Anglo Tapes

Gringo180

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/credit-unions-the-only-anglo-bondholders-the-government-has-faced-down-1.1456844?page=2

Sickening :rolleyes:

tayto lover

Gringo180 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/credit-unions-the-only-anglo-bondholders-the-government-has-faced-down-1.1456844?page=2

Sickening :rolleyes:

Absolutely scandalous.
BUT the big-nob friends of the Govt would not be in the Credit Unions. They'd be in Anglo.

Gringo180

tayto lover wrote: »

Absolutely scandalous.
BUT the big-nob friends of the Govt would not be in the Credit Unions. They'd be in Anglo.

You honestly couldn't make it up, outrageous stuff!

tayto lover

Gringo180 wrote: »

You honestly couldn't make it up, outrageous stuff!

Utter contempt for us low-lifes.

golfwallah

What really gets the average citizen is the length of time taken and apparent unwillingness to bring those responsible to account over the Anglo bailout, particularly when tapes published by the Indo are in the possession of the authorities.

Makes you wonder why all the delay. Also throws lots of suspicion onto an apparently self-serving political system, where the most important priority seems to be to keep those elected to run the country in jobs and perks for as long as possible.

At least the Central Bank has been undergoing radical change – but I still wonder if it’s enough. Maybe constant change at the top (e.g. departure of Matthew Elderfield) will help to prevent over-comfortable relationships being built between the top echelons in banks and the supervisory authority. Some evidence of change in the Central Bank is available in the public domain, on their website, in statements by Patrick Honohan, etc.

Their new PRISM system (link below) has been designed to provide “a unified and much more systematic risk-based framework – making it easier for our supervisors to challenge the financial firms they regulate, judge the risks therein and take action to mitigate those risks – securing meaningful change on behalf of consumers, citizens and the State”.

I wonder!!

http://www.centralbank.ie/publications/Documents/PRISM%20Explained.pdf

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Who mentioned the Guarantee?

What are you on about?

astounded,
Cody Pomeray

Sorry, let me just check - you're under the impression, or are claiming, that these tapes are not being portrayed as of interest in large part because they relate to the bank guarantee?

That people's interest in these tapes is not, in fact, related to the bank guarantee decision?

That the Taoiseach - just to pick an example at random - has not suggested that there is a further inquiry into the bank guarantee decision on foot of these tapes?

Is there a reason you've decided to make this rather bold and original claim? On the basis, perhaps, that these tapes actually don't really tell us anything about the bank guarantee decision?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry, let me just check - you're under the impression, or are claiming, that these tapes are not being portrayed as of interest in large part because they relate to the bank guarantee?

These tapes say next to nothing about the Bank Guarantee. I haven't made any claims to that effect. Neither did I say anything about what simplications others might draw. I'm simply suggesting they depict the executives in a bad light, and reveal their behaviour to be impropr.

So what was your reference to?

Maybe you should check these things before rushing to judgement, by asking...

warm, slightly hungry, might go for lunch,
Cody Pomeray

thebman

Tapes today seem to suggest Anglo thought it should stop lending a year prior to bank guarantee so where was the regulator for that year where these things was obvious?

Where was the oversight?

People literally getting paid out of public purse to do nothing it seems.

Scortho

thebman wrote: »

Tapes today seem to suggest Anglo thought it should stop lending a year prior to bank guarantee so where was the regulator for that year where these things was obvious?

Where was the oversight?

People literally getting paid out of public purse to do nothing it seems.

This is a question that rarely pops up and is an important one.
We had a non existent regulator (blamed on the pds) who didn't seem to care about what the banks were up too.
He was content with collecting his wages every week for doing nothing.

People go on about how bad drumm and fingers were. At the end of the day they're bankers, and are going to do whatever they can to make the most money.
In reality people should be cursing mr neary and the people in his department paid to keep the bank in check but who were fast asleep.
Them and the auditors earnst and young are the ones who I lay most of the blame with.

Worztron

Found all tapes here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0NvtxgTt6I&list=PLfHB5-fia_haHx06yDTd1hl8FzyrZgNpY&index=1

Going Forward

I wonder if Anglo, the "risk taking" bank looked benevolently on the opposition party members of the time.

