Ireland to demand debt relief?

Amberman

"We carried an undue burden for protecting the European banking system from contagion," said finance minister Michael Noonan. "We are looking at ways to reduce the debt. We would like to see our European colleagues address this in a positive manner. Wherever there is a reckless borrower, there is also a reckless lender," he said, alluding to German, French, British and Dutch banks."

Maybe our politicians have finally woken up to how strong their bargaining position really is?

Full article here.

cyberhog

I would say this is more about trying to placate the citizenry before the Budget than being genuinely prepared to confront our "European colleagues" on debt relief.

"This is a Government that talks the talk but does not walk the walk. It is clear now that Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour have sold taxpayers down the river and condemned us to debt for generations to come."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ecb-defeats-noonan-over-burning-the-bondholders-2880148.html

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

"We carried an undue burden for protecting the European banking system from contagion," said finance minister Michael Noonan. "We are looking at ways to reduce the debt. We would like to see our European colleagues address this in a positive manner. Wherever there is a reckless borrower, there is also a reckless lender," he said, alluding to German, French, British and Dutch banks."

Maybe our politicians have finally woken up to how strong their bargaining position really is?

Full article here.

Or maybe we actually have a bargaining position now that we didn't have earlier...since what's he's basically saying is that Ireland would only pass a referendum on treaty changes if heavily bribed.

Nothing if not traditional, I guess!

Also, a somewhat less self-adulatory and conspiracy-oriented version of the story is available here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/23/eurozone-crisis-ireland-debt-repayments

amused,
Scofflaw

mistermouse

I'd imagine that this is all the usual political noises in the run in to a severe budget. The Government are most likely paying vast amounts to advisors to advise on good spin to put out beforehand.

It has been seriously obvious that political spinning has been taking place since before the election and is being seriously ratcheted up in the run up to the budget. The current Govt knew their position before the election, know it now and are just playing leaks etc like never before.

The electorate is getting more savvy than ever before but sadly there is no credible alternative in our current political system. Why there is not a new party getting set up and ready to go defies belief.

That does not excuse our current Govts disgraceful efforts to whitewash us with spin or failure to stand up for Ireland. We were told if they got a decisive majority they's be in a position to stand up.

I was under the opinion rather wrongly that we elected a government to represent us at home and in Europe, not to get what we have, them representing Germany here.

We'll see them and their next referendum at the ballot box. That referendum should get a kick in the b*lls like Europe gave us.

Scofflaw

mistermouse wrote: »

We'll see them and their next referendum at the ballot box. That referendum should get a kick in the b*lls like Europe gave us.

I don't think we can afford to lend Europe €50bn, that being the only 'kick in the balls' we've received. Instead, it looks as if we hope they'll be giving us more money, or at least letting us off some of what we owe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think we can afford to lend Europe €50bn, that being the only 'kick in the balls' we've received. Instead, it looks as if we hope they'll be giving us more money, or at least letting us off some of what we owe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We? Who is the "we" you're referring to?

Are you suggesting that the bulk of these bailouts funds ended up in the pockets of Irish people or in Irish government hands...or even in Irish banks hands?

Benny_Cake

mistermouse wrote: »

I'd imagine that this is all the usual political noises in the run in to a severe budget. The Government are most likely paying vast amounts to advisors to advise on good spin to put out beforehand.

It has been seriously obvious that political spinning has been taking place since before the election and is being seriously ratcheted up in the run up to the budget. The current Govt knew their position before the election, know it now and are just playing leaks etc like never before.

The electorate is getting more savvy than ever before but sadly there is no credible alternative in our current political system. Why there is not a new party getting set up and ready to go defies belief.

That does not excuse our current Govts disgraceful efforts to whitewash us with spin or failure to stand up for Ireland. We were told if they got a decisive majority they's be in a position to stand up.

I was under the opinion rather wrongly that we elected a government to represent us at home and in Europe, not to get what we have, them representing Germany here.

We'll see them and their next referendum at the ballot box. That referendum should get a kick in the b*lls like Europe gave us.

In all fairness,if the government can use the fact that we would have to hold a referendum to improve our position why wouldn't that be a good thing?

dixiefly

mistermouse wrote: »

I'd imagine that this is all the usual political noises in the run in to a severe budget. The Government are most likely paying vast amounts to advisors to advise on good spin to put out beforehand.

It has been seriously obvious that political spinning has been taking place since before the election and is being seriously ratcheted up in the run up to the budget. The current Govt knew their position before the election, know it now and are just playing leaks etc like never before.

Paying vast amounts of advisers? Maybe one or two but VAST amounts? Are you sure? Any justification for this? Would it be any more than Berties government?

Also "seriously obvious that political spinning has been taking place since before the election"?. Of course they were campaigning but I wouldnt have called it political spinning! maybe you just have a poor choice of words.

Look, this is a new government that has had to deal with completely unprecedent debts of almost any government in the developed world and unprecedented in our history. The legacy left by Bertie & Cowen gives this government an almost impossible task to balance the books and really horrible decisions must be faced. I dont agree with a lot of what they are doing but I understand their motives and, given the context. I dont have a problem with what you are terming as spinning.

If I had been in Noonan's position I hopefully would have burned the unsecured Anglo bondholders, I would also have put a maximum Public Sector wage €200k with all salaries dropped by up to 20% but reduce the drop on lower wages. I would also have dropped the PS pensions to max €90k immediately. I would also put in a 20% redundancy programme across P Sector/ councils etc but still hire in areas like IT, teaching, front line health - we need to be employing people in their 20's or the demographic will be totally off balance.

sarumite

Amberman wrote: »

We? Who is the "we" you're referring to?

Are you suggesting that the bulk of these bailouts funds ended up in the pockets of Irish people or in Irish government hands...or even in Irish banks hands?

My understanding is that the bulk of the bailout went to pay for the running of the country.

Amberman

To be frank...anyone who knows how to operate a calculator knows this isn't spin.

Irelands debts are far too big to be paid back in the current "bailout" framework with the global economic outlook and the ratcheting down of global growth rates...and this is backward looking.

It doesn't account for the increasing fractures in the monetary and political systems of not just Europe, but China and the US as well.

Haircuts are coming to Ireland...or else defaults are.

