Two days to giving away €718 million!

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to laugh at anyone here calling anyone 2006 Anglo bond buyers, "GAMBLERS!!!!!". Seriously, how the fuk could that be considered a gamble in 2006?

Anyways, I'd like for it not to be paid.. It's complete BS. The mutual funds that own these bonds have large portfolios and should be required to take the hit when their investments sink into the ground.. It won't kill their funds ie. our pension funds so it should be let happen.
If you think it's the mega rich sitting with millions of dollars in hedge funds who are the bondholders of Anglo, think again. From being a hedge fund accountant for 2 years, it's rare to see any bond sitting on a hedge fund. Much too safe. It's the pension funds etc. that are meant to be safe investments that buy these. ie. Us.

That is the thing people dont/wont understand. In 2006 a senior bond in a aaa rated bank wasn't a gamble, so those investing in it would have been pension funds and the like.

I wonder would people's opinion change if all these bond holders were credit unions and not paying would force them to close.

RachaelVO

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is the thing people dont/wont understand. In 2006 a senior bond in a aaa rated bank wasn't a gamble, so those investing in it would have been pension funds and the like.

I wonder would people's opinion change if all these bond holders were credit unions and not paying would force them to close.

Some of them ARE Credit Unions, some are Councils/Corporations, Private Pension Funds and various others. Not just Irish, but there are Irish interests in paying the bondholders.

I'm of the opinion that they should be the only ones paid back, but I'm not sure that can be done.

MungBean

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

Scofflaw is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual spoofer who constantly sucks up to corporate interests.

Regardless of your opinion of him he did clarify the situation somewhat. Also made a great point in his last post in that thread about things being open to debate but not simplistic claims that the government dont have the balls to do it. The situation isnt that simple.

Perhaps you could try forming an actual argument though instead of dismissing a lot of relevant discussion based on the fact you dont like who's saying it.

Fratton Fred

RachaelVO wrote: »

Some of them ARE Credit Unions, some are Councils/Corporations, Private Pension Funds and various others. Not just Irish, but there are Irish interests in paying the bondholders.

I'm of the opinion that they should be the only ones paid back, but I'm not sure that can be done.

If the government gave preferential treatment to Irish institutions the EU would go ballistic. Only the French can get away with that sort of thing.

Vicxas

I love the fact that FF are calling on them to stop, when its them that caused it.... FFS

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to laugh at anyone here calling anyone 2006 Anglo bond buyers, "GAMBLERS!!!!!". Seriously, how the fuk could that be considered a gamble in 2006?

It may have been a "dead cert", but it was still a gamble.

If you back a horse at 1/20 and it loses, tough sh*t.

Would this happen if there was a general election due next week? :rolleyes:

No surprise at FG doing this as they are different side of the same coin as FF, and sadly Labour don't surprise me either. Some people will say and do anything to get into power. :mad:

Scanlas The 2nd

Vicxas wrote: »

I love the fact that FF are calling on them to stop, when its them that caused it.... FFS

That's why it's called politics, it's all about saying what has to be said for your own power whether it is true or not.

Grassroots_FF

MungBean wrote: »

Regardless of your opinion of him he did clarify the situation somewhat. Also made a great point in his last post in that thread about things being open to debate but not simplistic claims that the government dont have the balls to do it. The situation isnt that simple.

Perhaps you could try forming an actual argument though instead of dismissing a lot of relevant discussion based on the fact you dont like who's saying it.

He didn't clafify anything but rather told blatant lies. According to Scofflaw and some of the other far right loons, it is perfectly acceptable for ordinary Irish people to pay for the losses of private banks. He also claims that bondhondlers are not gamblers. The people being give over €700million today are what is called subordinated bondholders. They deliberately accepted extra risk to make more money. Their risky investment failed and now the ordinary people of Ireland are being made pay for it through extra taxes and austerity. Some right wing loon on that thread even claimed that "€700million is nothing and sure we might aswell give it away to the richest people in the world,the real problem in Ireland is people on the dole".

