Dennis O’ Brien got an interest rate of 1.25%

am946745

Dennis O’ Brien got an interest rate of 1.25% from IBRC on his expired loans when we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank.


So many families crushed with debt and interest rates a lot higher.

Why dosent' the government buy peoples distressed mortgages and pass on to them the same interest rate.. Would it cost the taxpayer anything?

Seth Brundle

am946745 wrote: »

Dennis O’ Brien got an interest rate of 1.25% from IBRC on his expired loans when we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank.


So many families crushed with debt and interest rates a lot higher.

Why dosent' the government buy peoples distressed mortgages and pass on to them the same interest rate.. Would it cost the taxpayer anything?

1. Who else got this rate for loans?
2. When you say "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank", who is "we" as I don't personally know anyone who had a loan from them?
3. Did the "we" ask for lower rates?
4. Why did Dinny get a lower rate? There are suggestions of impropriety but no evidence or allegations of any (apart from a few rants on the web)
5. What does this have to do with people who have distressed mortgages?
6. You ask if the government could buy the mortgages and then wonder if it would cost the taxpayer anything. Really?

nice_guy80

kbannon wrote: »

1. Who else got this rate for loans?
2. When you say "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank", who is "we" as I don't personally know anyone who had a loan from them?
3. Did the "we" ask for lower rates?
4. Why did Dinny get a lower rate? There are suggestions of impropriety but no evidence or allegations of any (apart from a few rants on the web)
5. What does this have to do with people who have distressed mortgages?
6. You ask if the government could buy the mortgages and then wonder if it would cost the taxpayer anything. Really?

Really?
IS your head in the sand that much?

Seth Brundle

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Really?
IS your head in the sand that much?

Why not try to provide some answers to my questions then?

am946745

kbannon wrote: »

1. Who else got this rate for loans?
2. When you say "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank", who is "we" as I don't personally know anyone who had a loan from them?
3. Did the "we" ask for lower rates?
4. Why did Dinny get a lower rate? There are suggestions of impropriety but no evidence or allegations of any (apart from a few rants on the web)
5. What does this have to do with people who have distressed mortgages?
6. You ask if the government could buy the mortgages and then wonder if it would cost the taxpayer anything. Really?

Why do you think that Media has been gagged. Its going to bring down the government.. Only a matter of months now.

am946745

the former CEO of IBRC made verbal agreements with Denis O’Brien to allow him to extend the terms of his already expired loans…
I understand that Mr O’Brien was enjoying a rate of approximately 1.25% when IBRC could, and arguably should, have been charging 7.5%.
Given that we are talking about outstanding sums of upwards of €500 million, the interest rate applied is not an insignificant issue for the public interest.
We also know that Denis O’Brien felt confident enough in his dealings with IBRC that he could write to Kieran Wallace, the special liquidator, and demand that the same favourable terms extended to him by way of a verbal agreement be continued.
We now have Kieran Wallace, who has been appointed by the government to conduct the IBRC review, actually joining with IBRC and Denis O’Brien in the high court to seek to injunct the information I have outlined from coming into the public domain. Surely that alone represents a conflict”.

Seth Brundle

am946745 wrote: »

the former CEO of IBRC made verbal agreements with Denis O’Brien to allow him to extend the terms of his already expired loans…
I understand that Mr O’Brien was enjoying a rate of approximately 1.25% when IBRC could, and arguably should, have been charging 7.5%.
Given that we are talking about outstanding sums of upwards of €500 million, the interest rate applied is not an insignificant issue for the public interest.
We also know that Denis O’Brien felt confident enough in his dealings with IBRC that he could write to Kieran Wallace, the special liquidator, and demand that the same favourable terms extended to him by way of a verbal agreement be continued.
We now have Kieran Wallace, who has been appointed by the government to conduct the IBRC review, actually joining with IBRC and Denis O’Brien in the high court to seek to injunct the information I have outlined from coming into the public domain. Surely that alone represents a conflict”.

But you are defending my point.
If there were to be any anger, it should be vented towards the bank, etc for giving these terms to customers (plural).
Yet because of perceived links to IW, people seem to prefer moaning about DOB.

nice_guy80

People cannot get preferential treatment from state owned or state run institutions because of who they are or who they are connected to

Seth Brundle

nice_guy80 wrote: »

People cannot get preferential treatment from state owned or state run institutions because of who they are or who they are connected to

Based on Mike Ansley's interview in the IT, he did not get preferential treatment as a customer nor is there any evidence of cronyism.
If people are pissed off then it should be at the bank for giving low rate loans, not the recipients of these loans.

delahuntv

I have a business loan with no security at 5.25%

I have a mortgage at 3.6%

My wife has a car loan at 2.99%

Rates differ depending on loads of factors.