It's just a matter of which, when and on who's terms.

Amberman

sarumite wrote: »

My understanding is that the bulk of the bailout went to pay for the running of the country.

I'm afraid not. It mainly passed right through Ireland's hands on the way to service the debts owed to foreign financial institutions to protect the European banking system.

The bailout was, in large part, a foreign financial institution bailout...along these lines...though the number are sure to be different.

Just as in Greece, a large amount went to Irish banks as well, but that was so that foreign banks wouldn't lose out.

Kudos to the PR job they did that ordinary people don't realise how badly they are getting FECKED right where it hurts most. 81% of Greek bailout money finds it way to foreign shores eventually.

Scofflaw

sarumite wrote: »

My understanding is that the bulk of the bailout went to pay for the running of the country.

You're quite correct - I'm going to quote at some length from Seamus Coffey, because it's worth realising that the concentration on banks and bank-related debt is essentially a red herring:

The Medium Term Fiscal Statement released last Friday projects that the general government deficit in 2012 will be €13.6 billion or 8.6% of GDP. This is the number we have to reduce to less than 3% of GDP by 2015, which is what measures to be introduced over the next few Budgets will be targeting.

The simple question here is: how much of the €13.6 billion deficit is due to the banks?

So far we have poured about €62.5 billion into AIB, BOI, EBS, PTSB, Anglo and INBS and all of this has been accounted for in the general government deficits of the last three years. No further payments are planned so there are no direct payments to the banks in the €13.6 billion deficit for 2012.

What about providing this €62.5 billion? Surely there are huge interest costs associated with providing this money to the banks.

Of this money €17 billion came from the destruction of the savings we had built up in the National Pension Reserve Fund. This money was not borrowed so their are no interest costs. There is the loss of income that this money could have earned but this loss has no bearing on the general government balance.

Of the remaining €45.5 billion almost two-thirds is accounted for by the Promissory Notes given to Anglo and INBS in 2010. This €30.6 billion was included in full in the €49 billion general government deficit in 2010 and due to some complications in their construction there will be no interest paid on these notes in 2012.

In 2011, a cash payment of €3.1 billion was made on the Promissory Notes. This will not affect the debt as the €3.1 billion simply changes from being a Promissory Note debt to a cash debt. There is now around €28 billion of Promissory Notes outstanding but this will have no impact on the €13.6 billion general government deficit for 2012.

That means we are down to the final €18 billion. This is split between €11 billion paid from the Exchequer and €7 billion taken as part of the EU/IMF programme. The money from the Exchequer includes €4 billion given to Anglo in 2009 and €3 billion paid into the NPRF in the same year to help fund the initial recapitalisation of AIB and BOI. It also includes the €3 billion payment made on the Promissory Notes this year. It is safe to assume that all of this money was borrowed (or at least increased our borrowing by the same total which amounts to the same thing).

The €7 billion from the EU/IMF was used to fund the State’s €17 billion contribution to the €24 billion recapitalisation of the banks this year. The other €7 billion came from haircuts to subordinated bondholders, some minor asset disposals and some private sector investment in BOI.

We will assume that the average interest rate on this €18 billion is around 4.5%. At this interest rate, borrowings of €18 billion would require an annual interest payment of around €800 million. This interest cost does form part of the general government balance for 2012.

If we do a simple counterfactual and magic away the €62.5 billion we have pumped into the banks, the projected deficit for 2012 would fall from €13.6 billion to €12.8 billion or 8.0% of GDP. Eliminating the effect of the bank payments would knock 5% off the deficit; 95% of next year’s deficit is not related to the bank payments.

There are many claims that the expenditure cuts and tax increases are being introduced to “bail out the banks”, “repay bondholders” and the like. The changes are being introduced to bring about the necessary reduction in the budget deficit. There may be disagreements about the make-up of the changes but 95% of the problem there are trying to address is not as a result of the money we have handed over to the banks.

Source: http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

Now, the remaining question is "in whose interest is it to claim that the 5% is really the 95%?" - and the answer is, fairly obviously, anyone who opposes the cuts being made to their particular slice of the government spending pie.

Well, that and those people who once they've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick, never let go of it again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

There are some incredibly misleading statements in this piece...

So far we have poured about €62.5 billion into AIB, BOI, EBS, PTSB, Anglo and INBS and all of this has been accounted for in the general government deficits of the last three years. No further payments are planned so there are no direct payments to the banks in the €13.6 billion deficit for 2012.

This assumes that there is no further deterioration in the assets that the banks hold as tier one...which is clearly ridiculous. One things which almost all banks are suffering from are losses and upcoming losses on their sovereign debt.

What about providing this €62.5 billion? Surely there are huge interest costs associated with providing this money to the banks.

Of this money €17 billion came from the destruction of the savings we had built up in the National Pension Reserve Fund. This money was not borrowed so their are no interest costs. There is the loss of income that this money could have earned but this loss has no bearing on the general government balance.

What about the replacement of funded liabilities with unfunded liabilities? Any first year actuarial student could tell you that these costs haven't dissappeared, they have simply been deferred...and at a loss of income of 6% of 18bn, you're looking at over a billion...a year. Thats 40 billion in income and the initial 17bn in capital over the next 20 years or 14250 euros for every man, woman and child in Ireland.

To imply this was a close to costless exercise is stupifying.

Of the remaining €45.5 billion almost two-thirds is accounted for by the Promissory Notes given to Anglo and INBS in 2010. This €30.6 billion was included in full in the €49 billion general government deficit in 2010 and due to some complications in their construction there will be no interest paid on these notes in 2012.

NO interest, thats good. Interest without the ability to repay capital is called debt serfdom.

But later the author goes on to say that only 5% in 2012 goes to the banks. Ofcourse it looks like that! The vault has already been raided as the author rightly points out!

In 2011, a cash payment of €3.1 billion was made on the Promissory Notes. This will not affect the debt as the €3.1 billion simply changes from being a Promissory Note debt to a cash debt.

And this matters why? The charge for the promissory note was taken when the note was written. It would have been added to that years deficit figures. Not pointing that out and making this look like a free lunch is highly misleading for non sophisticated readers.

There is now around €28 billion of Promissory Notes outstanding but this will have no impact on the €13.6 billion general government deficit for 2012.