Another lie Scofflaw uses in an attempt to justify his devotation to the international banking cartel is that paying off these failed gamblers will benifit everyone as it will restore confidence in the markets. Anyone who knows anything about Irish bond yields and the international markets knows that this is complete fiction. In fact the complete opposite is true. By making the Irish State liable for the bad debts of banks Irish bond yields have shot up ie The markets don't want to lend to us as they believe the Irish state has become saddled with too much debt. This bank and bondholder bailout is nothing but a robbery of the Irish people. It has already cost us our soverigenty but that is not enough for the right wing loons. The people must suffer to ensure Roman Abramovich and Co. are paid off in full. If the Irish people fully understood what was happening they would be massive protests on the streets everyday. Instead we have liars telling us it's in our interest to hand over all our money to bondholders and accept austerity in return. The agenda of these people on the (far right)politics forum must be questioned.

RachaelVO

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the government gave preferential treatment to Irish institutions the EU would go ballistic. Only the French can get away with that sort of thing.

We should start talking to them in Irish so, gesticulate widely and throw a major tantrum... that'll sort em

ROFLcopter

Biggins wrote: »

We are just two days away before we give away €718 million (see here).

Now I know there are supposed good reasons for doing this but somehow it don't sit right with me.
Honestly, would anyone be willing to say why we should be going ahead with this massive payout?
It just seems madness at first and second glance - is there someone that can say there is justifiable reason/benefit to our nation to be doing this in two days?

I'm still not convinced they are doing the right thing!

I don't know what the big deal is with this bond, we're throwing money at the banks every week, it must be because it got some air time on the news.

Black Monday this week, in Black September, a €1.465bn senior unsecured bond paid by BoI.

Today is the day, €1.5bn AIB senior unsecured paid. A day of infamy, Minister Noonan and Taoiseach Kenny should be utterly ashamed, should be shamed also, shown up for their total lack of spine, their lack of leadership, their lack of good governance.

Black September, 2011, €4.3bn in bank bonds maturing and being paid, €1.5bn this coming Friday alone, senior unsecured AIB.

We paid another bond today, a mere €15m, EBS senior unsecured, a real tiddler due next Wed, €2.9m, BoI senior unsecured

€18,000,000 bond 'matured' and paid by Irish Life & Permanent today - that's us, people, paid by us.

Next bond to 'mature' is next Monday, €200m, but two to keep an eye on are on the 15th and 26th of Sep, €1.5bn (AIB) and €1.465bn (BoI)

€444,260,916 this month, €4,299,705,436 to be paid in September, which will be just when our kids will be heading back to schools that have their SNA chopped for want of a few million.

I am advised by the bank that €1.06 billion of unsecured unguaranteed senior debt in Anglo Irish Bank has matured and been repaid so far this year.
Note:SO FAR THIS YEAR to ONE bank, the zombie Anglo-Irish.

bondwatch


The other payments got no news time, why is this one getting air time?

Zebra3

ROFLcopter wrote: »

The other payments got no news time, why is this one getting air time?

You're asking the wrong question.

It should be why did the other payments not get news?

ROFLcopter

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're asking the wrong question.

It should be why did the other payments not get news?

Exactly, why didn't they, this happens every month, and the government are going to cripple the taxpayer with a tiny 4 billion in the budget, we're pissing that at the banks all the time.

They should've let most of the banks go bust and absorbed the accounts into two main banks.

I can't take this government seriously anymore, they're a joke, in fairness it wouldn't have mattered who got in, Peter Sutherland seems to be calling the shots anyhow.

Orando Broom

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Who are the bondholders exactly???

Roman Abramovich is one. Ireland paid for Torres, Romeu, Luiz, Vilas Boas and Mata. They should be all taken to Ireland (a reverse St. Patrick) given passports and citizenship and put into the Ireland set up.