Ryanair just got a 10 year bond in open market at 1.125%

If I were Denis o'brien I'd expect and demand a rate close to 1% - it's basically a market rate for the security he has.

But some people hate success in Ireland and Catherine Murphy seems to be like a puppet for others - she has no clue about business and either she's a puppet or she's grandstanding for electoral gain.

ComfortKid

delahuntv wrote:

But some people hate success in Ireland and Catherine Murphy seems to be like a puppet for others - she has no clue about business and either she's a puppet or she's grandstanding for electoral gain.

Why is {REDACTED} the only successful business man that Ireland hates? Why doesn't Michael O Leary or JP get the same treatment?
Because {REDACTED} is a gangster, who has form for bribing governments for big contracts.

Seth Brundle

ComfortKid wrote: »

Why is {REDACTED} the only successful business man that Ireland hates? Why doesn't Michael O Leary or JP get the same treatment?
Because {REDACTED} is a gangster, who has form for bribing governments for big contracts.

So you are confirming that all this is based on a personal grudge rising out of his bribery. This scenario would not have pissed people off had it been another businessman?

Out of curiosity, what other bribes (excluding Esat) has he made that resulted in him winning a contract? Or did that just sound good in your head?

stevedublin

kbannon wrote: »

This scenario would not have pissed people off had it been another businessman?

um... yes, of course it would have!

Seth Brundle

stevedublin wrote: »

um... yes, of course it would have!

But according to Mike Ansley it did happen - others got theae low rate loans - yet I have not heard anyone make claims as to who got these rates.
People just want to target Ireland big villan and don't care about the others.

stevedublin

kbannon wrote: »

But according to Mike Ansley it did happen - others got theae low rate loans - yet I have not heard anyone make claims as to who got these rates.
People just want to target Ireland big villan and don't care about the others.

I thought you were referring to how D O'B got the Esat mobile phone licence, not the low interest rate.

am946745

delahuntv wrote: »

I have a business loan with no security at 5.25%

I have a mortgage at 3.6%

My wife has a car loan at 2.99%

Rates differ depending on loads of factors.

Ryanair just got a 10 year bond in open market at 1.125%

If I were Denis o'brien I'd expect and demand a rate close to 1% - it's basically a market rate for the security he has.

But some people hate success in Ireland and Catherine Murphy seems to be like a puppet for others - she has no clue about business and either she's a puppet or she's grandstanding for electoral gain.

Fine.. I have a mortgage rate of 0.80%.. But my neighbour is struggling with 5%. a drop of 2% would allow them pay their mortgage.

We have double standards when Mr. Denis and everyone knows this. Shame on the government.

Seth Brundle

am946745 wrote: »

Fine.. I have a mortgage rate of 0.80%.. But my neighbour is struggling with 5%. a drop of 2% would allow them pay their mortgage.

We have double standards when Mr. Denis and everyone knows this. Shame on the government.

I don't understand this.
Are you saying that the government is at fault because your neighbour can't afford their mortgage?
Are you saying that it's the government because operations policy within the bank are not to your liking?

am946745

kbannon wrote: »

I don't understand this.
Are you saying that the government is at fault because your neighbour can't afford their mortgage?
Are you saying that it's the government because operations policy within the bank are not to your liking?

I'm saying is the government which owns IBRC/NAMA can lower the borrowing rate for Denis, then why can't they help others?

Variable mortgage rates are far higher in ireland than in Europe.

Seth Brundle

am946745 wrote: »

I'm saying is the government which owns IBRC/NAMA can lower the borrowing rate for Denis, then why can't they help others?

But they did apparently.
As I've said already, Mike Ainsley has confirmed that all performing customers were given rates similar to DOB but nobody seems to care about this little fact.

am946745 wrote: »

Variable mortgage rates are far higher in ireland than in Europe.

So what? It can cost the bank more to borrow the money also.
Furthermore, some banks are charging variable rate customers more to subsidise tracker mortgages.

delahuntv

am946745 wrote: »

the former CEO of IBRC made verbal agreements with Denis O’Brien to allow him to extend the terms of his already expired loans…
I understand that Mr O’Brien was enjoying a rate of approximately 1.25% when IBRC could, and arguably should, have been charging 7.5%.