Same point as above. The promises to pay are being turned into actual payments. He's right that they are both the same in accounting terms, but fails to point out that these were already charged to the deficit in previous years...very sloppy and misleading.

95% of next year’s deficit is not related to the bank payments.

Clearly, as these huge costs were booked before 2011 as he has already stated and which any first year accounting student would see.

There are many claims that the expenditure cuts and tax increases are being introduced to “bail out the banks”, “repay bondholders and the like. The changes are being introduced to bring about the necessary reduction in the budget deficit.

He leaves out one small detail. The budget deficit is where it is because of saving the European banking system, as Noonan rightly points out! Again, incredibly misleading for the average reader.

The most glaring misstatement is how we turned funded liabilities into completely unfunded liabilities which will act as a huge drag for years.

Simply shocking.

Amberman

Double post deleted

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

There are some incredibly misleading statements in this piece...



This assumes that there is no further deterioration in the assets that the banks hold as tier one...which is clearly ridiculous. One things which almost all banks are suffering from are losses and upcoming losses on their sovereign debt.



What about the replacement of funded liabilities with unfunded liabilities? Any first year actuarial student could tell you that these costs haven't dissappeared, they have simply been deferred...and at a loss of income of 6% of 18bn, you're looking at over a billion...a year. Thats 40 billion in income and the initial 17bn in capital over the next 20 years or 14250 euros for every man, woman and child in Ireland.

To imply this was a close to costless exercise is stupifying.



NO interest, thats good. Interest without the ability to repay capital is called debt serfdom.

But later the author goes on to say that only 5% in 2012 goes to the banks. Ofcourse it looks like that! The vault has already been raided as the author rightly points out!



And this matters why? The charge for the promissory note was taken when the note was written. It would have been added to that years deficit figures. Not pointing that out and making this look like a free lunch is highly misleading for non sophisticated readers.



Same point as above. The promises to pay are being turned into actual payments. He's right that they are both the same in accounting terms, but fails to point out that these were already charged to the deficit in previous years...very sloppy and misleading.



Clearly, as these huge costs were booked before 2011 as he has already stated and which any first year accounting student would see.



He leaves out one small detail. The budget deficit is where it is because of saving the European banking system, as Noonan rightly points out! Again, incredibly misleading for the average reader.

The most glaring misstatement is how we turned funded liabilities into completely unfunded liabilities which will act as a huge drag for years.

Simply shocking.

It's about the components of the deficit, not of the debt. You probably need to read it a few times bearing that in mind this time.

If you like, I can post his breakdown of the debt as well. I don't think you will like, though, since it shows the same thing, which is that the banks aren't the major component of our debt either.

Perhaps you could post another pretty graphic by way of 'refutation', even if it has to be about Greece again.

regards,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's about the components of the deficit, not of the debt. You probably need to read it a few times bearing that in mind this time.

If you like, I can post his breakdown of the debt as well. I don't think you will like, though, since it shows the same thing, which is that the banks aren't the major component of our debt either.

Perhaps you could post another pretty graphic by way of 'refutation', even if it has to be about Greece again.

regards,
Scofflaw

Why don't you start a new thread on the deficit and we can discuss it there.

This thread is about the debt, not the deficit...regardless of what you think your article is about, or whether or not you can see a connection between the two.

Moderately

Amberman

big b

So now our Minister for Finance wants to play the "blame others & forgive us our debts" card too?
They shouldn't have lent to us, they should've known we'd screw up?

Our banks looked very healthy indeed during the boom, and doubtless passed any reasonable scrutiny to secure finance.

It's no more feasible than any mortgage holders claim that the bank shouldn't have given him that loan that he showed he could afford at the time.
A rather sad & pathetic ploy, imho. But I guess the consensus will lean towards never mind the ethics, just grab the money.

Amberman

big b wrote: »

So now our Minister for Finance wants to play the "blame others & forgive us our debts" card too?
They shouldn't have lent to us, they should've known we'd screw up?

Our banks looked very healthy indeed during the boom, and doubtless passed any reasonable scrutiny to secure finance.

It's no more feasible than any mortgage holders claim that the bank shouldn't have given him that loan that he showed he could afford at the time.
A rather sad & pathetic ploy, imho. But I guess the consensus will lean towards never mind the ethics, just grab the money.

Where are the ethics in privatising banking profits and socialising losses?

Capitalism with failure is like Christianity without Hell.

big b

Amberman wrote: »

Where are the ethics in privatising banking profits and socialising losses?

Where are the ethics in asking others to pay your bills because you were foolish?

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Why don't you start a new thread on the deficit and we can discuss it there.

This thread is about the debt, not the deficit...regardless of what you think your article is about, or whether or not you can see a connection between the two.

Moderately

Amberman

The point at hand, though is the cost of the bank debt as part of the deficit. That's the connection, which does, I admit, seem relatively visible to me.

Still, I'll try and make it more obvious - given we borrowed the money to put into the banks, then unless we plan on paying back that debt - which we don't, we plan on rolling it over in the usual way, and waiting on inflation and economic growth to work their magic - the only real issue is the cost of that borrowed money to the exchequer. That the cost of the money borrowed to fund the banks is only 5% of the deficit means that the problems we have to solve, and the reasons for the austerity, are largely unrelated to the banks.

In a nutshell, then, the reason the proportion of the deficit that relates to the bank bailouts is important is because it tells us whether the reasons for the current austerity are (a) banks; or (b) other government spending. And the answer according to the figures given is banks 5%, other government spending 95%.

So, again, claiming that the austerity is the result of the bank bailouts is either simply incorrect or politically motivated spin. If you want to argue that the government shouldn't cut your favourite service/hospital/barracks, then you want to claim that the cuts themselves are fundamentally unjustified, and that if only the government "grew some balls" and rejected the bank debt there'd be no reason for the cuts to happen. Unfortunately, that's apparently not the case - even if we repudiated the whole bank debt, the difference it would make to our deficit is really quite minimal.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

Amberman

big b wrote: »

Where are the ethics in asking others to pay your bills because you were foolish?

It happens all the time. Its called bankrupcy and its a primary reason why interest is charged on loans and dead beats get charged more than good borrowers.

