Anglo Tapes

Godge

Sand wrote: »

Gross negligence and incompetence is a breach of contract however. Neary was in breach of his contractual obligations. The government simply believed it was easier to just pay him off. They thus endorsed the same low standards and incompetence that has characterised public service in Ireland throughout the modern era.



Arbitrary sacking is not what anyone is asking for, so that's a strawman. Neary was grossly incompetent in his role. He failed to fufill his basic contractual obligations (and again, he's not being blamed for the banks failing - he being blamed for the regulator failing). He ought to have been sacked with no pension, taken on in the courts and stuck with the entire legal bill when he lost.

you miss the whole point I am making by a glorious mile.

If you want regulation independent of government (or judiciary independent of government) then the price you have to pay is that the government does not have the ability to fire a regulator/judge on competence reasons. Otherwise, a government could say that a regulator was incompetent because he did something they didn't like and then fire him - that would eliminate his independence.

Cody Pomeray

Sand wrote: »

The cynic in me is not surprised that people can make vague, unsupported statements about Neary's roles and responsibilities if they are to Neary's benefit

Sorry that you're a cynic, but that's your problem. You're making vague, unsupported, or downright incorrect statements about Neary's (non)entitlements. I, am not.

It would be foolish to make presumptions about a person's contractual entitlements by only relying on a popular narrative, or a selective quotation from an IFSRA policy document.

In fact, you're going off on a tangent. Because the stated mandate is much shorter and demonstrates what the function of the IFSRA was to be.

The stated mandate was: "fostering sound, growing and solvent financial institutions which give confidence that their deposits and investments are secure".

As you can see, this was a ridiculously soft mandate.

The Honohan report criticizes the under-resourcing of the IFSRA. However, for balance, it is fair to remarl that Honohan also criticized "an unwillingness to take on board sufficiently the real risk" of the financial crisis. While the latter suggests that the Regulator may not have been doing his job properly, it doesn't make him in breach of his contract, nor does it justify a hold on his pension. An employee can go through phases of incompetence without necessarily being an incompetent employe per se, as some sort of permanent mark which would justify a punitive measure like clawing back a pension.

All I'm saying is that it's hard to determine where the fault of the Government lay, and where the fault of the regulator lay. So it is impossible to quantify the culpability of the latter based only on media coverage. This is why we need a Commission of Inquiry on the Financial Crisis.

Do you deny that the Government tried to weaken bank regulation in 2003, or not?

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

So if he was "stupid" and "incompetent" why was he given the position?
Who was he responsible or answerable to?
Many of the people who stand up for lads like him are also the same people who want "incompetent" and "stupid" teachers, garda, nurses etc who are also "contractually entitled" sacked.
Is it a political thing or what that the higher up they are the more they are protected?
Anyone who "balls up" their job should not be protected or stood up for.

You're asking pretty inane questions about the people that appointed him and left him there.

Seems to me they were people just like you.

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

You're asking pretty inane questions about the people that appointed him and left him there.

Seems to me they were people just like you.

Ah no they weren't.
I had no loans or interest in Anglo and no friends in it.
Anglo was not a high street bank and only the elite were protected by its guarantee.

Sand

Godge wrote: »

you miss the whole point I am making by a glorious mile.

If you want regulation independent of government (or judiciary independent of government) then the price you have to pay is that the government does not have the ability to fire a regulator/judge on competence reasons. Otherwise, a government could say that a regulator was incompetent because he did something they didn't like and then fire him - that would eliminate his independence.

No, I get it better than you do. A total lack of accountability does not make for good regulation (see Neary) or an effective, respected system of justice (see Ireland).

You're throwing up a false choice whereby its either no means to hold a public servant accountable for incompetence, or its the government chopping and changing public servants every Friday depending on who annoyed them this week. Both are ridiculous - no one is asking for the latter, but you seem to be arguing for the former.

What is required is that when public servants entirely fail in their responsibilities as defined under contract and/or legislation by all objective and fair analysis that they expect to be sacked, and do not expect to receive a golden handshake and pension (above the state pension anyway). If they want to fight it in the courts by all means let them. You'll never see an effective public service unless there is a rarely exercised but cautionary cost for negligence in their role.
@Cody

You're making vague, unsupported, or downright incorrect statements about Neary's (non)entitlements. I, am not.

Jaysus - I'm making very correct, supported statements about what his non-entitlement ought to be. I'm very well aware Neary was handsomely rewarded for utter failure. Another great result for the Irish state and its citizens.

While the latter suggests that the Regulator may not have been doing his job properly, it doesn't make him in breach of his contract, nor does it justify a hold on his pension

Have you seen Nearys' contract, to make that claim?

All I'm saying is that it's hard to determine where the fault of the Government lay, and where the fault of the regulator lay. So it is impossible to quantify the culpability of the latter based only on media coverage.

Again, I have no idea who your are arguing with. It's very difficult to understand when I see only one side of the conversation you're having with this person whose saying Neary was incompetent based only on media coverage.

For my own part I cited a special report by the Comptroller and Auditor General in May 2007 which highlighted serious issues with Neary's FR in terms of long delays in investigations (to the point where their information would be obsolete by 18 months and therefore a very weak basis for further action) and a unwillingness to enforce regulatory principles with a tendency to back down whenever faced with resistance from banks or individuals breaching those principles.

That's pretty damning for Neary - and whats more damning is that in light of this issue (identified a year and half before the bank guarantee) that he did no address it effectively. The FR, right up to the end, still parroted the line that the banks were well capitalised.

Do you deny that the Government tried to weaken bank regulation in 2003, or not?

