OK for Johnny Ronan to go back to being a developer?

Slideshowbob

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/is-there-a-bit-more-bang-left-in-the-bearded-buccaneer-29618199.html

All ok so? Who is carrying the fall out from the 2.7 billion liquidation?

johnr1

Isnt that how limited companies work though ?

If you don't like that law, you should lobby for change. Doubt you'll get too much support though, as most developed countries have limited liability companies for very good reasons.

In answer to your question: Whoever lent that company the money.

johnnyskeleton

If private capital is prepared to back him because they rate his ability to project manage/design/sell developments then that is fine and I've no problem with that.

If Irish banks or NAMA are doing it without even considering if anyone who hasn't previously built a property empire and run it into the ground, then I do have a problem with it.

Villa05

He is one berties best buddies, and has multiple properties where the state is paying extortionate rents. And to top it off berties political party is the most popular in the country.

Easy make money when the population cant or wont see what is happening

Scortho

Villa05 wrote: »

He is one berties best buddies, and has multiple properties where the state is paying extortionate rents. And to top it off berties political party is the most popular in the country.

Easy make money when the population cant or wont see what is happening

What's wrong with a private individual charging extortionate rents? Surely what's more worrying is that a state body signed an extortionate lease agreement with upward only rent agreements.
For Christs sake, if the government came to me tomorrow and said I want to rent your house for twice market rate, why would I rent it to them
And those properties will be repossessed if the debts secured against them fail to be repaid.

Just because one company is bust, doesn't mean all of them are.
It isn't his fault that he hasn't been made bankrupt, it's a banks for failing to have adequate security.

Also are we to punish him for being friends with a politician. Are politicians to be friendless?

At the end of the day as another poster said, if someone is willing to give him there money, should we stop them?
Are we as a country to start deciding no you can't invest in that persons company, as he had a failed business venture?
You'd quickly find that very few would go into business if they were liable for the rest of their lives for company debts.

gaius c

johnr1 wrote: »

Isnt that how limited companies work though ?

If you don't like that law, you should lobby for change. Doubt you'll get too much support though, as most developed countries have limited liability companies for very good reasons.

In answer to your question: Whoever lent that company the money.

And if they made personal guarantees against the loans?
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/135751-phoenix-call-johnny-ronans-guarantees.html
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/nama-sues-johnny-ronan-and-richard-barrett-personally/

Scortho

gaius c wrote: »

And if they made personal guarantees against the loans?
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/135751-phoenix-call-johnny-ronans-guarantees.html
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/nama-sues-johnny-ronan-and-richard-barrett-personally/

Then it's up to the institution/Nama that they gave these personal guarantees to, to go after them and get the full amount that they guaranteed back and if they can't pay up, have them made a bankrupt.

johnr1

gaius c wrote: »

And if they made personal guarantees against the loans?
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/135751-phoenix-call-johnny-ronans-guarantees.html
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/nama-sues-johnny-ronan-and-richard-barrett-personally/

Believe me, my friend, I probably know a lot more about personal guarantees than you or Richard Boyd Carrott and his ilk, having been on the receiving end of the court actions relating to them.

If he gave personal guarantees on loans associated with those properties, and couldn't service those loans, the banks would have already moved on him personally, -which they haven't as far as the article goes.

gaius c

johnr1 wrote: »

Believe me, my friend,

Nice patronising pat on the head there.

I probably know a lot more about personal guarantees than you

Totally believable internet person says totally believable stuff about themselves alert.

or Richard Boyd Carrott and his ilk, having been on the receiving end of the court actions relating to them.

Ummm what?

If he gave personal guarantees on loans associated with those properties, and couldn't service those loans, the banks would have already moved on him personally, -which they haven't as far as the article goes.

Thanks for agreeing with me in the end.

johnr1

gaius c wrote: »

Nice patronising pat on the head there.

Totally believable internet person says totally believable stuff about themselves alert.

Ummm what?



Thanks for agreeing with me in the end.

Sigh, Yes, yes, I just made it all up. I am actually a bored granny.

Apologies, I read Richard Boyd Barrett instead of Richard Barrett, in your link header and assumed the worst.