Lenders are supposed to adjust for risk. When lenders are stupid, they should pay a price. That's called capitalism.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

The point at hand, though is the cost of the bank debt as part of the deficit. That's the connection, which does, I admit, seem relatively visible to me.

Still, I'll try and make it more obvious - given we borrowed the money to put into the banks, then unless we plan on paying back that debt - which we don't, we plan on rolling it over in the usual way, and waiting on inflation and economic growth to work their magic - the only real issue is the cost of that borrowed money to the exchequer. That the cost of the money borrowed to fund the banks is only 5% of the deficit means that the problems we have to solve, and the reasons for the austerity, are largely unrelated to the banks.

In a nutshell, then, the reason the proportion of the deficit that relates to the bank bailouts is important is because it tells us whether the reasons for the current austerity are (a) banks; or (b) other government spending. And the answer according to the figures given is banks 5%, other government spending 95%.

So, again, claiming that the austerity is the result of the bank bailouts is either simply incorrect or politically motivated spin. If you want to argue that the government shouldn't cut your favourite service/hospital/barracks, then you want to claim that the cuts themselves are fundamentally unjustified, and that if only the government "grew some balls" and rejected the bank debt there'd be no reason for the cuts to happen. Unfortunately, that's apparently not the case - even if we repudiated the whole bank debt, the difference it would make to our deficit is really quite minimal.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

Look, you're ignoring a whole host of factors and are pulling the thread off topic. Start a new thread and I promise I'll contribute there.

EDIT: And you're making some assumptions which I'd like to challenge as well. This topic does deserve a thread of its own and I would like to debate you on the benign scenario you are painting and the connections.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Look, you're ignoring a whole host of factors and are pulling the thread off topic. Start a new thread and I promise I'll contribute there.

EDIT: And you're making some assumptions which I'd like to challenge as well. This topic does deserve a thread of its own and I would like to debate you on the benign scenario you are painting and the connections.

You've made the claim that the bailout money went straight through Ireland and back out again, courtesy of the bank bailouts. You haven't offered any evidence for that claim bar an infographic about Greece (which has a completely different problem to us), and I'm challenging you on it:

Amberman wrote:

I'm afraid not. It mainly passed right through Ireland's hands on the way to service the debts owed to foreign financial institutions to protect the European banking system.

The bailout was, in large part, a foreign financial institution bailout...along these lines...though the number are sure to be different.

Just as in Greece, a large amount went to Irish banks as well, but that was so that foreign banks wouldn't lose out.

Kudos to the PR job they did that ordinary people don't realise how badly they are getting FECKED right where it hurts most. 81% of Greek bailout money finds it way to foreign shores eventually.

Rather than claiming my evidence that your position is false is off-topic, why not put forward the evidence for your position?

cordially,
Scofflaw

the culture of deference

Amberman wrote: »

Look, you're ignoring a whole host of factors and are pulling the thread off topic. Start a new thread and I promise I'll contribute there.

EDIT: And you're making some assumptions which I'd like to challenge as well. This topic does deserve a thread of its own and I would like to debate you on the benign scenario you are painting and the connections.

Hi Amber. I agree with you. Lenihan was a patsy for EC. Not only have we signed our fisheries, oil gas exploration rights away, now we have also depleted our pension fund, the only cash we actually held.

I can only imagine what this country could have been like without the weak willed leadership and ignorant public.

Where do you see Ireland in 5 years.

Turnstyle

This is just swings and roundabouts, our current deficit may not be largely due to servicing bank debts but that is a weak argument IMO It would never have happened on such a large scale in the first place if a more capitalist approach were taken.. opportunities to reverse some of the damage are constantly missed by the current govt. Spending cuts in certain areas should be brought in without doubt as Ireland simply has to become cheaper to stand any chance of a stronger future and the waste by the PS bodies is just sickening. If our reserves were being spent on the funding of job creation, economic stimulation, winding back our deficit slowly as opposed to zombie banks we would be far better off.
Ireland has every right to chase some debt forgiveness, we are taking it up the a*e to help save European banks and the Euro and getting very little back... trying to up our Corporation Tax and take one of the few things we have left..
German banks poured money into the wild west IFSC and Irish banks at a time when only a mad man would buy shares in them based on their publicly available financials, take a hit like the rest of us

Scofflaw

Turnstyle wrote: »

This is just swings and roundabouts, our current deficit may not be largely due to servicing bank debts but that is a weak argument IMO It would never have happened on such a large scale in the first place if a more capitalist approach were taken.. opportunities to reverse some of the damage are constantly missed by the current govt. Spending cuts in certain areas should be brought in without doubt as Ireland simply has to become cheaper to stand any chance of a stronger future and the waste by the PS bodies is just sickening. If our reserves were being spent on the funding of job creation, economic stimulation, winding back our deficit slowly as opposed to zombie banks we would be far better off.
Ireland has every right to chase some debt forgiveness, we are taking it up the a*e to help save European banks and the Euro and getting very little back... trying to up our Corporation Tax and take one of the few things we have left..
German banks poured money into the wild west IFSC and Irish banks at a time when only a mad man would buy shares in them based on their publicly available financials, take a hit like the rest of us

The IFSC has nothing to do with our bank bailouts, and nobody has actually produced evidence for the claim that German banks poured money into Irish ones. There isn't anything to back up the story bar wishful thinking and the need to make the Germans look like villains so that we'll feel better taking their money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Arianna_26

Amberman wrote: »

"We carried an undue burden for protecting the European banking system from contagion," said finance minister Michael Noonan. "We are looking at ways to reduce the debt. We would like to see our European colleagues address this in a positive manner. Wherever there is a reckless borrower, there is also a reckless lender," he said, alluding to German, French, British and Dutch banks."

Maybe our politicians have finally woken up to how strong their bargaining position really is?

Full article here.

I admire your optimism OP. I had to laugh at your title though - Ireland to demand - it'd be a first.

