The real reason behind the NAMA investigation

realitykeeper

The politicians are now trying to legitimize the bailout of the banks by saying NAMA should be investigated. The electorate should not let themselves be fooled by this smokescreen.

I for one will be telling politicians who come looking for my vote that I couldn`t give a rat`s rear end about what happened in NAMA because the banks should never have been bailed out in the first place.

My vote will go to the politician who opposes spending a cent of taxpayers money on a debt which originated in the private banking sector. Given that more than 100 billion euro (and counting) is at stake, will this be the single biggest issue in the next general election? If not, the matter will re-erupt with a vengeance when the next recession comes along.

Zubeneschamali

realitykeeper wrote: »

My vote will go to the politician who opposes spending a cent of taxpayers money on a debt which originated in the private banking sector.

Welching on that debt now when we have turned our finances around is unthinkable. Any politician who promises to stop servicing that debt is a politician who has no intention of being in Government, but if they do somehow end up in Government, they will certainly renege on that promise and annoy you further.

newacc2015

realitykeeper wrote: »

The politicians are now trying to legitimize the bailout of the banks by saying NAMA should be investigated. The electorate should not let themselves be fooled by this smokescreen.

I for one will be telling politicians who come looking for my vote that I couldn`t give a rat`s rear end about what happened in NAMA because the banks should never have been bailed out in the first place.

My vote will go to the politician who opposes spending a cent of taxpayers money on a debt which originated in the private banking sector. Given that more than 100 billion euro (and counting) is at stake, will this be the single biggest issue in the next general election? If not, the matter will re-erupt with a vengeance when the next recession comes along.

What were we supposed to do with the banks? Let them fail and do an American complete wipe out of all savings? It would have destroyed the economy. Look at how well Greece and Cyprus did with a non-functioning banking system for a few weeks. Imagine that for years.

The bailout could have been handled better eg hair cuts on banks bonds. But bailing out bonds was needed to save customers savings. The UK, USA, Germany etc bailed out a variety of banks with tax payers money. So it wasnt an Irish experiment

jimmycrackcorm

realitykeeper wrote:

I for one will be telling politicians who come looking for my vote that I couldn`t give a rat`s rear end about what happened in NAMA because the banks should never have been bailed out in the first place.

Were you off-planet when the Greek crisis was in the news? Are you saying it would be preferable to have atm queues just to be able to take out €60.

Isn't the correct point that the construction and housing boom shouldn't have been allowed in the first place?

Dob74

realitykeeper wrote:

My vote will go to the politician who opposes spending a cent of taxpayers money on a debt which originated in the private banking sector. Given that more than 100 billion euro (and counting) is at stake, will this be the single biggest issue in the next general election? If not, the matter will re-erupt with a vengeance when the next recession comes along.

Sadly the money is gone already. But the bank debt and the interest paid should be clearly published at budget time if not every quarter. Central bank and retail banks are now claiming to be making a profit. They have parked the losses at the taxpayer door. The likes of Noonan is never going to hold the banks to account. The general election should be interesting. Sadly it looks like FF and FG will be in government. The best government money can buy.

Seth Brundle

Dob74 wrote: »

The likes of Noonan is never going to hold the banks to account.

Honest question: how do you hold the banks to account?

quadrifoglio verde

kbannon wrote: »

Honest question: how do you hold the banks to account?

By imposing fines on them silly.



But those fines are passed onto you the customer.....oh:rolleyes:

creedp

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

By imposing fines on them silly.



But those fines are passed onto you the customer.....oh:rolleyes:

Ah now .. its much preferable to give them an auld elbow and tell them to drop their extortionate variable rates a smidgen on the build up to the election to placate the masses. Sure the deeply bust AIB is making 'profit's of €1.5bn at this stage and can afford to throw a few measly crumbs to boost FG's popularity. No need to get nasty with one's allies and impose fines when there is a much more mutually beneficial way of achieveing one's objectives. Much the same way as the NAMA boys will shortly be shaking off the nasty label of bankruptcy and the heavy yoke of debt and rising from the ashes to once again reign supreme as world beating entrepreneurs .. the world just keeps on giving for some ..

realitykeeper

Dob74 wrote: »

Sadly the money is gone already.

That is why I referred to "debt which originated in the banking sector" as opposed to "bank debt."

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Welching on that debt now when we have turned our finances around is unthinkable.

The debt (which originated in the banking sector) is not ours to welch on, despite all the shenanigans to make it so. As for turning our finances around, I think you will discover that our finances are in fact worse by several orders of magnitude when the next recession comes along.

Dannyboy83

realitykeeper wrote: »

My vote will go to the politician who opposes spending a cent of taxpayers money on a debt which originated in the private banking sector.

