half of the job losses we would have had extra taxes coming in and less costs, making our defcicit much lower

You actually seem to be suggesting that the amount we are paying on social welfare is a good thing because we are getting the money back!

So what do you want do you want, is it to cut the public service bill by the €18 billion? Cut their wages to the minimum wage?

You did suggest that the banks tried to shift attention from them to the public sevice:

But the banks have done a good media job, on focusing the blame for our crisis on the public sector.

By ignoring the biggest cost to the state (public sector cost), you simply tried to keep the focus on other area's . Like our government (hit everybody else first), this comment kept the focus off the vested interests that love to throw the focus of attention anywhere else but themselves. .

Our deficit is €18 billion, how much of this is down to the increase in social welfare payments, and the reduction in tax take due unemployed as well from inxome tax and indirect taxes.

Your post simply highlights your inability to post objectively on this topic. . I never said the 18bil could be gotten from cuts to public service pay, yet you insinuate it simply because it allows you to ignore proper debate. . You brought up accountability in banks (as if I disagreed with you), when I actually highlighted in my post that this was the one point I agreed with!

A private company will cut its costs to what it can afford. Please dont quote the banks as representitive of the entire private sector because they dont and even within them, most of the employees end up on the wrong side of any "perks", "benefits" or undeserved payrises. If their is wastage within a private company , it costs the company, not the taxpayers. This seems to be a point lost on people like yourself, the taxpayer is your employer and the government are your manager. The union partnership agreement was a disaster from the start and it helped create a culture of entitlement that prevents proper reform desperatley needed in the public service.

Ok, if you choose to ignore everything else I say, then answer these . .

How was benchmarking funded ? Hint:

Much of it was down to taxes made from a certain boom . .

So Benchmarking was justified by their members as "sharing in the Boom" . . Why should there not be reverse benchmarking when things go the other way ?


Also this pathetic myth that everybody in the private sector didnt want a public service job in the good years is so sadly misguided its hilarious . . Most people within the private sector would of taken a job in the public service (even in the good years) if they could get it. You need simply only look at the average industry wage (where the majority are on the lower end scale) to see which lower paid employee's on each sector fair. .

I applied for several public service jobs when I left college (with a Business Management degree) back in 2001 when the good times were just getting going and it was near impossible to get even a junior position in administration. Over 300 people were doing aptitude tests in croke park (they were the people that made it that far) for 15 positions. I applied for other public service positions to no avail.

That aside, what has that got to do with the country's ability to afford to fund the paybill ? People within the public service have their job security (dont dare mention people on contracts!) and a secure pension. That is what they signed up for and that is what they will continue to have if they open their eyes and accept that they are going to have to take some pain in their pockets because the benchmarking that FF applied to the public service was funded by the property boom of the dastardly private sector . . In truth, if any public service defendant wants to have any credibility and take the moral highground in relation to blaming the private sector, then they should be willing to lose all the increases they got because of the success of the private sector . Only then can you say that you "didnt benefit from the boom" !

waster81

Well what can I say if you couldnt manage to get a job in the not getting public sector then that was down to you not been able to get the requisite results in the tests.

I wouldnt go over the top to get say it was impossible to get a job in the public service, more down to you not be able to get enough marks in the aptitude test

Nice to see you were able to a job in the private sector!

Public sector bill has been cut by the amount received in bench marking and some more

Dont let the private sector take the moral high ground we pay you wages nonsense.

I can use the banks as an example of private sector company, they are an example of what private sector is all about, making money, dont worry about how they make money as long as they make it

As an example of a private company they havent cut their costs to their employees, they have come to the state to bail them out

lol the success of the private sector yeah good one, all it proved was that a bank can continue to take ludicrous decisions in the full knowledge that the state will bail it out

Yes the private sector has served this country well

Drumpot

waster81 wrote: »

Well what can I say if you couldnt manage to get a job in the not getting public sector then that was down to you not been able to get the requisite results in the tests.

I wouldnt go over the top to get say it was impossible to get a job in the public service, more down to you not be able to get enough marks in the aptitude test

Nice to see you were able to a job in the private sector!

Public sector bill has been cut by the amount received in bench marking and some more

Dont let the private sector take the moral high ground we pay you wages nonsense.

I can use the banks as an example of private sector company, they are an example of what private sector is all about, making money, dont worry about how they make money as long as they make it

As an example of a private company they havent cut their costs to their employees, they have come to the state to bail them out

lol the success of the private sector yeah good one, all it proved was that a bank can continue to take ludicrous decisions in the full knowledge that the state will bail it out

Yes the private sector has served this country well

Deary me ..

Please show me the figures that show that the public service paybill was reduced by the amount received through benchmarking ! That would make for interesting reading . .

The very fact that you think banks represents the wider private sector simply highlights your (mis)understanding of the private sector.

I am not sure why you needed to say your last sentance. Once again, you seem to think that I am excusing banks or bad practises within the private sector. Perhaps its your default setting when you cant actually debate specific points ? Just throw out random populist statements that I didnt even say!

Once again, you fail to see the point of the post. I wasnt giving out that I couldnt get a job, I was saying that there was plenty of interest in public service jobs, but you cant give everybody a job in the public service. Even during the boom there were hundreds applying for few positions. Stop trying to take the focus off the point. The point being that the statement that most people within the private sector during the boom didnt want public service jobs, was ridiculous. You suggested this when you said:

Or did you think, you know ill give up my job, ill join the public service contribute something to my country rather than money, maybe try and influence a child's education, make someone better in hospital, i have looked at their pay, safe contracts etc.
Or will i stay in my private sector job and take the money, ill pay my taxes etc but thats it.
Yeah you had a choice and now that you feel someone is doing better than you, you simply complain

waster81

you really should read what you say might give yourself a good laugh

Drumpot

waster81 wrote: »

you really should read what you say might give yourself a good laugh

Perhaps or it might make me cry. .

You would think I would learn that its quicker banging your head against a wall then thinking about banging your head against a wall while replying to some of the posts here . .

Nolanger

femur61 wrote: »

But also i think the unions had a hand in the ruination as well.

Blame the shareholders too. I was at an AGM almost a decade back for the Irish Nationwide and people there were criticising Mr Fingleton for not getting into the property lending business early enough to increase their profilts!

waster81

Drumpot wrote: »

Perhaps or it might make me cry. .

You would think I would learn that its quicker banging your head against a wall then thinking about banging your head against a wall while replying to some of the posts here . .

dont bang it too hard might knock some sense into it!