Turnstyle

Scofflaw wrote: »

The IFSC has nothing to do with our bank bailouts, and nobody has actually produced evidence for the claim that German banks poured money into Irish ones. There isn't anything to back up the story bar wishful thinking and the need to make the Germans look like villains so that we'll feel better taking their money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hypo Bank... Sorry I do not have any actual bank statements to put before you but its common enough knowledge to be fair... IFSC may not have direct links as such but the activities there by German financial institutions say to me that they knew full well what Ireland is like. I have no wish to make Germany look like a villain, I like Germany but if you think they have our interests at heart you are seriously mistaken

Tipp Man

Some people with their heads firmly buried in the sand in this thread and in the country in general it would seem

Fact is we have a huge budget deficit - we need to make massive spending cuts - that is going to lead to reduced government services

What is beyond doubt is that we would have to make these cuts regardless of any banking situation. I said on here last year that the IMF would be in Ireland even if the banking crisis never happened and i stand by that. We are spending way more than we are bringing in as a nation. The revenue side is not going to increase dramatically in the next few year so the expenditure side has to be tackled.

the only debate should be on where the tackling should take place

So people toughen up and stop whinging like a bunch of schoolgirls because regardless of Germany, banks, the EUR, whatever else people like to blame, we are in for government expenditure contraction for the foreseeable future and the reason is THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY

Scofflaw

Turnstyle wrote: »

Hypo Bank... Sorry I do not have any actual bank statements to put before you but its common enough knowledge to be fair... IFSC may not have direct links as such but the activities there by German financial institutions say to me that they knew full well what Ireland is like. I have no wish to make Germany look like a villain, I like Germany but if you think they have our interests at heart you are seriously mistaken

And the thing about them "knowing full well what Ireland was like" appears to have led to a position where the German banks didn't put their money into Irish banks.

Sure, they're no angels, and they happily siphoned their money through the IFSC, but one of the points about the IFSC is that it has nothing to do with Ireland's domestic economy. It's a pipeline for German (and other) banks to pipe money into loans in their own non-Irish markets, so no matter how much money they poured through the IFSC, it has nothing to do with our problems at all. It went through Ireland without touching the sides, which is the point of the IFSC.

Unfortunately, the money they poured through the IFSC shows up in the BIS stats, which is what every ignorant journalist uses to show that "Ireland" and/or "Irish banks" owe Germany a lot of money. Ireland doesn't, and Irish banks don't - the IFSC banks do, but that's nothing to do with the Irish tax payer.

If you want to know what the Irish banks owed to other eurozone banks, I suggest the Irish Central Bank aggregated balance sheets for the Irish banks, which show minimal eurozone involvement in our banks. "Common knowledge", alas, tends to be a lot more common than it is knowledge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Turnstyle wrote: »

Hypo Bank... Sorry I do not have any actual bank statements to put before you but its common enough knowledge to be fair... IFSC may not have direct links as such but the activities there by German financial institutions say to me that they knew full well what Ireland is like. I have no wish to make Germany look like a villain, I like Germany but if you think they have our interests at heart you are seriously mistaken

The Irish taxpayer didn't bail out Hypo Bank, the German one did (and for a sum greater than the total amount of the bailout for all our banks combined). Hypo Bank ended up needing a bailout in large part due to DePfa Bank Ltd - an Irish company - operating out of the IFSC which it took over roughly a year before Hypo needed to be bailed out by the German taxpayer.

View

Amberman wrote: »

We? Who is the "we" you're referring to?

Are you suggesting that the bulk of these bailouts funds ended up in the pockets of Irish people or in Irish government hands...or even in Irish banks hands?

The IMF/EU 85 Billion bailout package had the monies ear-marked for spending as follows:

1) 50 Billion to fund our current account spending gap while we adjusted our state's finance (although we were under no obligation to borrow it if we did the job faster),
2) 35 Billion for "the banks" (of which half was to come from the NPRF; the other half was a contingency fund in case it wasn't enough for the banks and most of which we have not had to actually use to date).

Hence the clear majority of the package was put in place to fund our desire to continue spending 5 Euro for every 3 Euro we were collecting in taxes.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

The IMF/EU 85 Billion bailout package had the monies ear-marked for spending as follows:

1) 50 Billion to fund our current account spending gap while we adjusted our state's finance (although we were under no obligation to borrow it if we did the job faster),
2) 35 Billion for "the banks" (of which half was to come from the NPRF; the other half was a contingency fund in case it wasn't enough for the banks and most of which we have not had to actually use to date).

Hence the clear majority of the package was put in place to fund our desire to continue spending 5 Euro for every 3 Euro we were collecting in taxes.

Nor did we even use the majority of the money available to borrow through the part of the bailout set aside for the banks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather than claiming my evidence that your position is false is off-topic, why not put forward the evidence for your position?

cordially,
Scofflaw

OK...another pretty graphic for you from the ICB, Barcap etc Via FT Alphaville.



Don't forget when you read this that you also have to factor in the 7bn raised by selling off state assets and the 17bn from the National Pension fund...and a few other things.

Without these, the national debt would today have grown from 65bn in 2009 to an eye-watering 109bn in 2010.

Non-Irish investors are external investors in Irish debt, like insurance companies, pension funds, bond funds, hedge funds and distressed debt specialists...many of whom have direct or very strong ties to the banking system...people like Pimco etc.

In 2010, external financial institutions and investors, owned 85% of Irish debt...pretty much the same as in Greece.

At 4.5% interest, the debt servicing costs (without the outliers, as there are some in each direction, both up and down but they make the sums difficult to follow), is 3.5bn a year to service that debt.

Had we let the banks swing and not bailed them out in the first place to save the European banking system, as the part in the original article from the Telegraph alluding to German, Dutch, British and French banks alluded to, the debt servicing costs (interest rate) would arguably have been lower and the total debt would also have been lower, and we would be a richer country to the tune of 25bn in assets which could produce income to pay for part of the debt servicing costs. We'd have had to rebuild the banking system, but Iceland did that pretty fast which resulted in a very painful, but short recession from which they are now recovering (without banks bailout induced national debts to worry about).

Now, we have a hugely greater debt and a far bigger budget deficit due to a decreased asset base, an increased liability side and an increased cost of carry for those liabilities...to support a debt which is 85% held outside our shores by foreign financial institutions who did stupid things.

liammur

Amberman wrote: »

"We carried an undue burden for protecting the European banking system from contagion," said finance minister Michael Noonan. "We are looking at ways to reduce the debt. We would like to see our European colleagues address this in a positive manner. Wherever there is a reckless borrower, there is also a reckless lender," he said, alluding to German, French, British and Dutch banks."