Subsidising other people's banking debts, subsidising other people's children, subsidising other people's health bills, subsidising other people's water bills... it's all the same in the end really, isn't it?

realitykeeper

newacc2015 wrote: »

What were we supposed to do with the banks? It would have destroyed the economy. Look at how well Greece and Cyprus did with a non-functioning banking system for a few weeks. Imagine that for years.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Were you off-planet when the Greek crisis was in the news?

Greece is a false analogy. Iceland however is an appropriate analogy and they are performing far better than either Greece or Ireland, especially when you compare the levels of debt that these countries now have. What do you think will happen when the next recession comes along. Trade will collapse and how will Ireland pay all its debts then. Iceland on the other hand will be in a much stronger position.

Zubeneschamali

realitykeeper wrote: »

The debt (which originated in the banking sector) is not ours to welch on, despite all the shenanigans to make it so.

I understand that you wish it wasn't, but as a matter of simple fact, it is part of our national debt.

The Government we elected issued a blanket guarantee. They had the authority to do that. There is no way back.

realitykeeper

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I understand that you wish it wasn't, but as a matter of simple fact, it is part of our national debt.

The Government we elected issued a blanket guarantee. They had the authority to do that. There is no way back.

Not so. The government were elected to manage the economy. Mismanaging the economy was not part of their remit. The politicians in question may pay the bank debt themselves if they want to but my vote will be withheld from any politician who thinks the taxpayer should pay for debt which originated in the private banking sector.

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

my vote will be withheld from any politician who thinks the taxpayer should pay for debt which originated in the private banking sector.

So who does that leave you with then?

Zubeneschamali

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not so. The government were elected to manage the economy. Mismanaging the economy was not part of their remit.

You are simply denying reality.

They have the power to make decisions, so they have the power to make bad decisions. The decision was made by the Taoiseach in 2008; good or bad, it is done.

There are no backsies.

Dob74

kbannon wrote:

Honest question: how do you hold the banks to account?

1. Break them up into smaller banks so one bank can't topple the country. Or hold the economy to ransom.
2. Put a maximum pension Pay out to former top brass. There pensions are based the banks making profits. Which they probably never did. Just kept rolling over debt til large borrowers finally went bust.
3. Apply new accounting rules. Banks are counting profits without money being paid back. Sadly nothing has changed since the bust. The same mistakes are being made.
4. Tighter regulation, sadly the only loans banks give out in this country in for land.

Lux23

The debt was nationalised. There is very little we can do about that now. In a few years when AIB et al are making profits, the hard left will be back to telling everyone to nationalise the banks.

Seth Brundle

Dob74 wrote: »

1. Break them up into smaller banks so one bank can't topple the country. Or hold the economy to ransom.
2. Put a maximum pension Pay out to former top brass. There pensions are based the banks making profits. Which they probably never did. Just kept rolling over debt til large borrowers finally went bust.
3. Apply new accounting rules. Banks are counting profits without money being paid back. Sadly nothing has changed since the bust. The same mistakes are being made.
4. Tighter regulation, sadly the only loans banks give out in this country in for land.

1. Are you suggesting limiting their loan book or just making the organisation smaller? Legally can you do that (I don't know)?
Surely proper regulation and enforcement would manage the banks?
2. How is limiting the pension of former bosses holding the banks to account? Or are you just wanting revenge? Legally can you do that (I think the constitution may protect them)?
3. Which mistakes are being repeated? Is this not just a regulatory matter?
4. I agree that proper regulation is a necessity. Inn terms of the loans being given out being just for land, what is this view based on?

Lux23

I know several people getting business loans who are working in sectors that have nothing to do with property. I am pretty sure the property sector are actually bemoaning the lack of credit.

realitykeeper

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They have the power to make decisions, so they have the power to make bad decisions.

There are no backsies.

Making bad decisions is mismanagement. Mismanaging is not part of their mandate. Ultimately, the matter will only be dealt with when the next recession comes along. It will not affect me personally (I have taken steps to safeguard) but I am extremely worried for everyone else.

Dob74

kbannon wrote:

1. Are you suggesting limiting their loan book or just making the organisation smaller? Legally can you do that (I don't know)? Surely proper regulation and enforcement would manage the banks? 2. How is limiting the pension of former bosses holding the banks to account? Or are you just wanting revenge? Legally can you do that (I think the constitution may protect them)? 3. Which mistakes are being repeated? Is this not just a regulatory matter? 4. I agree that proper regulation is a necessity. Inn terms of the loans being given out being just for land, what is this view based on?