In general, I lumped you in with the "Debelopers, Banks and Gubberment tuk er munny,, and now my dole/ps wages won't rise" brigade. Sorry, this clearly isn't the case.

Muahahaha

I saw Johnny Ronan quaffing champagne in the newly opened bar in the Clarence just last week so he certainly hasn't given up the lifestyle of a developer !

Godge

Muahahaha wrote: »

I saw Johnny Ronan quaffing champagne in the newly opened bar in the Clarence just last week so he certainly hasn't given up the lifestyle of a developer !

Neither have you obviously, unless you were working there?:D:D:D

Villa05

Scortho wrote: »

What's wrong with a private individual charging extortionate rents? Surely what's more worrying is that a state body signed an extortionate lease agreement with upward only rent agreements.
For Christs sake, if the government came to me tomorrow and said I want to rent your house for twice market rate, why would I rent it to them
And those properties will be repossessed if the debts secured against them fail to be repaid. .

I think you will find that my post and your post say the same thing, but in different ways

Muahahaha

Godge wrote: »

Neither have you obviously, unless you were working there?:D:D:D

haha no a good mate lives in the area so the Garage is our local but that night we decided to check out the new bar in the main hotel. Wish I could afford to live that lifestyle

tipptom

Muahahaha wrote: »

I saw Johnny Ronan quaffing champagne in the newly opened bar in the Clarence just last week so he certainly hasn't given up the lifestyle of a developer !

Any top totty scratching the eyes of each other for his services?

Scortho

Villa05 wrote: »

I think you will find that my post and your post say the same thing, but in different ways

Apologies.
To me your post sounded like it was his fault that the state were paying extortionate rent and not the states for signing the lease.

mari2222

tipptom wrote: »

Any top totty scratching the eyes of each other for his services?

Always amusing how every model in Ireland is a "top model". Probably difficult to find an average one.

tipptom

mari2222 wrote: »

Always amusing how every model in Ireland is a "top model". Probably difficult to find an average one.

Funny that any Irish models that is making it big around the world are never mentioned and you would never have heard of them.

Horrid Henry

Absolutely it's okay.

In the US an entrepreneur who has tried and failed is praised for daring to dream.

In Ireland, he or she just gets given out about.

Businesspeople should be encouraged.

maninasia

Yeah lets have more developer entrepeneurs who lump their debts on citizens, it's worked well so far.

chopper6

maninasia wrote: »

Yeah lets have more developer entrepeneurs who lump their debts on citizens, it's worked well so far.

here's another gem of Irish business.

tipptom

Horrid Henry wrote: »

Absolutely it's okay.

In the US an entrepreneur who has tried and failed is praised for daring to dream.

In Ireland, he or she just gets given out about.

Businesspeople should be encouraged.

Don't think yankee doodle dandy would be praising him to much for daring to dream if he has got to pay for his daring to dream.
Meanwhile Johnnie still cruises around in his chauffeur driven Maybach from Patrick Gillbauds to the four seasons checkin out the bitches while you pick up the tab.

namenotavailablE

^ 100% agree with the above- has this individual learned from the experience and is intending to at least 'try and make good' or is he still filled with hubris about his magnificence and abilities/ unwilling to give up the trappings of a lush life?
The rest of us are making cutbacks and adjusting on an ongoing basis to the economic realities we face. Even forgetting about the morality of the issue, we can't simply walk away from our responsibilities or hide behind the veil of incorporation to shield ourselves from our bills and mortgages.
In too many instances, there's a perception that Joe and Josephine Citizen pick up the tab for the misdeeds of the extraordinary failures of 'the chosen'- whether failures of the banks, failures of government/ regulatory authorities or failures of 'too big to fail' businesses. Heads they win (spectacularly, if they are lucky) and tails we lose.
Yes- encourage measured risk taking but no- don't introduce moral hazard by allowing recklessness to be effectively rewarded.

Scortho

maninasia wrote: »

Yeah lets have more developer entrepeneurs who lump their debts on citizens, it's worked well so far.

Funny I recall a democratically elected government with the support of the other parties bar labour voting to guarantee all deposits and liabilities.
From what I recall there were very few developers who gifted there debt to citizens.

maninasia

They didn't guarantee all liabilities, the problem was the generous terms that NAMA has worked out with individual developers.