Maybe our politicians have finally woken up to how strong their bargaining position really is?

Full article here.

Complete nonsense from a minister who is totally out of his depth. How many more ex school teachers will end up in key jobs?
We guaranteed Anglo, we took the tens of billions on our shoulders, we're not Iceland, remember that one. No one asked or even wanted us to guarantee the Anglos of this world.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

OK...another pretty graphic for you from the ICB, Barcap etc Via FT Alphaville.



Don't forget when you read this that you also have to factor in the 7bn raised by selling off state assets and the 17bn from the National Pension fund...and a few other things.

Without these, the national debt would today have grown from 65bn in 2009 to an eye-watering 109bn in 2010.

Non-Irish investors are external investors in Irish debt, like insurance companies, pension funds, bond funds, hedge funds and distressed debt specialists...many of whom have direct or very strong ties to the banking system...people like Pimco etc.

In 2010, external financial institutions and investors, owned 85% of Irish debt...pretty much the same as in Greece.

At 4.5% interest, the debt servicing costs (without the outliers, as there are some in each direction, both up and down but they make the sums difficult to follow), is 3.5bn a year to service that debt.

Had we let the banks swing and not bailed them out in the first place to save the European banking system, as the part in the original article from the Telegraph alluding to German, Dutch, British and French banks alluded to, the debt servicing costs (interest rate) would arguably have been lower and the total debt would also have been lower, and we would be a richer country to the tune of 25bn in assets which could produce income to pay for part of the debt servicing costs. We'd have had to rebuild the banking system, but Iceland did that pretty fast which resulted in a very painful, but short recession from which they are now recovering (without banks bailout induced national debts to worry about).

Now, we have a hugely greater debt and a far bigger budget deficit due to a decreased asset base, an increased liability side and an increased cost of carry for those liabilities...to support a debt which is 85% held outside our shores by foreign financial institutions who did stupid things.

Did you just use the ownership of Irish sovereign debt to try to demonstrate that eurozone banks were involved in risky lending to our banks?

I suggest you think through what you're trying to prove!

cordially,
Scofflaw

WalterMitty

Please write off a huge chunk of our debt Merkel and Sarkozy so we can pay ourselves highest wages in Europe. And can you leave that 150billion in emergency liquidity in our banks as well please and throw in a few other things and we might vote for any new treaty.

anymore

Amberman wrote: »

"We carried an undue burden for protecting the European banking system from contagion," said finance minister Michael Noonan. "We are looking at ways to reduce the debt. We would like to see our European colleagues address this in a positive manner. Wherever there is a reckless borrower, there is also a reckless lender," he said, alluding to German, French, British and Dutch banks."

Maybe our politicians have finally woken up to how strong their bargaining position really is?

Full article here.

I wonder who Noonan's adviser is ? Willie O Dea ?

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Did you just use the ownership of Irish sovereign debt to try to demonstrate that eurozone banks were involved in risky lending to our banks?

I suggest you think through what you're trying to prove!

cordially,
Scofflaw

No...because stupid lending wasn't simply concentrated to Eurozone banks. There are many other actors here, both inside and outside the Eurozone...banking and non banking.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any haircuts will be limited to Eurozone banks if they are applied, though they are large actors in what has transpired.

Sovereign debt is what we are talking about here...and haircuts/forgiveness will be applied to global holders of Irish debt...its a global market. The IMF for example is a global institution. As one of, if not the largest creditor, the Eurozone institutions have a very large part to play.

If Ireland gets debt forgiveness, Pimco, other US based bonds funds will also take haircuts unless they have dumped their exposure, but this bailout was in a large part to shield the Eurozone banking institutions and prevent contagion.

You understand that, right?

By its very definition....if there wasn't risky lending to Irish banks by foreign financial institutions, the Irish bank debt wouldn't have ended up as Irish sovereign debt...would it?

Do you see why?

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nor did we even use the majority of the money available to borrow through the part of the bailout set aside for the banks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yet.

We almost certainly will when (continually increasing) losses on tier one capital are marked to market and decreasing growth rates and continued deleveraging play their part fully inside and outside Ireland.

The banking system is still geared at almost unprecedented levels in Europe. @26 to 1 in Europe versus 13/1 in the US.

This has to be corrected and is being corrected through banks shrinking. Just look what the Swiss did recently to their banks. 19% tier one capital requirements!

The result is that jobs are being lost, assets are being sold, risk and leverage is being scaled back etc. This has a negative impact on GDP growth.

You made a point earlier about inflation and growth playing their part on the reducing budget deficit.

Both are huge (and almost certainly wrong) assumptions in the massive debt deflation we continue to experience on a global level which still have a very long way to go.

With debt deleveraging, asset prices falling (i.e. sovereign debt yields rising) and below inflation or negative growth, budget deficits tend to rise, not fall.

Liam Byrne

big b wrote: »

Amberman wrote: »

Where are the ethics in privatising banking profits and socialising losses?

Where are the ethics in asking others to pay your bills because you were foolish?

WHOSE bills ? I wasn't foolish, and I'm sick to death of that lazy generalisation being used to let con-men and gamblers off scot-free while screwing me with unwarranted and unjustified extra taxes.

:mad:

big b

Liam Byrne wrote: »

WHOSE bills ? I wasn't foolish, and I'm sick to death of that lazy generalisation being used to let con-men and gamblers off scot-free while screwing me with unwarranted and unjustified extra taxes.

:mad:

err....the countrys', Liam.

I don't have kids, but I still pay tax towards childrens allowance etc etc...

BTW, I was alluding to foolish banking practices & inept government, rather than individual irresponsibility. Unfortunately, we're all going to be paying for them all.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

No...because stupid lending wasn't simply concentrated to Eurozone banks. There are many other actors here, both inside and outside the Eurozone...banking and non banking.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any haircuts will be limited to Eurozone banks if they are applied, though they are large actors in what has transpired.

Sovereign debt is what we are talking about here...and haircuts/forgiveness will be applied to global holders of Irish debt...its a global market. The IMF for example is a global institution. As one of, if not the largest creditor, the Eurozone institutions have a very large part to play.