They can't leave until they've brought the World Cup to Ireland.

ROFLcopter

Orando Broom wrote: »

Roman Abramovich is one. Ireland paid for Torres, Romeu, Luiz, Vilas Boas and Mata. They should be all taken to Ireland (a reverse St. Patrick) given passports and citizenship and put into the Ireland set up.

They can't leave until they've brought the World Cup to Ireland.

I agree with this. And you're right we did pay for them

Seaneh

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

Scofflaw is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual spoofer who constantly sucks up to corporate interests.

Hilarious post coming from a FF member!

ejmaztec

On a lighter note, some crowd trying to make money from the Euro crisis, and epic-failing:

Giant US broker falls victim to euro zone debt crisis

BARRY O'HALLORAN and DEREK SCALLY in Berlin

THE HUGE US brokerage firm MF Global became the country’s largest casualty of the euro zone crisis yesterday when it filed for bankruptcy protection after making big bets on the European sovereign debt market.
The futures broker, run by Jon Corzine, an ex-chief executive of Goldman Sachs and former governor of New Jersey, admitted defeat in its attempt to stay in business after an 11th-hour deal to sell itself to Interactive Brokers Group fell apart.
It is the largest failure of a US financial company since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, and the seventh largest US bankruptcy by value in US history.
MF’s collapse will add to market jitters ahead of Thursday’s G20 economic summit in Cannes and came as the Greek government also added to uncertainty by announcing a referendum on its deeply unpopular EU bailout, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported that the euro zone is facing near zero growth next year.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1101/1224306845905.html?via=mr

bnt

cosanostra wrote: »

At what point do the consequences become too much from paying these bonds? people emigrating,people committing suicide because the governments bled them dry, when people cant put food on their table so as to pay these bondholders or when people are dying because of cutbacks in our health service

Remember, we're talking (mostly) about lenders outside Ireland, who don't see or care about such things. If you have money, you want to invest it, and bonds are just one form of investment available to people or countries with lots of money. Not only do you want your money back in the end, you also want to make more money in the process.

The interest rate is (supposed to be) a reflection of the risk involved in making a loan. Ireland is still seen as very risky, as you can see on this chart of the Irish 10 year government bond: it's currently at 8.21%, but hit 14% back in July. In other words, if lenders are going to lend the Irish government money for 10 years, they expect 8.21% interest per annum. Compounded over 10 years, that's 220% i.e. a bond of $100 billion would be expected to yield $220 billion over ten years.

Lenders are not charities. If an investment won't give them a good return, they'll find another one. And you wonder why gold prices spiked in the last couple of years? Gold is where investors go when everything else looks too risky.

Seaneh

bnt wrote: »

And you wonder why gold prices spiked in the last couple of years? Gold is where investors go when everything else looks too risky.

And the arse is going to fall out of that bubble soon too, and when it does, it will be bloody hilarious.

Orando Broom

Seaneh wrote: »

And the arse is going to fall out of that bubble soon too, and when it does, it will be bloody hilarious.

Yep. Gold is being kept high because the reserves held by countries haven't been put on the market. If Italy decided to start selling it's gold reserves the arse would fall out of the market.

MungBean

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

He didn't clafify anything but rather told blatant lies. According to Scofflaw and some of the other far right loons, it is perfectly acceptable for ordinary Irish people to pay for the losses of private banks. He also claims that bondhondlers are not gamblers. The people being give over €700million today are what is called subordinated bondholders. They deliberately accepted extra risk to make more money. Their risky investment failed and now the ordinary people of Ireland are being made pay for it through extra taxes and austerity. Some right wing loon on that thread even claimed that "€700million is nothing and sure we might aswell give it away to the richest people in the world,the real problem in Ireland is people on the dole".