For instance, if one reads the recent articles about Ronan and Barrett, you can see they were allowed to sell Chinese assets at a ridiculously low price to themselves, then just a few years later sell them on at a massive profit.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/treasury-duo-land-on-their-feet-29637353.html

On top of that, Barrett sold the two companies that had the contract to manage the Chinese venture for €17.5m, having bought them from the now liquidated Treasury Holdings in 2012 for just €2.3m.

Too easy....

Treasury Holdings went under with borrowings of €2.7bn. Around €1.7bn was owed to Nama. The agency paid an estimated €1.1bn for those loans, saddling those Irish banks with losses of up to €600m. That cost has been borne by taxpayers. The loss will be even bigger if Nama doesn't get back all the money it paid for the loans.

Treasury Holdings sued Nama when it sent receivers into the crumbling property empire. Treasury management felt they could have found buyers for some of the loans and assets and had a fighting chance. This, of course, was minus the hundreds of millions in taxpayer losses.

Treasury management would argue that Nama could have recovered more for the taxpayer by continuing to work with them. Nama would beg to differ.

Nama decided to play hard ball with Ronan and Barrett over their purchase of shares in the Chinese venture from their own debt-laden company and Barrett's purchase of two management companies last year.

Barrett argued that the companies had been independently valued at €2.3m. They have just been sold for €17.5m, although Barrett later agreed on a valuation of €13.3m as part of a wider settlement with the Treasury receiver and Nama.

Slideshowbob

JR the underbidder on this one ....

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/davy-buys-mespil-offices-for-over-16m-1.1584596?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Scortho

Slideshowbob wrote: »

JR the underbidder on this one ....

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/davy-buys-mespil-offices-for-over-16m-1.1584596?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

What exactly is the issue with being an under bidder?
He hasn't been made a bankrupt and just like you or I is perfectly entitled to make a bid on a property whenever he wishes.

Slideshowbob

Scortho wrote: »

What exactly is the issue with being an under bidder?
He hasn't been made a bankrupt and just like you or I is perfectly entitled to make a bid on a property whenever he wishes.

So you've no problem with his former entities having debts of 2.7bn, of which is the irish taxpayer picking up the tab?

And I wonder is he being backed now by funders regulated by the Central Bank or if Joe Public is entitled to know this?

Scortho

Slideshowbob wrote: »

So you've no problem with his former entities having debts of 2.7bn, of which is the irish taxpayer picking up the tab?

And I wonder is he being backed now by funders regulated by the Central Bank or if Joe Public is entitled to know this?

Did he ask for the Irish taxpayer to bail him out? Or was it our democratically elected representatives who voted to nationalise the banks?

Ive no problem whatsoever with him investing money in property. In fact I'd admire his ability for bouncing back.
Or should he be punished because banks lent recklessly to his companies?


Now if he's signed personal guarantees and these loans are in default and nama are refusing to act on said guarantees, then I'd be calling for that to be investigated.
But investment in property by a private investor or a company? Nope Ive no problem with that.

Good loser

Slideshowbob wrote: »

So you've no problem with his former entities having debts of 2.7bn, of which is the irish taxpayer picking up the tab?

And I wonder is he being backed now by funders regulated by the Central Bank or if Joe Public is entitled to know this?

The setting up of Nama and its mode of operation was a unilateral decision of a/the Government. Developers were not a party to that decision. The transfer of developers' loans to Nama was independent of the wishes of those developers. JR has nothing to answer for there.

creedp

Scortho wrote: »

But investment in property by a private investor or a company? Nope Ive no problem with that.

Private investors who received loans from the banks to invest in residential property but who are now in negative equity and unable to pay back their mortgages will be grateful for your support to have these loans written off allowing them to start over again investing in more property. This time they promise to get it right.

Scortho

creedp wrote: »

Private investors who received loans from the banks to invest in residential property but who are now in negative equity and unable to pay back their mortgages will be grateful for your support to have these loans written off allowing them to start over again investing in more property. This time they promise to get it right.

If they gave no personal guarantee then whats wrong with them investing again?

If they invested in property and its been successful then whats wrong with them investing again?