1. Instead of having aib with 100 branches. Make it 10 banks with 10 branches. its to late with boi. They could sell aib in parts. Since its founding in the 60' s it has failed twice. Both costing the taxpayer about half a year's tax revenues. Next time a bank fails we can leave it fail. The bond holders, investors get burned not the taxpayer. Serval of the fittest. Not welfare for the biggest.
2. Since the banks where bankrupt all pensions obligations of the bank can be wiped. Similar to Waterford cytsal. The bank fail you lose. Not the bank fails here's some more money. Obviously personal pensions would be outside this.
3. Banks in Ireland never appear to invest in start ups in the tech sector. If they do it will generally be for the purchase of property. Nearly all private investments go into the property sector. Apple , Intel, phizer all manufacture hear searly there's an irish company that can match these companies for inovation. Bigger companies grow by buying up small ones with decent products. Ireland is seriously lacking these.
4. The property porn is back in the papers. Where are these supposed bankrupts getting the money. In some cases international funds have quoted as to being involved. This is hard to believe but without full disclosure it's impossible to know.
It's not that regulation doesn't exist in this country it's the will to enforce it. Our have a proactive approach to it. I don't think the current political class have the will to do anything. Turning a blind eye till it blows up in our face.
Look at the resistance to the bank inquiry. The most costly decision made in our history and people complaining about the cost. Tds are elected to do jobs like this.
Sadly I have no doubt that there will be more banking disasters in this country. It probably won't be for another decade or 2. But the mentality has not changed one bit.

Saipanne

Dob74 wrote: »

1. Instead of having aib with 100 branches. Make it 10 banks with 10 branches. its to late with boi. They could sell aib in parts. Since its founding in the 60' s it has failed twice. Both costing the taxpayer about half a year's tax revenues. Next time a bank fails we can leave it fail. The bond holders, investors get burned not the taxpayer. Serval of the fittest. Not welfare for the biggest.
2. Since the banks where bankrupt all pensions obligations of the bank can be wiped. Similar to Waterford cytsal. The bank fail you lose. Not the bank fails here's some more money. Obviously personal pensions would be outside this.
3. Banks in Ireland never appear to invest in start ups in the tech sector. If they do it will generally be for the purchase of property. Nearly all private investments go into the property sector. Apple , Intel, phizer all manufacture hear searly there's an irish company that can match these companies for inovation. Bigger companies grow by buying up small ones with decent products. Ireland is seriously lacking these.
4. The property porn is back in the papers. Where are these supposed bankrupts getting the money. In some cases international funds have quoted as to being involved. This is hard to believe but without full disclosure it's impossible to know.
It's not that regulation doesn't exist in this country it's the will to enforce it. Our have a proactive approach to it. I don't think the current political class have the will to do anything. Turning a blind eye till it blows up in our face.
Look at the resistance to the bank inquiry. The most costly decision made in our history and people complaining about the cost. Tds are elected to do jobs like this.
Sadly I have no doubt that there will be more banking disasters in this country. It probably won't be for another decade or 2. But the mentality has not changed one bit.

What happens to ordinary people's savings when a bank is allowed to fail?

Dob74

Saipanne wrote:

What happens to ordinary people's savings when a bank is allowed to fail?

Saving are insured by the Central Bank up to 100k.

Saipanne

Dob74 wrote: »

Saving are insured by the Central Bank up to 100k.

And what of those with savings greater than this amount?

Seth Brundle

Saipanne wrote: »

And what of those with savings greater than this amount?

Screw them!
Sure screw all the investments made via banks like pension funds.
So what if the banks probably couldn't borrow money on the markets. Sure all this would do is stifle investment but who needs that when the government provides great welfare payments.
Sure the little guy won't get hurt!

efb

realitykeeper wrote: »

The politicians are now trying to legitimize the bailout of the banks by saying NAMA should be investigated. The electorate should not let themselves be fooled by this smokescreen.

I for one will be telling politicians who come looking for my vote that I couldn`t give a rat`s rear end about what happened in NAMA because the banks should never have been bailed out in the first place.

My vote will go to the politician who opposes spending a cent of taxpayers money on a debt which originated in the private banking sector. Given that more than 100 billion euro (and counting) is at stake, will this be the single biggest issue in the next general election? If not, the matter will re-erupt with a vengeance when the next recession comes along.