If Ireland gets debt forgiveness, Pimco, other US based bonds funds will also take haircuts unless they have dumped their exposure, but this bailout was in a large part to shield the Eurozone banking institutions and prevent contagion.

You understand that, right?

No, because it hasn't been shown to be the case, by you or anyone else. Nor, to be honest, do I think you understand what you're talking about - either that, or you're so keen to prove your original case, and that case so lacks evidence, that you're trying to use the evidence for one issue to prove something entirely different.

You seem to be trying to claim that because a debt default would involve sovereign debt as well as banking debt - which is not a given in any sense, there's virtually nobody even here calling for a default on Ireland's sovereign debt - and that eurozone investors hold Irish sovereign debt this somehow proves that the lending to the Irish banks was (a) by eurozone banks; and (b) was risky.

Amberman wrote: »

By its very definition....if there wasn't risky lending to Irish banks by foreign financial institutions, the Irish bank debt wouldn't have ended up as Irish sovereign debt...would it?

Do you see why?

Not even slightly...and, again, I think you're frankly tying yourself up in knots there.

Had all the debt of the Irish banks been held by Mick Mullins of 21 Rathgar Avenue, as opposed to the nefarious foreigners you're concerned about, the Irish State would still have conflated bank and sovereign debt if they had chosen to issue the same guarantee. And because the business model of the Irish banks was the problem, the guarantee would still have been as necessary as it was felt to be. And because the Irish government would still not have been regulating the banks properly, it would still have felt the guarantee to be both necessary and useful.

The question of where the debt of Irish banks was held was, in the final analysis, entirely irrelevant. The problem was the business model that had been adopted by Anglo - short-term borrowing on the wholesale debt markets being used to fund long-term lending. That's something that is demonstrated by the fact that the Irish banks are broken each to the extent that it followed that business model - from Anglo, which invented it, through AIB, which copied it heavily, to BOI, who only indulged in it to some extent.

You want this to be about the banks, and you want the banks to be about foreign banks, and you're basically wrong on both counts, but you won't change your opinion on it, I think. Nevertheless, the problem is mostly not the banks, and for that reason the government and everyone else actually responsible for trying to fix the problem is going to go on acting in ways that you find irrational, because they're trying to fix the very large problem that you won't even admit exists.

And that's a problem for all of us, because your attitude is reflected across the spectrum of the political opposition - what people want fixed isn't the real problem, so they're out on the streets shouting about the wrong thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

big b wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

WHOSE bills ? I wasn't foolish, and I'm sick to death of that lazy generalisation being used to let con-men and gamblers off scot-free while screwing me with unwarranted and unjustified extra taxes.

:mad:

err....the countrys', Liam.

I don't have kids, but I still pay tax towards childrens allowance etc etc...

BTW, I was alluding to foolish banking practices & inept government, rather than individual irresponsibility. Unfortunately, we're all going to be paying for them all.

I was replying to someone who mentioned "your", which indicates yet another twist in the abuse of language used to justify all the crap that FF & The Greens left us in.

And crap - for the record - that it seems the current shower have no interest in fixing or dealing with fairly and ethically.

Before you ask for more money - from Germany OR from US - they should be forced to stop wasting what they're getting.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or maybe we actually have a bargaining position now that we didn't have earlier...since what's he's basically saying is that Ireland would only pass a referendum on treaty changes if heavily bribed.

Nothing if not traditional, I guess!

amused,
Scofflaw

Ah yes lets be good little boys and girls and pay everyones debts back.
Shure we should be ashamed of ourselves and roll over and do exactly what herr merkel, madame sarkozy and mr bernanke want.

I believe if you are going to be screwed up the ass you might as well demand a hefty fee.
Nice to know you accept it freely. :rolleyes:

big b wrote: »

So now our Minister for Finance wants to play the "blame others & forgive us our debts" card too?
They shouldn't have lent to us, they should've known we'd screw up?

Ehh who the fook is this US sunshine ?

big b wrote: »

Our banks looked very healthy indeed during the boom, and doubtless passed any reasonable scrutiny to secure finance.

Yeah and NINJA mortgages packaged up in fancy derivatives looked great as well. :rolleyes:

big b wrote: »

It's no more feasible than any mortgage holders claim that the bank shouldn't have given him that loan that he showed he could afford at the time.
A rather sad & pathetic ploy, imho. But I guess the consensus will lean towards never mind the ethics, just grab the money.

Yeah we should just pay up.
Care to tell my two kids that they are going to be paying up for the next 30/40 years because it makes you and some others feel ethically superior ?

Ah but according to you I guess won't they be reward by their European masters who will think all the more of them. :rolleyes:

big b wrote: »

Where are the ethics in asking others to pay your bills because you were foolish?

Well the Irish taxpayers are left with the bills from the likes of sean quinn, simon kelly, johhny ronan, derek quinlan, etc, etc, etc.
Where are the ethics in that ?

Tipp Man wrote: »

Some people with their heads firmly buried in the sand in this thread and in the country in general it would seem

Fact is we have a huge budget deficit - we need to make massive spending cuts - that is going to lead to reduced government services

What is beyond doubt is that we would have to make these cuts regardless of any banking situation. I said on here last year that the IMF would be in Ireland even if the banking crisis never happened and i stand by that. We are spending way more than we are bringing in as a nation. The revenue side is not going to increase dramatically in the next few year so the expenditure side has to be tackled.

the only debate should be on where the tackling should take place

So people toughen up and stop whinging like a bunch of schoolgirls because regardless of Germany, banks, the EUR, whatever else people like to blame, we are in for government expenditure contraction for the foreseeable future and the reason is THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY

True the state is spending way too much, but we would never have had to capitulate and accept a stringent loan agreement (it was not a bailout it was a loan agreement), but for the fact upto 100 billion of private sector debt was turned into soverign debt which realistically prevented us from borrowing on the open markets for truly public spending needs.
Instead we have collosal mountain of debt that was inherited from badly run institutions and we have our entire indigenous banking system on financial lifesupport covered by the ordinary taxpayers.

But for banking meltdown we would still have nearly 20 billion in a pension reserve fund that could have been channelled back into the economy for investment rather than to pay off private sector gambling.