Senior bonds are as good as deposits its not like shares where they gamble on the future, you cant call it a gamble as such. Please show me where they are shown to be subordinate bondholders as I havent seen it, I have only ever seen them referred to as senior bondholders. But regardless they both stand to recover full or partial losses from the sale of assets. You also seem to be confusing having an opinion with telling lies. Perhaps you could also show me what Scofflaw said and how it was lies?

Another lie Scofflaw uses in an attempt to justify his devotation to the international banking cartel is that paying off these failed gamblers will benifit everyone as it will restore confidence in the markets. Anyone who knows anything about Irish bond yields and the international markets knows that this is complete fiction. In fact the complete opposite is true. By making the Irish State liable for the bad debts of banks Irish bond yields have shot up ie The markets don't want to lend to us as they believe the Irish state has become saddled with too much debt. This bank and bondholder bailout is nothing but a robbery of the Irish people. It has already cost us our soverigenty but that is not enough for the right wing loons. The people must suffer to ensure Roman Abramovich and Co. are paid off in full. If the Irish people fully understood what was happening they would be massive protests on the streets everyday. Instead we have liars telling us it's in our interest to hand over all our money to bondholders and accept austerity in return. The agenda of these people on the (far right)politics forum must be questioned.

Once again calling someones opinion as lies. Maybe if you could link relevant information to show how Scofflaw lied. I agree with you on some points (such as markets not lending because of the debt) but you cant just call everyone liars and thieves, act like a child and think its going to help. We are already up to out necks in debt, the bank should never have been bailed out, we should never have had to pay for bondholders bad debts. But we did, and we arte left with an asset recovery bank selling assets and winding up its business. Part of that process is repaying its debt and this 700 million is debt owed to senior bondholders. Its not nice and ideally we should be in this position but its not a give away, its how these things operate.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're asking the wrong question.

It should be why did the other payments not get news?

Heh. All those quotes are from newspapers.

You have to look at the news to see it

Grassroots_FF

MungBean wrote: »

Senior bonds are as good as deposits its not like shares where they gamble on the future, you cant call it a gamble as such. Please show me where they are shown to be subordinate bondholders as I havent seen it, I have only ever seen them referred to as senior bondholders. But regardless they both stand to recover full or partial losses from the sale of assets. You also seem to be confusing having an opinion with telling lies. Perhaps you could also show me what Scofflaw said and how it was lies?




Once again calling someones opinion as lies. Maybe if you could link relevant information to show how Scofflaw lied. I agree with you on some points (such as markets not lending because of the debt) but you cant just call everyone liars and thieves, act like a child and think its going to help. We are already up to out necks in debt, the bank should never have been bailed out, we should never have had to pay for bondholders bad debts. But we did, and we arte left with an asset recovery bank selling assets and winding up its business. Part of that process is repaying its debt and this 700 million is debt owed to senior bondholders. Its not nice and ideally we should be in this position but its not a give away, its how these things operate.

So to summarise your post you're very much against the bank bailout but actually you support it. Is that correct?

Scofflaw

The people being give over €700million today are what is called subordinated bondholders. They deliberately accepted extra risk to make more money.

Eh, no. They're senior bondholders - unsecured senior bondholders, but rather definitely not 'subordinate':

The Government is being urged not to allow the repayment of a $1bn (€715m) Anglo Irish Bank bond.

The payment of the bond to unsecured, unguaranteed bondholders is due tomorrow at noon.

Fianna Fáil is calling on Taoiseach Enda Kenny to contact the new president of the ECB Mario Draghi in a last-ditch effort to stop the repayment.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/govt-urged-to-halt-payment-of-unsecured-anglo-bond-526594.html#ixzz1cTOtJUJf

Nice if people could get the basic facts right...so I kindly won't comment on the 'far-right' bit.

amused,
Scofflaw

super_furry

This whole thing just goes to show that it's the financial markets that control things. We're doing this just so we don't piss them off, force up the yield on our bonds and prevent ourselves to go back to the markets next year.