I think the FR had all the powers it needed, and as demonstrated by the likes of Matthew Elderfield, in the hands of an effective and committed figure the FR could have quite effectively maintained and indeed strengthen bank regulation from 2003 onwards (when we needed it most). Neary had all the tools he needed. Regulation didnt fail from 2003 onwards - the regulators did. As noted by the CAG in 2007 they were unwilling to enforce the regulations on the books. That's down to Neary's lack of leadership. He ought to have paid the price for that, he didn't. We will have another banking crisis because of decisions like that.

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

Ah no they weren't.
I had no loans or interest in Anglo and no friends in it.
Anglo was not a high street bank and only the elite were protected by its guarantee.

Wasn't your earlier post about Neary, the regulator? You switch the reply to Anglo, the bank. Have you a clue etc etc?

Mr.Micro

Good loser wrote: »

Wasn't your earlier post about Neary, the regulator? You switch the reply to Anglo, the bank. Have you a clue etc etc?

I assume tayto is just using Anglo as an example of Neary's incompetence, as it is surely the one that stands out the most. Neary did what he was supposed to do.....nothing. In that, he fulfilled his remit for his masters. As a public servant he failed the public miserably, as the gullible public expected regulation and fair play. Sure were we all not bombarded with ads for financial products at the time, and at the end of each ad, told, regulated by the financial regulator. This I presume helped give the naive public reassurance. He was no more a regulator than I am, in name only and little else.

Good loser

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I assume tayto is just using Anglo as an example of Neary's incompetence, as it is surely the one that stands out the most. Neary did what he was supposed to do.....nothing. In that, he fulfilled his remit for his masters. As a public servant he failed the public miserably, as the gullible public expected regulation and fair play. Sure were we all not bombarded with ads for financial products at the time, and at the end of each ad, told, regulated by the financial regulator. This I presume helped give the naive public reassurance. He was no more a regulator than I am, in name only and little else.

You're wrong there. Neary failed the public and his masters.

As a former public servant I can assure you that is not atall unusual.

Much of the problem with the regulation arose because that office spent the majority of its time on piddly consumer stuff. Believe only two staff were engaged in bank regulation.

The general public and depositors in Anglo lost nothing - it was the shareholders (that is the owners) lost all. Until the guarantee.

foxcoverteddy

When can we be sure that the Irish version of financial Regulation is actually working?
If one watching television cannot read the small print to adverts, how are you expected to know what your rights are, at other times the information is so garbled, they might just as well sing Ave Maria.
We appear to have had neither Financial Regulation or external or internal auditors doing any thing to justify their position?
I must presume there was not an internal audit within Anglo? Who did they report to, the annual Audit who saw that? Has any of the findings been released?
Well done Sands brilliant posts.

thebman

Well that latest tapes showed that the CB knew 6 days before the guarantee was given that Anglo had 6 days of funding according to the Irish Independent anyway (I wasn't somewhere I could listen to the audio so had to rely on the article).

And the CB acted swiftly to do ... nobody seems to know what. Maybe the CB should enlighten us as to what they did for those 6 days.

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

Wasn't your earlier post about Neary, the regulator? You switch the reply to Anglo, the bank. Have you a clue etc etc?

Have you a clue or are you just defending the indefensible?
Neary, Anglo, Politicians are all guilty but they get away scot free. The general public have to pay for their incompetence as usual while they all protected each other.

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you a clue or are you just defending the indefensible?
Neary, Anglo, Politicians are all guilty but they get away scot free. The general public have to pay for their incompetence as usual while they all protected each other.

Weren't half the current Dail 'politicians' in the 'general public' before the election?

Are these included in your 'guilty' quotient?

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

Weren't half the current Dail 'politicians' in the 'general public' before the election?

Are these included in your 'guilty' quotient?

They weren't long changing their spots when they got to the trough.

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

They weren't long changing their spots when they got to the trough.

Another non sequiter.

Seems to me your problems are not with politicians viz-a-viz the public but with human nature and commonsense.

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

Another non sequiter.

Seems to me your problems are not with politicians viz-a-viz the public but with human nature and commonsense.

Govt appoint regulator.
Regulator fails to do his job.
Govt allow him, their representative, retire with huge lump-sum and huge pension.
Govt bail out bank (well we do of course)
Banks and Govt very cozy.:D
Quid pro quo.

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

Govt appoint regulator.
Regulator fails to do his job.
Govt allow him, their representative, retire with huge lump-sum and huge pension.
Govt bail out bank (well we do of course)
Banks and Govt very cozy.:D
Quid pro quo.

So now he's a member of the 'public' you're so fond of juxtaposing with 'politicians'.

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

So now he's a member of the 'public' you're so fond of juxtaposing with 'politicians'.

No he was a Public Servant just like the politicians as you well know but he was corrupted or not fit for purpose just like many of them. He should never have received his lump sum or pension. He was either useless or used. You know that too.

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

No he was a Public Servant just like the politicians as you well know but he was corrupted or not fit for purpose just like many of them. He should never have received his lump sum or pension. He was either useless or used. You know that too.

Aren't you on here time after time defending public servants, supporting their high wages, urging them to go on strike for more +++?

Neary was definitely not corrupt and definitely incompetent - like many public servants. And you defend them all.

You divide the world into the good (agree with you) and the bad (disagree with you).
You forget (again and again) 'the line between good and evil goes through the heart of every man'.

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

Aren't you on here time after time defending public servants, supporting their high wages, urging them to go on strike for more +++?

Neary was definitely not corrupt and definitely incompetent - like many public servants. And you defend them all.

You divide the world into the good (agree with you) and the bad (disagree with you).
You forget (again and again) 'the line between good and evil goes through the heart of every man'.

I think you are confused.
I defend frontline Public Sector workers from having more wage cuts.
I never defend anyone who is incompetent regardless of sector.
I also support hard-working people having Union representation to prevent them being walked on.
There is a big difference.