If they gave a personal guarantee, the mortgage is in arrears and there are judgments against them, then no they shouldn't be investing.

gaius c

Scortho wrote: »

If they gave no personal guarantee then whats wrong with them investing again?

If they invested in property and its been successful then whats wrong with them investing again?

If they gave a personal guarantee, the mortgage is in arrears and there are judgments against them, then no they shouldn't be investing.

IF

Anglo were big on personal guarantees. If JR didn't have them, then he was the exception.

Scortho

gaius c wrote: »

IF

Anglo were big on personal guarantees. If JR didn't have them, then he was the exception.

And if the loans that he had with Anglo are in default and a personal guarantee was given, then he should be chased by Nama.
However if he/his companies that are in default but had no personal guarantee's given, then thats the end of it. He's in the clear.
Unless it can be shown that he acted in a reckless manner.

brooke 2

Horrid Henry wrote: »

Absolutely it's okay.

In the US an entrepreneur who has tried and failed is praised for daring to dream.

In Ireland, he or she just gets given out about.

Businesspeople should be encouraged.

Who bankrolls those entrepreneurs' failures?

Our underwater government?

Amazing how blasé some people can be about other
people's money!!

Scortho

brooke 2 wrote: »

Who bankrolls those entrepreneurs' failures?

Our underwater government?

Amazing how blasé some people can be about other
people's money!!

No developer asked the democratically elected government to nationalise the debts of the banks in this country.
It is hardly the developers fault that the bank lent to him without adequate security backing up the lending is it?

tipptom

Scortho wrote: »

No developer asked the democratically elected government to nationalise the debts of the banks in this country.
It is hardly the developers fault that the bank lent to him without adequate security backing up the lending is it?

And what about Johnnies ongoing three card trick with his world assets that is under investigation,I am glad you are happy to keep paying of his debts while he hangs on to these profitable companys and can invest further in his career,wow what a country of idiots we are.

gaius c

Scortho wrote: »

No developer asked the democratically elected government to nationalise the debts of the banks in this country.
It is hardly the developers fault that the bank lent to him without adequate security backing up the lending is it?

Are you Johnny Ronan's brother or something?

K-9

gaius c wrote: »

Are you Johnny Ronan's brother or something?

Mod:

Cut it out please, posters are entitled to post their opinion without getting called family relations or shills.

Scortho

gaius c wrote: »

Are you Johnny Ronan's brother or something?

I wish!
Nope I'mno relation to him or any developer in Nama.
I just don't see what the big hullabaloo is all about. The development company that he was head off with Barrett collapsed. He's now rebuilding himself.

What's wrong with this? Is that not what best business people are about? The ability to relaunch themselves when their businesses have collapsed.

Would people have any problem with him doing this had our elected representatives not guaranteed the banks. No they wouldn't.

gaius c

Scortho wrote: »

I wish!
Nope I'mno relation to him or any developer in Nama.
I just don't see what the big hullabaloo is all about. The development company that he was head off with Barrett collapsed. He's now rebuilding himself.

What's wrong with this? Is that not what best business people are about? The ability to relaunch themselves when their businesses have collapsed.

Would people have any problem with him doing this had our elected representatives not guaranteed the banks. No they wouldn't.

The issue is with their byzantine corporate structure and the way they shift assets around to keep them away from their creditors. The Phoenix has covered this in detail in the past.

Brussels Sprout

Scortho wrote: »

I just don't see what the big hullabaloo is all about.

Really?

Ok, I'll take your arguments at face value and assume that you are not simply playing devil's advocate here.

During the boom Johnny Ronan was rarely out of the papers. Pictures of Johnny Ronan and Bertie. Pictures of Johnny Ronan and Rosanna Davison. Pictures of Johnny Ronan and the editor of the Sunday Independent in the Sunday Independent. All with the by line that he was some kind of creative genius-some inspirational business guru who had tapped into the very spirit of this fearless Celtic tiger.

And of course it turned out to be a pile of crap. People like Johnny Ronan were at the vanguard of a property pyramid that led to the financial catastrophe that we've had for the past 5 years in this country. One of the men whose mistakes we're paying for in our USC charges (which should really have been called the property developer tax).