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of SF/PbP/SWP/LL

Seth Brundle

Dob74 wrote: »

1. Instead of having aib with 100 branches. Make it 10 banks with 10 branches. its to late with boi. They could sell aib in parts. Since its founding in the 60' s it has failed twice. Both costing the taxpayer about half a year's tax revenues. Next time a bank fails we can leave it fail. The bond holders, investors get burned not the taxpayer. Serval of the fittest. Not welfare for the biggest.
2. Since the banks where bankrupt all pensions obligations of the bank can be wiped. Similar to Waterford cytsal. The bank fail you lose. Not the bank fails here's some more money. Obviously personal pensions would be outside this.
3. Banks in Ireland never appear to invest in start ups in the tech sector. If they do it will generally be for the purchase of property. Nearly all private investments go into the property sector. Apple , Intel, phizer all manufacture hear searly there's an irish company that can match these companies for inovation. Bigger companies grow by buying up small ones with decent products. Ireland is seriously lacking these.
4. The property porn is back in the papers. Where are these supposed bankrupts getting the money. In some cases international funds have quoted as to being involved. This is hard to believe but without full disclosure it's impossible to know.
It's not that regulation doesn't exist in this country it's the will to enforce it. Our have a proactive approach to it. I don't think the current political class have the will to do anything. Turning a blind eye till it blows up in our face.
Look at the resistance to the bank inquiry. The most costly decision made in our history and people complaining about the cost. Tds are elected to do jobs like this.
Sadly I have no doubt that there will be more banking disasters in this country. It probably won't be for another decade or 2. But the mentality has not changed one bit.

1.will splitting AIB into smaller lots prevent over borrowing by the customers/over lending by the banks?
2. So it is revenge you want? This has nothing to do with solving the banking problem. And you'd be mad to think that the heads of the banks had pensions that could be removed just like that.
3.Not sure what your source is. Still, should banks invest in something that may be financially risky because your points suggest otherwise?
4. The property porn you refer to is down to a shortage in supply because the banks aren't lending to developers. Do you think they should lend to property developers?

realitykeeper

efb wrote: »

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of SF/PbP/SWP/LL

If it was, it was certainly not intended. You see, true right wingers also oppose the bailout of the banks.

Dob74

kbannon wrote:

1.will splitting AIB into smaller lots prevent over borrowing by the customers/over lending by the banks? 2. So it is revenge you want? This has nothing to do with solving the banking problem. And you'd be mad to think that the heads of the banks had pensions that could be removed just like that. 3.Not sure what your source is. Still, should banks invest in something that may be financially risky because your points suggest otherwise? 4. The property porn you refer to is down to a shortage in supply because the banks aren't lending to developers. Do you think they should lend to property developers?

2. By rewarding failure you encourage failure.
3. Not necessarily risky but by putting everything in one market it will cause that market to over heat.
It's like in the 80s when all the people in the know invested in GPA. When that went boost the well connected had there debts written off.
In the mid 90s it was aib and boi shares.
Late 90s it was eircom.
From then til now it's property. There is no where else for money in Ireland to go. Shares are risky because of lack of regulation. If a irish tech companies had ipo's or even some investment in diverse fields of business I would feel a lot more confident about irish banks. What is it 40 million an arce in ballsbrigde? That's where the money is going in Ireland.
4. We need a new planning system to take the gambling out of property development. Lend to construction firms to build. The council should develop large parcels of land. Put in roads, parks, cop etc. But as long as Fg and FF have there say we are stuck with the same system that doesn't work.

Seth Brundle

Dob74 wrote: »

2. By rewarding failure you encourage failure.
3. Not necessarily risky but by putting everything in one market it will cause that market to over heat.
It's like in the 80s when all the people in the know invested in GPA. When that went boost the well connected had there debts written off.
In the mid 90s it was aib and boi shares.
Late 90s it was eircom.
From then til now it's property. There is no where else for money in Ireland to go. Shares are risky because of lack of regulation. If a irish tech companies had ipo's or even some investment in diverse fields of business I would feel a lot more confident about irish banks. What is it 40 million an arce in ballsbrigde? That's where the money is going in Ireland.
4. We need a new planning system to take the gambling out of property development. Lend to construction firms to build. The council should develop large parcels of land. Put in roads, parks, cop etc. But as long as Fg and FF have there say we are stuck with the same system that doesn't work.

You've not really answered any of my points hut discussed.

1. Not even tried to answer.
2. If you don't offer a proper market based package then you get inferior candidates. Look at it whichever way you want but the bank leaders will need to get paid lots or they just won't do it. Similar argument could be made in the likes of a Irish Water. People didn't want market based salaries so we got Tierney.
3. What's your source? You still didn't respond about whether banks should take on risky loans.
4. The problem is not bad planning. The problem.is political interference within the planning process and planners being overruled by either the county manager or by politicians (and im nit tring to imply brow envelopes here). I don't believe any politician would turn down the opportunity to deliver some fancy development in their constituency. As for the councils developing large parcels of land, where does the money come from? There are council owned houses near me that are lying vacant because they have no money to do them up after the last tenant. So where will the millions or billions come from? The taxpayer? Sure many of them refuse to even pay for their water!
And you also want us to lend to developers after saying how all lending was bad because it was going towards developers?

Billy86

realitykeeper wrote: »

Greece is a false analogy.

Why, though?