FF guys had the Ministerial jobs back then and could have gotten credit everywhere, the otothers might have been at the mercy of Anglo and the likes.

Might be one reason for the lack of enthusiasm for any bank inquiry.

Sand

It appears Sean Quinn is taking a case against the Central Bank and the DoF though I'm only seeing reports on the BBC website.

Sean Quinn's family are to take legal proceedings against the Irish Department of Finance and the Irish Central Bank.

The family is already involved in a £2.4bn euro (£2bn) case, against the former Anglo Irish Bank.

Initially the family had wanted both institutions joined to its action against Anglo.

The Quinns claim the Central Bank and Department of Finance were involved in a conspiracy with the bank.

On Thursday, Anglo's lawyers said they had no objections to separate legal action.

The Quinns claim the Central Bank and Department of Finance were aware that Anglo was lending money to cover the family's losses on share dealings in the bank.

The family claims the loans were part of a strategy to shore up Anglo's falling share price and should not be repaid.

After lawyers for Anglo said they had no objections to the Quinns taking the separate legal actions, the Quinn family said it was withdrawing its action to have the department of finance and the Central Bank added to its 2.4bn euros claim against the Anglo.

Mr Quinn, now bankrupt, was once Ireland's richest man.

An earlier court hearing had heard that between October 2005 and July 2007 Sean Quinn had built up a 28% stake in the former Anglo Irish Bank using contracts for difference, a financial instrument used to gamble on the bank share price.

When senior executives at the bank learnt of this "colossal interest" in September 2007, a system was set up whereby money was loaned to the Quinn group to support this gamble.

Share dealings
On Wednesday, lawyers for the Quinn family accused the Central Bank and the Irish department of finance of conspiring to get the former Anglo Irish Bank to commit an illegal act, then to commit that act, and thereby to engage in market abuse.

The Quinns claim that the financial regulator, who was based in the Central Bank, and the department of finance were aware that Anglo was secretly funding the family's ill-fated share dealings in the bank.

Lawyers for the family claim the regulators purpose was to protect Anglo's falling share price.

Three senior bank executives are due to go on trial next year charged in connection with the alleged market abuse.

The Quinn's full case against the bank will not be heard until the trial of former chairman Sean FitzPatrick and two other Anglo executives is completed.

Anglo Irish was the first Irish bank to seek a government bail out.

It ran into trouble after lending tens of billions of euros to property developers before the collapse of the property market.

A government rescue package eventually cost Irish taxpayers 30bn euros ($39.4bn; £25bn).

The bank was nationalised in 2009 and its affairs were taken over by the IBRC.

The banking crisis led to Ireland having to ask the International Monetary Fund and the European Union for a 85bn euro (£72.4bn) bail out in 2010.

At the height of his success, Sean Quinn was the 12th richest man in the UK and the richest in Ireland.

Seems to be no reports on the Irish print media. Essentially they are accusing the Central Bank and the DoF of conspiring with Anglo Irish to illegally support the market price of Anglo Irish. Given the level of knowledge the CB, regulator and the DoF had about the troubles in Anglo Irish and the "Green Jersey" strategy being employed its not beyond the realms of possibility that Sean Quinn could win that case.

From discussions on Vincent Brown tonight it also appears the Quinns have released a letter whereby Anglo Irish deliberately and knowingly lied to the Minister at the time, insisting in writing that they did not lend for CFDs when they knew they were lending to Sean Quinn for just that purpose. Additionally members of the DoF also knew that Anglo Irish was lending for CFDs - this is puzzling as if you assume those civil servants were briefing the Minister honestly, then surely Brian Lenihan would have caught the lie. Assuming they were briefing the Minister honestly of course.

emo72

Sand wrote: »

It appears Sean Quinn is taking a case against the Central Bank and the DoF though I'm only seeing reports on the BBC website.



Seems to be no reports on the Irish print media. Essentially they are accusing the Central Bank and the DoF of conspiring with Anglo Irish to illegally support the market price of Anglo Irish. Given the level of knowledge the CB, regulator and the DoF had about the troubles in Anglo Irish and the "Green Jersey" strategy being employed its not beyond the realms of possibility that Sean Quinn could win that case.