There is absolutely no possible way someone with DOB's assets and record would pay anything near 7.5%, or 5% or even 3%! - When you have business assets of the size he has, you can borrow from any bank in the world or even the bond markets. Even almost bankrupt developers have been able to refinance loans at 3% - 4%.

am946745 wrote: »

Fine.. I have a mortgage rate of 0.80%.. But my neighbour is struggling with 5%. a drop of 2% would allow them pay their mortgage.

We have double standards when Mr. Denis and everyone knows this. Shame on the government.

What double standards - It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to repossess a family home. THAT is one of the main reasons variable interest rates are so high (along with trackers). Security offered for business loans can be called in virtually overnight if needed by appointing a liquidator or reciever

am946745 wrote: »

I'm saying is the government which owns IBRC/NAMA can lower the borrowing rate for Denis, then why can't they help others?

Variable mortgage rates are far higher in ireland than in Europe.

The government does not run IBRC or any of the banks - it keeps arm length apart to ensure they can't be accused of meddling in the affairs. Even with most recent "warnings" to banks, Noonan has been very careful not to give specific direction to cut rates, just that he "expects" them to do so.

RecordStraight

One of the many unfortunate side-effects of the whole bubble and bust is that it has resulted in the Irish public struggling to understand what is a pretty complex area, banking. The amount of misinformed, half-understood and often completely mistaken notions people have about how banks work is only fuelling their anger (as if it needed fuel) over the bubble.

By way of an example, there's the classic one about how banks got away with their role in the bubble is trotted out daily. There's no understanding that the owners of the banks lost billions that will never be recovered. And that the owners of the banks - for the most part - were insurance companies and pension funds. The same pension funds that will likely be struggling to pay their pensions in coming years.

delahuntv

RecordStraight wrote: »

One of the many unfortunate side-effects of the whole bubble and bust is that it has resulted in the Irish public struggling to understand what is a pretty complex area, banking. The amount of misinformed, half-understood and often completely mistaken notions people have about how banks work is only fuelling their anger (as if it needed fuel) over the bubble.

By way of an example, there's the classic one about how banks got away with their role in the bubble is trotted out daily. There's no understanding that the owners of the banks lost billions that will never be recovered. And that the owners of the banks - for the most part - were insurance companies and pension funds. The same pension funds that will likely be struggling to pay their pensions in coming years.

Well said - unfortunately many people just won't grasp that.

I laugh when i hear the "we own AIB" line trotted out by SF and the usual naysayers.

We USED to own AIB - now the state owns 99% of it.

The vast majorityof AIB/BOI/PTSB/Anglo etc shares were owned by ordinary decent people either directly through ownership of shares or via pension funds that ordinary people used to save for their retirement.

When the bubble burst - the value they held in the banks literally vanished into thin air. It went nowhere, just vanished from existence.

The people lost ownership then.

kidneyfan

nice_guy80 wrote: »

People cannot get preferential treatment from state owned or state run institutions because of who they are or who they are connected to

Well nothing to worry about there. Alan Dukes has looked into his heart and he is sure that even if some people got special treatment it certainly wasn't because of who they were.

FreudianSlippers

kidneyfan wrote: »

Well nothing to worry about there. Alan Dukes has looked into his heart and he is sure that even if some people got special treatment it certainly wasn't because of who they were.

Not who they are as a person, but as pointed out above, their overall financial holdings (assets, liabilities, etc.) are considered in such decisions.

kidneyfan

delahuntv wrote: »

There is absolutely no possible way someone with DOB's assets and record would pay anything near 7.5%, or 5% or even 3%! - When you have business assets of the size he has, you can borrow from any bank in the world or even the bond markets. Even almost bankrupt developers have been able to refinance loans at 3% - 4%.

I may be wrong but I have heard that the initial rate (from Anglo) was 5.5%.

FreudianSlippers

kidneyfan wrote: »

I may be wrong but I have heard that the initial rate (from Anglo) was 5.5%.

All the more reason why 1.25% isn't outside the realm of reasonable possibility given his holdings.

delahuntv

kidneyfan wrote: »

I may be wrong but I have heard that the initial rate (from Anglo) was 5.5%.

I love the "I have heard" comments from people.



I'll very simply say that there is no possible way that I, as a very small business with a turnover of under €2.5m, with a small amount of net assets eitehr in the business or personally can get loan rates of circa 5% (constantly since I set up this business in 2007) from a commercial bank with no security whatsoever adn someone like Denis O'Brien would be paying more than me?????


Now where there probably is confusion - and I would not expect a gombeen like catherine murphy to understand - is that some loans that D O'B bought such as Topaz, USED to have a rate of 5% based on the risk profile of their previous owners. Then D O'B bought the loans and financed the buyout of the ooans with a new loan based on HIS standing and hence a rate much much lower. Again absolutely nothing wrong with that at all - loan quality substantially improved, and hence a lower rate.