Temptamperu

We shouldnt be bailing out any private business, If they made dodgey bets why should we foot the bill.
We dont pay for gamblers who are down on their luck why should we bpay for these fools?

MungBean

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

So to summarise your post you're very much against the bank bailout but actually you support it. Is that correct?

I'm against it, I dont support it in the least. Trying to understand why its being paid is not supporting it. I'd be very much left wing in my views, I think private interests should be left wanting in this situation and the state profiting 100% from whatever assets the banks have to sell with the money used for the benefit of the people rather than private interests.

But its not as simple as they gambled they lose. The state actually bought the losses when re-capitalising the banks. The state is a shareholder in a business that has debts to pay. That business is paying its debts by selling its assets, its not state money its Anglo's money and Anglo has debts.

I'm not supporting it but I can understand the reasoning of it.

Grassroots_FF

MungBean wrote: »

I'm against it, I dont support it in the least. Trying to understand why its being paid is not supporting it. I'd be very much left wing in my views, I think private interests should be left wanting in this situation and the state profiting 100% from whatever assets the banks have to sell with the money used for the benefit of the people rather than private interests.

But its not as simple as they gambled they lose. The state actually bought the losses when re-capitalising the banks. The state is a shareholder in a business that has debts to pay. That business is paying its debts by selling its assets, its not state money its Anglo's money and Anglo has debts.

I'm not supporting it but I can understand the reasoning of it.

That makes absolutely no sense. Anglos has run up losses of more than €30billion and you are now trying to claim it is a viable business paying it's own way by selling assets. Get real. I know it's confusing that our so called political representatives are traitors and cowards that are making the people suffer to look after the rich but that is the fact of the situation. This is a pro-rich, pro-corporate and pro-banker government we have, just like the last one was.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eh, no. They're senior bondholders - unsecured senior bondholders, but rather definitely not 'subordinate':



Nice if people could get the basic facts right...so I kindly won't comment on the 'far-right' bit.

amused,
Scofflaw

Oh they are only secured bondholders eh? That's ok then. We better pay them all the money they lost to restore confidence in the Irish banking system, even if that means shutting schools and hospitals.

And yes your econonic views are far right. Just because you like dogs or appreciate a walk in the park doesn't change that.

MungBean

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense. Anglos has run up losses of more than €30billion and you are now trying to claim it is a viable business paying it's own way by selling assets. Get real. I know it's confusing that our so called political representatives are traitors and cowards that are making the people suffer to look after the rich but that is the fact of the situation. This is a pro-rich, pro-corporate and pro-banker government we have, just like the last one was.

It might make sense if you actually read it rather than glancing at it and making up your own story. I think your the one who needs to get real and stop living in fantasy land where everyone you dont like or disagree with is a liar, traitor and coward. Time to grow up methinks.

Grassroots_FF

MungBean wrote: »

It might make sense if you actually read it rather than glancing at it and making up your own story. I think your the one who needs to get real and stop living in fantasy land where everyone you dont like or disagree with is a liar, traitor and coward. Time to grow up methinks.

No you clearly said Anglo is paying it's debts by selling it's assets which is total fiction. We are paying for their debts.

MungBean

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

No you clearly said Anglo is paying it's debts by selling it's assets which is total fiction. We are paying for their debts.

The 700 million is a matured senior bond being paid back with the proceeds of the sale of Anglos American assets, thats not fiction thats whats happening. This is what would have happened form the start, if it was allowed to go to the wall and sell its assets to cover its debts instead of the state footing the bill with a blank cheque.

Theres no way possible anyone could actually read what I wrote and think I was calling Anglo a viable business. My point is that although I think the bondholders should be burnt in favour of recouping the money for the taxpayer the bank is off the states tit and operating as a bank should be operating. Paying its own debts with its own money.

Too little too late I know but its not a case of the government being incompetent and handing away money to keep the rich rich. Its part of the plan to get us out of this hole whether right or wrong its a plan to set us back on the right path and not a plot to fleece us of more money.