From discussions on Vincent Brown tonight it also appears the Quinns have released a letter whereby Anglo Irish deliberately and knowingly lied to the Minister at the time, insisting in writing that they did not lend for CFDs when they knew they were lending to Sean Quinn for just that purpose. Additionally members of the DoF also knew that Anglo Irish was lending for CFDs - this is puzzling as if you assume those civil servants were briefing the Minister honestly, then surely Brian Lenihan would have caught the lie. Assuming they were briefing the Minister honestly of course.

just watching this now. im surprised these letters made the light of day. the DOF names are out there now. in an age when nothing seems to shock me any more, i am truly shocked.

"Something very serious went on" said vincent. Also I cant believe how quiet this thread is?

hadit2here

Yes Vincent Browne show was very interesting. The released letter has not been discussed by mainstream media like RTE .... Seems to me like Dept Of Finance are up to their necks in it.... The Quinns have been taking the heat up until now.... the truth might actually come out

The letters were actually shown on the TV...

(I am NOT saying the Quinns are completlty innocent in all this)

nc6000

I think it is remarkable when you look at some of the issues that this Government have tackled that they continue to claim that they can't do anything about what went on in Anglo and that it's with the Gardai etc.

hadit2here

nc6000 wrote: »

I think it is remarkable when you look at some of the issues that this Government have tackled that they continue to claim that they can't do anything about what went on in Anglo and that it's with the Gardai etc.

i agree, but i think the reason is , that there people on the Dept Of Finance/Central bank who will come out looking worse that the Developers that the public have been blaming (again not that Developers are complete angels)

[Jackass]

Well what do you suggest?

They're setting up an inquirey, but since everyone voted not to give these any power at all, it's just another waist of time to talk about nothing and find nothing as hands are tied behind the back. That's the wise electorates fault.

And there's an impending police investigation. Presumably due to the complexity and sheer volume of evidence, the police are taking an age to bring forward criminal proceedings, but they can't (at this point anyway) even assure charges will be pressed against people like Drumm, hence the reason he's safe in the USA, and there's absolutely nothing a Government can do about that.

At least they're not setting up a tribunal, again of no power or consequence, to run over the next 17 years at the cost of billions to tell us there was fraud and "bad practice" and then to make recommendations that seem obvious in the first place and cost the state a few hundred million in the process.

All they can do (and have failed to do) is properly legislate, with sweeping reform of white collar crime legislation, but that's it. A Government can't chase an individual.

emo72

Media blackout on this?

hadit2here

Actually I was thinking that the Gov should re run the referendum....

however, now after watching Vincent Browne last night, it would seem that the truth will come out in the courts, (maybe more efficient that any enquiry)

The Max Keiser report (on RT news channel) had Paul Sommerville on it a while back... back then he suggested the tapes, for example were leaked by "friends of Quinn" in order to show the public , a clearer picture of what actually was going on in the country.

The letters last night are another step in the right direction....

Both the Vincent Browne show and that Max Keiser Report were interesting(Keiser is more funny/entertaining)

Cody Pomeray

I don't understand the Quinn position at all.

They repeated in court yesterday that they are relying on the market manipulation directive and s.60 of the Companies Act 1963 in their case against IBRC.

The application to have the MoF and the NCB joined to that application as second and third defendants was based on conspiracy.

I didn't see VB last night but what happened is the Quinns said at 11am yesterday morning that they are taking that case on conspiracy... and you're saying that they said at 11pm last night that they have a letter showing that the wool was being pulled over the Minister's eyes, then I'm having trouble identifying the conspiracy as it applies to the stated alleged offences (the directive and the 1963 act). Does anyone know how the Quinns are overcoming this apparent contradiction? They're listed to be back in the High Court next Friday so maybe all will be revealed then.

hadit2here

" that they said at 11pm last night that they have a letter showing that the wool was being pulled over the Minister's eyes"

I dont think that can be said by looking at the letters(a draft letter and then a later updated one)

i thought i'd be able to find a copy online.... i'll search again..