Its something we can all do even within any current loans - if you cna provide the bank with high quality relaisable security you will be able to get a loan well below 4% as a ordinary customer. If you have reasliseable security of €1bn and want a loan of 800m, you'll get a rate of 1.25% aka Ryanair last week.

Catherine Murphy doesn't have an issue with Ryanair obtaining a rate of 1.125% in open market?

It will all come out at some stage - I h=just hope Catherine Murphy has the wherewithall to apologise and resign if/when she is found to be wrong.

kidneyfan

delahuntv wrote: »

Catherine Murphy doesn't have an issue with Ryanair obtaining a rate of 1.125% in open market?

O'Brien doesn't do open markets.

Haiti, Myanmar etc.

delahuntv

kidneyfan wrote: »

O'Brien doesn't do open markets.

Haiti, Myanmar etc.

Obviously another who just can't accept someone is successful and takes risks that pay off quite well.

BTW - I just checked Myanmar. DOB/George Soros cosortium actually lost the bid.

Digicel does have operations in 31 countires so has the experience required for communications in those areas.

Funny how the big boys are only now getting into the area? - Why, cos before the risk was too big.

kidneyfan

delahuntv wrote: »

Obviously another who just can't accept someone is successful and takes risks that pay off quite well.

BTW - I just checked Myanmar. DOB/George Soros cosortium actually lost the bid.

Digicel does have operations in 31 countires so has the experience required for communications in those areas.

Funny how the big boys are only now getting into the area? - Why, cos before the risk was too big.

Do you accept the accuracy of the Moriarty tribunal findings?

SF12

RecordStraight wrote: »

One of the many unfortunate side-effects of the whole bubble and bust is that it has resulted in the Irish public struggling to understand what is a pretty complex area, banking. The amount of misinformed, half-understood and often completely mistaken notions people have about how banks work is only fuelling their anger (as if it needed fuel) over the bubble.

By way of an example, there's the classic one about how banks got away with their role in the bubble is trotted out daily. There's no understanding that the owners of the banks lost billions that will never be recovered. And that the owners of the banks - for the most part - were insurance companies and pension funds. The same pension funds that will likely be struggling to pay their pensions in coming years.

Very very true. However I myself frequently wonder if everybody working in the banking industry truly understand the full complexity of it too.

Graham

kidneyfan wrote: »

Do you accept the accuracy of the Moriarty tribunal findings?

I didn't realise the remit of the Moriarty Tribunal covered interest rates on loans made by IBRC.

FreudianSlippers

Graham wrote: »

I didn't realise the remit of the Moriarty Tribunal covered interest rates on loans made by IBRC.

... or Myanmar for that matter.

kidneyfan

Graham wrote: »

I didn't realise the remit of the Moriarty Tribunal covered interest rates on loans made by IBRC.

Do you accept the truth of the Moriarty report?

kidneyfan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

... or Myanmar for that matter.

Past performance and future results.

Graham

kidneyfan wrote: »

Past performance and future results.

Ahhh, you mean previous loans to DOB corporations performed well so new loans were extended on commercial terms that reflected that.

Dopey

delahuntv wrote: »

....I would not expect a gombeen like catherine murphy to understand - is that some loans that D O'B bought such as Topaz, USED to have a rate of 5% based on the risk profile of their previous owners. .

You make some very good points but you lose the argument and credibility by labeling Catherine Murphy a gombeen.

delahuntv

Dopey wrote: »

You make some very good points but you lose the argument and credibility by labeling Catherine Murphy a gombeen.

sorry, when it comes to business matters Catherine Murphy has ZERO credibility based on many other comments she has made in her electroal area - i know, I'm a member of chamber of commerce and no-one has ever heard her come out with anything knowedgeable about business. Hence I believe, as many others do, that she is a puppet for some others.

Even her dail statement to even suggest that a 7.5% interest rate was warranted shows her utter lack of knowledge of interest rates and how interest rates are decided. If she had said 4% or 5% it would possibly be credible, but 7.5% would mean DO'B would warrant one of the highest business loan rates in the country that would normally only ever apply to toally unsecured lending?

Hence I, and many others see her as a gombeen when she tries to argue business matters and her utterances have confirmed such.

nice_guy80

Dopey wrote: »

You make some very good points but you lose the argument and credibility by labeling Catherine Murphy a gombeen.

At least she pays her taxes in Ireland

FreudianSlippers

kidneyfan wrote: »

Do you accept the truth of the Moriarty report?