We would still have to cut our spending, but we would have had leeway to do so.
We might have a banking sector that could actually lend into the economy and we might have had lowr levels of personal debt which also would have had affect of higher consumer spending in the economy.

IMHO immediately claiming we would have had IMF in even if there was no banking meltown is making a big assumption we did not start getting our deficit down.

Scofflaw

IMHO immediately claiming we would have had IMF in even if there was no banking meltown is making a big assumption we did not start getting our deficit down.

Nope. You only need to look at the Exchequer deficit rather than the General Government Debt, since the latter is what contains the bank rescue costs. So we can in fact state, not assume, that we didn't start getting our deficit down - on the contrary, the Exchequer deficit went from €12.7bn in 2008 to €24.6bn in 2009 to €18.75bn in 2010. If you like, you can ignore the doubling from 2008 to 209 and claim the reduction from 2009 to 2010 as getting the budget deficit down, even though it was still 50% higher than 2008. I'm sure Fianna Fáil did so, if I recall correctly, so I'm sure you're entitled to do so too.

Also, of course, minor point - those three year's deficits are nearly bigger than the bank bailouts by themselves..

amused,
Scofflaw

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nope. You only need to look at the Exchequer deficit rather than the General Government Debt, since the latter is what contains the bank rescue costs. So we can in fact state, not assume, that we didn't start getting our deficit down - on the contrary, the Exchequer deficit went from €12.7bn in 2008 to €24.6bn in 2009 to €18.75bn in 2010. If you like, you can ignore the doubling from 2008 to 209 and claim the reduction from 2009 to 2010 as getting the budget deficit down, even though it was still 50% higher than 2008. I'm sure Fianna Fáil did so, if I recall correctly, so I'm sure you're entitled to do so too.

Also, of course, minor point - those three year's deficits are nearly bigger than the bank bailouts by themselves..

amused,
Scofflaw

I have in fact often argued that tougher budgets should have been brought in earlier (late 2007 definetly early to mid 2008) and that the ff government sat on it's ass for far too long and did not remedy fact that exchequer returns were drastically falling.
Instead they actually upped some spending and did nothing about the rest, all the while hoping things would turn around. :mad:

But can you claim that bond markets would have reacted as they did in 2010 if it were not for the collosal debts belonging to the banks we had taken on board ?
Thus the likelihood of the arrival of IMF/ECB/EU as they did would not have happened.
Without NAMA and bank recapitalisation we would still have to majorily tighten our pockets, but we would not have been humiliated into taking such stringent loans from the above.

BTW nice to see you are amused. :rolleyes:
Most of us don't find this topic to be that amusing.

Good loser

Germans look at the Irish as (many) Irish look at our banks.

Profligate, feckless and irresponsible.

We signed the contracts. Let's fulfill them.

waitingforBB

Rather simplistic.
The Germans (and the French and to a lesser extent the Americans) took a punt. They thought Ireland was a good bet and invested hugely...
If Ireland goes down, Germany and France have such huge exposure to Ireland that they will feel pain. Not just minor pain...but haeomorrage.

They see Ireland as reckless (I agree Ireland was), but they offered and sold the credit to fuel the same recklessness expecting a return.

Now its gone tits up, they cant afford Ireland to default. Hence the funding we are getting..They need to fund us to get a return on their profilgate gambles in Ireland...Ireland defaulting would screw germany, france, belgium and more...) So its a whole lot more palatable for these countries to agree 'bail outs' as it serves them in real terms...

Johnny tax payer in Ireland will fund the cost of borrowing to pay for the exposure of the other sovereign entities.

Alternative?? I dont know. I'm not a default advocate. But lets be clear. Irish default would effect other countries as much if not more than it would Ireland.

We need to pay, but what Germany think about us needs to be put in context. The lower rates that fuelled this whole mess were put in place to facilitate growth in Germany in the early part of the last decade. Now the 'bail out' to Ireland is effectively a bail out to repay higher tier loans...
Ireland lost the run of itself...

Its not about screwing bondholders at the end of the day....its about the exposure of german and french banks that the ECB dont want to fail....because several would...

Amberman

I said...

Sovereign debt is what we are talking about here...and haircuts/forgiveness will be applied to global holders of Irish debt...its a global market. The IMF for example is a global institution. As one of, if not the largest creditor, the Eurozone institutions have a very large part to play.

If Ireland gets debt forgiveness, Pimco, other US based bonds funds will also take haircuts unless they have dumped their exposure, but this bailout was in a large part to shield the Eurozone banking institutions and prevent contagion.

You understand that, right?

You replied...

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because it hasn't been shown to be the case, by you or anyone else.

OK...so would you say that if Ireland or Irish banks today stopped paying the interest on the debts, that would have a zero or negligible impact on the European financial system?

Good loser

waitingforBB wrote: »

Rather simplistic.
The Germans (and the French and to a lesser extent the Americans) took a punt. They thought Ireland was a good bet and invested hugely...
If Ireland goes down, Germany and France have such huge exposure to Ireland that they will feel pain. Not just minor pain...but haeomorrage.

They see Ireland as reckless (I agree Ireland was), but they offered and sold the credit to fuel the same recklessness expecting a return.

Now its gone tits up, they cant afford Ireland to default. Hence the funding we are getting..They need to fund us to get a return on their profilgate gambles in Ireland...Ireland defaulting would screw germany, france, belgium and more...) So its a whole lot more palatable for these countries to agree 'bail outs' as it serves them in real terms...

Johnny tax payer in Ireland will fund the cost of borrowing to pay for the exposure of the other sovereign entities.

Alternative?? I dont know. I'm not a default advocate. But lets be clear. Irish default would effect other countries as much if not more than it would Ireland.

We need to pay, but what Germany think about us needs to be put in context. The lower rates that fuelled this whole mess were put in place to facilitate growth in Germany in the early part of the last decade. Now the 'bail out' to Ireland is effectively a bail out to repay higher tier loans...
Ireland lost the run of itself...

Its not about screwing bondholders at the end of the day....its about the exposure of german and french banks that the ECB dont want to fail....because several would...

According to Scofflaw (many times) it's not the case that German and/or French banks lent significantly to Ireland.

That is they were not significant bondholders.

The Defra bank in the IFSC was bailed out by the Germans for €50 bn plus.
They didn't like that one bit apparently.