Cody Pomeray

Well, I'm just basing it on sand's post saying that Anglo lied to the Minister.

I can see how an action can be taken against the Central Bank here. The Regulator (as it was) is legally obliged to ensure that banks structure their business so as to prevent market manipulation and to regulate to that effect.

However, if the Minister was lied to as is being suggested, I don't immediately see what blame is being placed at his door in relation to any of this.

edit: just watched the clip. You're correct, the suggestion is not that the Minister was lied to, the letters are those that were discussed in court on Wednesday, implying the MoF may have said "don't tell me something I don't want to be implicated in".

Noreen1

[Jackass] wrote: »

Well what do you suggest?

They're setting up an inquirey, but since everyone voted not to give these any power at all, it's just another waist of time to talk about nothing and find nothing as hands are tied behind the back. That's the wise electorates fault.

And there's an impending police investigation. Presumably due to the complexity and sheer volume of evidence, the police are taking an age to bring forward criminal proceedings, but they can't (at this point anyway) even assure charges will be pressed against people like Drumm, hence the reason he's safe in the USA, and there's absolutely nothing a Government can do about that.

At least they're not setting up a tribunal, again of no power or consequence, to run over the next 17 years at the cost of billions to tell us there was fraud and "bad practice" and then to make recommendations that seem obvious in the first place and cost the state a few hundred million in the process.

All they can do (and have failed to do) is properly legislate, with sweeping reform of white collar crime legislation, but that's it. A Government can't chase an individual.

Jackass, the public still don't know what happened in the whole Anglo/Bailout/Guarantee saga.

In pretty much any other first world Country you care to mention, there would have been Court cases by now.

What the public does know, is that we have been lied to, repeatedly.

From "the cheapest bailout in the world", to "We have turned a corner", to "Not another cent" - irrespective of which political party you care to mention, We, the public, have been lied to.

In a Country where our Politicians have proved that they are quite happy to lie to us, repeatedly - are you really suggesting that we should be foolish enough to still trust them blindly?
Because, as far as I'm concerned, if Politicians, of any party, want my trust, they'd better be willing to earn it! So far, that is something that they have failed to do - abysmally, I might add.

tayto lover

Noreen1 wrote: »

Jackass, the public still don't know what happened in the whole Anglo/Bailout/Guarantee saga.

In pretty much any other first world Country you care to mention, there would have been Court cases by now.

What the public does know, is that we have been lied to, repeatedly.

From "the cheapest bailout in the world", to "We have turned a corner", to "Not another cent" - irrespective of which political party you care to mention, We, the public, have been lied to.

In a Country where our Politicians have proved that they are quite happy to lie to us, repeatedly - are you really suggesting that we should be foolish enough to still trust them blindly?
Because, as far as I'm concerned, if Politicians, of any party, want my trust, they'd better be willing to earn it! So far, that is something that they have failed to do - abysmally, I might add.

Well said Noreen.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

emo72

tomorrows Sunday Indepedent headline is about Anglo, Enda and beverly flynn? what next? i havent seen it if anyone can find the article please post it up.

Mr.Micro

Noreen1 wrote: »

Because, as far as I'm concerned, if Politicians, of any party, want my trust, they'd better be willing to earn it! So far, that is something that they have failed to do - abysmally, I might add.

Never going to happen, we would need a complete new gene pool. It is ingrained in most IMO that go into politics. How many actually go into politics for true altruism and the actual good of the country? Noreen you will be waiting a long time I am afraid.

Sand

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well, I'm just basing it on sand's post saying that Anglo lied to the Minister.

I can see how an action can be taken against the Central Bank here. The Regulator (as it was) is legally obliged to ensure that banks structure their business so as to prevent market manipulation and to regulate to that effect.

However, if the Minister was lied to as is being suggested, I don't immediately see what blame is being placed at his door in relation to any of this.

edit: just watched the clip. You're correct, the suggestion is not that the Minister was lied to, the letters are those that were discussed in court on Wednesday, implying the MoF may have said "don't tell me something I don't want to be implicated in".

That's the most generous (to the DoF) possible interpretation of what was discussed on the VB show.