Apparently you don't accept the truth of it; considering it has nothing to do with the IBRC loans or Myanmar.

thisismadness

kbannon wrote: »

1. Who else got this rate for loans?
2. When you say "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank", who is "we" as I don't personally know anyone who had a loan from them?
3. Did the "we" ask for lower rates?
4. Why did Dinny get a lower rate? There are suggestions of impropriety but no evidence or allegations of any (apart from a few rants on the web)
5. What does this have to do with people who have distressed mortgages?
6. You ask if the government could buy the mortgages and then wonder if it would cost the taxpayer anything. Really?

1. Really stupid question, unless you are going to get a reply from someone in IBRC - no one else in the world can provide an answer.
2. You don't know anyone who had a loan 'from them'. Firstly IBRC/Anglo/AIB/BOI/PTSB is 'them'. If you don't know anyone who had a loan from 'them' your living on Mars.
3. No one who had a loan from any of 'them' ever asked for a lower interest rate?? You have lost your marbles if you think that Irish people didn't try and negotiate interest rates??
4) Suggestions are that Dinny got a lower rate because of his overall wealth - makes sense as he could provide a lot more security because of this.... The loans were given to companies with no personal guarantees so in fact there was probably even less security...
5) what does IBRC have to do with distressed mortgages, now I am beginning to worry about you?
6) Vulture funds can buy distressed mortgages and make a huge profit, what can't the government? Yes it will hit cash flow in the short term, but longer term it actually the best solution. If you think the government should make decisions based on the short term reward you should probably be living in Malta.

thisismadness

‘I don’t know what the definition of public interest is.” Thus said Alan Dukes, former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank/IBRC on Morning Ireland yesterday. Dukes was appointed as “public interest director” at Anglo in December 2009. Says it all really.

john.han

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

All the more reason why 1.25% isn't outside the realm of reasonable possibility given his holdings.

I work in banking and there is one very good reason why a loan at that rate should not be given.... profit, there is absolutely no way a bank (especially anglo/ibrc) could make any money at that rate, it would be better off not having the loan at all.

Eugene Norman

RecordStraight wrote: »

By way of an example, there's the classic one about how banks got away with their role in the bubble is trotted out daily. There's no understanding that the owners of the banks lost billions that will never be recovered. And that the owners of the banks - for the most part - were insurance companies and pension funds. The same pension funds that will likely be struggling to pay their pensions in coming years.

When someone says "the banks" they mean the management, not the investors. In fact people were sympathetic to owners who lost their money in shares. Most people know that distinction.

Graham

Eugene Norman wrote: »

When someone says "the banks" they mean the management, not the investors. In fact people were sympathetic to owners who lost their money in shares. Most people know that distinction.

Most people haven't a clue about that distinction. 'The banks' are lumped in with 'The Insurance Companies', 'The Government', 'The Troika' and 'The Germans'.

cajonlardo

delahuntv wrote: »

Hence I, and many others see her as a gombeen when she tries to argue business matters and her utterances have confirmed such.

I don't think you know what a gombeen is.

Eugene Norman

john.han wrote: »

I work in banking and there is one very good reason why a loan at that rate should not be given.... profit, there is absolutely no way a bank (especially anglo/ibrc) could make any money at that rate, it would be better off not having the loan at all.

given the fact that Anglo/IBRC had major liquidity problems it needed all the cash/cash flow it could get.

Graham

cajonlardo wrote: »

I don't think you know what a gombeen is.

Alternative modern parlance for a gombeen man is someone "on the make". It is also used to describe certain Independent politicians who are seen to prioritize their constituents needs, no matter how trivial, over national interests.

FreudianSlippers

john.han wrote: »

I work in banking and there is one very good reason why a loan at that rate should not be given.... profit, there is absolutely no way a bank (especially anglo/ibrc) could make any money at that rate, it would be better off not having the loan at all.

Agreed in terms of a working bank, but at this stage weren't we really talking about damage limitation for the bank? Theoretically to prevent a larger disaster Anglo/IBRC could have loaned at a break-even rate.

john.han

Eugene Norman wrote: »

given the fact that Anglo/IBRC had major liquidity problems it needed all the cash/cash flow it could get.

Eh? the liquidity thing strengthens my point, they would have been better off calling in the loan rather than extending it, it was loss making

john.han

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed in terms of a working bank, but at this stage weren't we really talking about damage limitation for the bank? Theoretically to prevent a larger disaster Anglo/IBRC could have loaned at a break-even rate.

Exactly damage limitation, so why keep a loss making loan, it had other repayments to make and 500m would have been used to repay bonds thus reducing taxpayer exposure