At the very least can you not see how galling it is that he's now taking advantage of the situation that he directly had a hand in engineering while for hundreds of thousands of people the legacy of that era is negative equity, unemployment and emigration?

The worst part about it is that he's probably learned nothing from the experience except that if it all goes tits up again he'll probably be able to pawn his responsibilities off on someone else again. He'll probably do it all over again in another 20 years.

Slideshowbob

Scortho do you agree that he made massive errors in his judgement of property values in the past? Thereby demonstrating terrible judgement that should not really be admired?

Anyone know if he gets to make the same mistakes again will he get another taxpayer bailout?

Good loser

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Scortho do you agree that he made massive errors in his judgement of property values in the past? Thereby demonstrating terrible judgement that should not really be admired?

Anyone know if he gets to make the same mistakes again will he get another taxpayer bailout?

Whadya mean another bailout? He was not bailed out by the taxpayer.

Scortho

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Scortho do you agree that he made massive errors in his judgement of property values in the past? Thereby demonstrating terrible judgement that should not really be admired?

Anyone know if he gets to make the same mistakes again will he get another taxpayer bailout?

Made errors yes.
Have outstanding judgments etc against him? No
Subject to bankruptcy proceedings? No
Allowed invest if he wants to? Yes

Get another bailout? When was he bailed out in the first place?

Slideshowbob

Good loser wrote: »

Whadya mean another bailout? He was not bailed out by the taxpayer.

but didn't much of his debt go into NAMA? Didn't NAMA shift a heap of debt from private developers onto the shoulders of the taxpayer?

maninasia

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Scortho do you agree that he made massive errors in his judgement of property values in the past? Thereby demonstrating terrible judgement that should not really be admired?

Anyone know if he gets to make the same mistakes again will he get another taxpayer bailout?

Actually I'm not sure if all of them were errors. Setting up hundreds of companies in a complex financial network shows an awful lot of planning doesn't it?

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/nama-has-receivers-appointed-to-35th-treasury-holdings-company/

The colourful Johnny Ronan appears to hold 186 directorships of companies, so there may be plenty more to which NAMA can have receivers appointed after today’s edition of Iris Oifigiuil showed that NAMA has now had receivers appointed to 35 companies associated with the Treasury Holdings founders, Richard Barrett and John (Johnny) Ronan. The latest company to fall to NAMA is Alhans Limited, a company associated with a 30-home residential development in Kinsealy, north Dublin. NAMA had William G O’Riordan and Declan McDonald of PricewaterhouseCoopers appointed on 25th April, 2012.

NAMA is certainly maintaining a drip-drip of recovery actions against Treasury with an application to Dublin’s High Court last week pursuing the pair personally after the so-called TAIL transaction in 2010 which saw the dynamic duo transfer assets worth €20m from their company to themselves in return for loans – NAMA was unhappy with the transaction though Johnny and Richard say it was an open market transaction and all above board. NAMA also secured charges over cash and property understood to be worth millions of euro in advance of the forthcoming judicial review of NAMA’s dealings with Treasury’s loans which saw mass foreclosure action in January 2012. And NAMA has been appointing receivers to companies in the Treasury Holdings group intermittently since January 2012.

Let's get hypothetical here? Why would developers set-up hundreds of separate companies? Would it possibly be to isolate the debt and potential liability of each one?

Pity about the massive debts (in the case of Treasury at least 35 individual companies were NAMA'ed) getting passed on to the Irish taxpayer and these developers holding onto their 'viable' businesses here and overseas, sometimes conveniently hived off and sold to themselves at what turned out to be cheap prices within a year later. Nice.

srsly78

Using limited liability companies to limit their liability? It's a disgrace!

Boombastic

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Nama is the biggest scam this country has seen

maninasia

srsly78 wrote: »

Using limited liability companies to limit their liability? It's a disgrace!

You can be blase all you want to be, these guys cost everybody serious EURO from your own pockets, and you still gladly take it up the arse from them.

Markcheese

I wouldn't give him any favours but if a private firm (not state owned) wants to finance his return to property development then let them at it .... Limited company is just that limited,
Also there's a lot of property owned by Nama that needs to be developed (for social and financial reasons), and if you don't let developers do it, who do get as the developer ? Nama ? County councils ? Can't see that going too well