For the benefit of those who didnt see the show or who couldnt be bothered watching it:

1 - In the week preceding Feb 3rd 2009 the MoF sends a request to the nationalised Anglo-Irish, requesting a report on Anglo Irish's lending for the purpose of share acquisition and CFDs, particularly for Anglo Irish shares (this is by implication from #2 and #3 below). That the MoF would know enough to request this info implies prior knowledge tbh.
2 - Feb 13th 2009, Anglo Irish draft a letter to the MoF and attach a report specifically detailing their lending for the purpose of share acquisition and CFDs, particularly for Anglo-Irish.
3 - On the same day, Feb 13th 2009, Anglo Irish officials meet civil servants from the DoF and lawyers from Arthur Cox solicitors. Brian Lenihan is not on the list of attendees. A specific agenda point (Point 8 "Lending against bank shares") is discussion on the letter Anglo Irish are drafting in response to the MoFs request for information (see #2). The minutes record that a civil servant in the DoF (who VB names but I shall not) agrees to review the draft letter Anglo Irish are preparing and to revert to Anglo Irish with comments. This action point on behalf of the DoF is repeated in the summary of action points, just in case there was some confusion. There is no record of the MoF ever seeing the first draft, only three civil servants from the DoF with one civil servant agreeing to provide comments to Anglo Irish.
4 - The very next day, 14th February 2009, there is a new, final draft of the Anglo Irish letter reply to the MoF dated Feb 14th 2009. This letter is *significantly* different in that it specifically says that Anglo-Irish does *not* lend to fund CFDs.

This is an out and out lie to the MoF, formed after DoF civil servants agreed to review the initial draft and provide comments. In its initial draft Anglo Irish matter of factly said it was lending for CFDs. It provided this draft to an DoF civil servant who agreed to provide comments. On the very next day Anglo-Irish redrafted the letter to the MoF and not only removed reference to CFDs, but inserted a specific denial that it was lending to fund CFDs.

The MoF never saw the letter so you cant claim that the MoF said "Dont tell me something I dont want to know". All the record can show is that a civil servant in the DoF may (actually probably) have told Anglo Irish not to tell the MoF they were lending to fund CFDs. Even if that wasnt the case, that senior civil servant had seen the initial draft so should have known the letter sent to the MoF was a total lie. But Anglo Irish still felt comfortable in lying to the MoF despite that - the felt comfortable that the DoF civil servants wouldn't point out the lie.

That is the crux of the matter. It *appears* that senior civil servants in the DoF (who are still serving according to VB) were so completely captured by the banks that they were advising them on how to deceive the MoF. This may go some way to explaining why Official Ireland is so reluctant and slow to launch a proper banking inquiry. BTW, I'm not loading it all on the shoulders of a specific civil servant. That civil servant was operating under the "Green Jersey" paradigm that informed Ireland's entire strategy from 2007 up until today. Irish bank share prices >>>>> Irish states fiscal credibility. In official thinking this was true in 2008, it remains true today. They were just following orders as the old phrase goes.

I suppose it might be worth asking - just how many senior civil servants pensions and wealth was dependent on their holdings of Anglo Irish shares in particular and Irish bank shares in general?

emo72

nice concise analysis there^^^^^. we really need it teased out. we need someone from outside the state to do it. it seems everyone is implicated. christ.

Sand

I'm not sure someone from outside the state would be entirely qualified - we need someone who in the absence of evidence, presumes the worst, not the best.

Someone acquainted with other countries bureaucracies might presume that a civil servant has their countries best interests at heart - that somewhere beneath that cynical skin there beats the heart of an idealist. So they might give them the benefit of the doubt even in the face of overwhelming evidence. However in Ireland, the reverse is true: beneath the idealistic surface lies the dead heart of a grasping cynic. Institutionally, the Irish civil service is a direct inheritor of the garrison British civil service. Bar experts from Africa or South America, I don't think there are foreigners who can truly grasp the contempt the civil service has for their own people.

maninasia

What's missing is transparency in decision making and transparency in government statistics.
We now know much of the deliberations that went on in Anglo prior to the bailout.

We don't know what the government's deliberations were. That's our problem there.